Основы христианства. Том V. Дополнительный. Религиозная жизнь

Living souls. Essay on the moral forces of modern Russia I have long been planning to personally visit and carefully examine the places and institutions in which experiments are being made in the practical implementation of Christian ideals, experiments in Christian life. Such experiences are closely related to the department (moral theology) that I occupy at the Academy. We too often repeat words about what Christians should do, how they should live, and we are not at all concerned with what the best Christians do, how they live. Meanwhile, the image of ideal and duty, in order not to be an empty abstract sound, must be consistent with the conditions of existing life. For a moralist and preacher, it is important and interesting to know to what extent human powers extend and what boundaries of Christian activity are outlined by the conditions of existing life. Here is the necessary corrective to the requirements of the moralist and preacher, and here is the source of that inspiration that should characterize Christian preaching, for - thanks be to God! - life testifies not only to the difficulties that evil puts on the path of good, making this path narrow and difficult, but it also loudly proclaims about those inexhaustible forces that nest in the human chest. There is a lot of evil in our lives, it is striking, but there are also workers in the field of Christ - we will only be attentive to their activity, modest and quiet, and it will grow before us on a grandiose scale, it will amaze us with the indestructibility of energy, the power of love, the beauty of the organization and the all-conquering weakness of the believing person in whom the power of God operates. And then the very face of the Russian land will appear before us in bright colors, illuminated by light dots scattered here and there - and then the hope for the joyful future of the Christian cause in Russia will grow stronger in our hearts.... I am interested in the experiences of Christian life in all their diversity, which can only be observed in Russian reality. In the reader’s mind, first of all, of course, the image of monastic asceticism will arise, which not only in its historical past, but also in its present state has found and is finding many descriptors. But for the observer interested in the depth and breadth of Christian life, monasteries of the ordinary type provide little material, since here established forms reign over everything, hiding personal life underneath. We observe in monasteries crowds of pilgrims gathering many hundreds of miles away, we see solemn divine services here, we can admire the structure of monastic life, harmonious singing, but we cannot observe life here: true asceticism, in its essence, is hidden from observation, which is accessible only in relics. The observer longs for new forms, personal initiative, living action. In addition, we know with what persistence the literature of recent days contrasts contemplative asceticism and active Christian life. It is not necessary to take one side or the other in the dispute in order to admit that the experiences of an active Christian life, or the most profound in the energy of charitable love, or the most extensive in the completeness of the implementation of Christian principles, attract the attention of the observer. For our time, the question of what Christianity gives for life, what it brings into real life, whether in the form of charitable love or in the experience of organizing the fullness of life on Christian principles, is of extreme importance. Our time is attentive not to what happens behind the monastery wall, in the solitude of the desert, in the seclusion of an ascetic, but to what Christianity provides for all aspects of real life - for economic needs, for social needs, for marriage life, for working communities, for fraternal life. At the same time, it is easy to understand that an observer who stands on the basis of the scientific study of Christianity cannot in any way limit himself to the official boundaries of the church: for him, Christian deeds performed within the fence of the church are just as interesting as the experiences of Christian life outside it. Just as the properties and life of the body are known not only in anatomy and physiology, but also in pathology, so for the scientific study of Christianity it is important to observe not only traditional church life, but also free experiments in the organization of Christian life, not only successful experiments, but also unsuccessful experiments. Let us not think that all the paths of Christian life have long been trodden, all crossroads have long been experienced, that our contemporaries are left to walk the beaten paths, to assimilate ready-made answers. As history moves forward and becomes more complicated, the Christian question is repeated incessantly and with undiminished force; with each stage of cultural progress, for each time and generation, it sounds in new tones, pours out in new words, for each day it constitutes “its own malice.” Everyone must pose it for himself, in the individual characteristics of place, time, culture, economic and living conditions, everyone must answer it in his own way. That is why the traditional preservation of ancient forms without introducing living content into them loses almost all value; the beaten path that equates hypocritical habit and dead ritualism with living life is painfully annoying; on the contrary, all new experiences in which the living human soul is visible acquire enormous value. The diversity of experiences is valuable here, and their typicality is valuable. Anyone who is attentive to them will learn benefits and lessons everywhere. Successful undertakings will show him where their strength lies, what is the key to their success; From unsuccessful experiences he will learn what he should avoid, what is the reason for failure. If only the undertaking was sincere, if only it was carried out with sufficient energy and consistency, if only the human personality and its living, intelligent energy were reflected in it with strength and repression. Time and effort spent on observation will not be wasted: in the most extreme cases, in the most unsuccessful affairs, strange undertakings and artificial organizations, we recognize the living human soul. No matter how valuable tradition is, living thought seeks new words; No matter how valuable the old tradition is, in the speech of our contemporaries we listen only to new words. So it is in life - a living Christian personality is revealed only in his deeds, in new beginnings, in new forms, which attract the eyes of the observer. And vice versa - the most precious thing in every Christian deed, in every institution, in every form, is not the deed and institution itself, not the form itself, but the Christian reborn personality, manifested in deed and form, the path of human freedom, revealed with sufficient energy and beauty. The significance of new forms and institutions is that in them one can see the living cause of freedom. That is why the belonging of a deed and a form to a certain category turns out to be indifferent: not everything that stands under the flag of the orthodox tradition turns out to be a living cause of living freedom, but in the deed over which the protesting banner flutters, one can notice the living beating of a restless Christian soul. It doesn’t matter that the work is built from poor building material, from damp wood and even from straw - the soul of the builder can be full of the most noble impulses, sublime aspirations, which are valued at the judgment of God. The straw will burn, even the tree will not stand, but the human soul, if only it lived a fresh and full life, will be saved. The interests of the dogmatist and the interests of the moralist do not completely coincide: the first is interested in the forms of a certain category, deeds of a certain type and precisely formulated words, the second follows the beating of the living Christian soul, Christian life, in whatever deeds it manifests itself, in whatever forms it reveals itself. For a moralist, all the complexity of life's relationships, all the wealth of affairs and forms is only a system of reflections of the living soul, there is only a series of milestones that mark its development and its growth. For him, the path of good is not the path of certain deeds, but the path of living life, for him the best are not the eldest sons, who remain faithful in the father’s house, strict guardians of traditions and established orders, but the younger ones, going to the far side, making their own way, testing their strength in new affairs. The best life is the most complete, the most free, the strongest, the most courageous, the inquisitive, the one who sacrifices without calculation, the one who does not look back, the one who follows the straight path. The Heavenly Father is looking for such worshipers of God. Such figures provide rich material for observation... So I planned to get acquainted with the Kiev Pokrovsky, the Princess Monastery, the Lesninsky Mother of God Monastery, the Virovskaya Spasova Monastery, the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood, the Tolstoy colonies... Since the summer of 1905, my intentions began to be realized. I. Kiev Pokrovsky (Princess) Monastery I'll start with historical and biographical information. Before me “Overview of the activities of hospital institutions Emperor Nicholas II at the Kiev Intercession Convent for Women for the 1st decade (1893–1903). Compiled by hospital doctors. Kyiv 1905." The reviewer can strongly recommend this carefully composed and elegantly published book to the attention of readers. It is composed of articles of two types: a) biographical and general content and b) specifically medical. The first row includes articles: Prof. I. A. Sikorsky “On the life and death of Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna, in monasticism Anastasia”, Dr. G. G. Levitsky “Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna (nun Anastasia)” - a rather detailed biographical sketch, Dr. V. F. Bushuev “N. V. Solomka (obituary) and about the participation of monasteries in the work of folk healing.” The second row consists of numerous articles dealing with the maintenance of the hospital, the committee for the management of hospital and charitable institutions at the monastery, a list of doctors who worked in the hospital during the first decade (of which the first doctor of the hospital, who greatly assisted the August Builder of the hospital in its construction, was N.V. Solomka), a digital report on the activities of hospital institutions for 1900–1903 and, finally, reviews of the activities of various departments of the hospital - therapeutic, children's diseases, gynecological, surgical, etc. The latest articles are of significant scientific and medical interest, but our attention mainly focuses on the articles depicting the charitable activities of the Grand Duchess. The following biographical information is taken primarily from an article by Dr. G. G. Levitsky. In addition, there are (and I have) the following publications, however, quite used by Dr. Levitsky: Prof. Sikorsky “The Death of Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna” (in a slightly modified version the article was included in the Review), Prof. Podvysotsky “Participation of monasteries in the protection of public health, Skvortsov in Memory of the Royal Nun Anastasia” - publication of the magazine “Missionary Review”, etc. Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna, Widow of the August Field Marshal Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich (brother of Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich), came from a family of princesses of the House of Oldenburg and was born in St. Petersburg on May 2, 1838 from the marriage of Prince Peter Georgievich of Oldenburg and the princess Theresa-Wilhelmina-Frederica-Isabella-Charlotte of Nassau. Already the father of the Grand Duchess, Prince Peter Georgievich, enjoyed fame as a wide philanthropist. In 1860, he was entrusted with the management of all institutions of the Empress Maria. The broad development of this department belongs to his cares and works. On his personal initiative and enlightened care, a number of educational and educational institutions arose. His merits in this direction were immortalized by erecting a monument to him on Liteiny Prospekt in St. Petersburg in 1889, on which was inscribed: “To the Enlightened Benefactor.” The title of Imperial Highness was granted to Prince Peter Georgievich of Oldenburg in 1845. From the prince’s marriage to Princess Theresa of Nassau, 4 sons were born (Nicholas, Alexander, George, Konstantin) and 3 daughters: (Alexandra, Catherine and Theresia). The daughter of the late great humanist, the Grand Duchess from a young age inherited from her father his views and beliefs about how love for people and helping them should be expressed. In her early years, she gave all her “pocket” money to help poor and sick children. The entire first half of her philanthropic activities took place in St. Petersburg, where she abundantly and widely distributed her fortune for various humanitarian purposes. But in addition to the material assistance she provided to affairs and institutions where the need for it was felt, she was an active leader in various charitable institutions that arose on her initiative. Soon after her marriage, she founded the Pokrovskaya community of sisters of mercy in Galernaya Harbor, a hospital, a clinical outpatient clinic, a clinic, a department for young orphan girls, a school for the education of paramedics, now transformed into a model women's gymnasium of the Ministry of Public Education. In addition, the late Grand Duchess until 1881 was the chairman of the board of orphanages of the department of institutions of the Empress Maria and, thanks to her care, a capital was built up, which has now reached two million rubles. This money supports 23 large and well-equipped orphanages, of which 21 are located in... Petersburg, one in Tsarskoe Selo and one in Peterhof. They care for up to five thousand orphans. During the Russian-Turkish War, the late Grand Duchess organized a sanitary detachment at her own expense. In 1879, the late Grand Duchess left St. Petersburg, due to her severe and seemingly incurable illness, and moved to live in Kyiv, where she was destined to find resurrection to a new life, entirely devoted to the high feats of seeking eternal truth and the works of Christian charity. Here she reached the highest degrees of spiritual beauty and found her ideal in serving God and her neighbor. Having settled in Kyiv and having received relief from her serious long-term illness, the Grand Duchess began to implement her great thought, the creation of living monasticism, a living monastery. “Living monasticism,” wrote the late Grand Duchess, “is the banner that is so dear to my heart and which I hope to serve until my last breath... No monastic vows or rules prevent one from loving one’s neighbor as oneself, serving the sick, feeding the poor, looking after the orphaned and poor, teaching those who wish, for monasteries will have double power and significance.” Another time, the Grand Duchess wrote on the same issue about monasticism: “Modern monasticism should have the goal of reconciling the laity with monasticism. An exclusively contemplative life is the lot of a few special chosen ones of God according to the special providence of God, and living in a cell, doing handicrafts, in order to feed and clothe oneself by selling this labor, cannot attract anyone. The hostel is the only favorable community and that monastery is worthy of the name of a hostel monastery, where there is complete communion of the spirit, in addition to common food and clothing. Hospital business was provided for by the statutes of Basil the Great. In St. The hospital charter says: nuns who fear that through hospital obedience they are evading monasticism do not understand the church charter, do not understand the commandment of Christ and do not understand that the Lord, during His earthly pilgrimage, cared so much about the sick, as well as St. apostles. When we are privileged to approach the sick, we invisibly draw closer to Christ, and if, while serving the sick, we keep the Jesus Prayer in our minds, in our hearts, and say with our lips, then these are those living rosaries, that idea for which we can joyfully burn at the stake, for which we can joyfully accept any reproach! The greatest joy is to be honored to live in St. monastery, to be a monk and to carry out dear, living, loving monasticism. We need to think about this type of monasticism, which gives eternal joy on earth and in heaven! For the late great ascetic, living monasticism meant precisely loving monasticism, a living feat - a feat of love. According to the gospel word, she knew nothing higher than love. She later wrote to her “beloved hospital sisters in Christ”: “I am with you in spirit and in this I find great consolation. I undoubtedly hope that you fully know how to appreciate and thank the Lord that you are considered worthy to serve the sick; love for the suffering is accepted by the Lord. Every work you do brings you closer to your primordial spiritual service for the salvation of the soul. Love is the highest virtue, and I will pray with all my might that this virtue will increase in your souls.” In particular, the Grand Duchess wrote to the senior sister of the surgical hospital: “Give thanks constantly to God, who has placed you in such obedience, where every glass of water given with love is accepted by the Lord. In St. In the Gospel, the Lord constantly preaches about love for one's neighbor. He Himself set an example of healing and serving the sick. The only inalienable happiness on earth is serving the sick, in whatever form it may appear. The sisters who prepare food, sew, bake, and do laundry for the sick also please the Lord... Work with love, work courageously. The Lord will reward you a hundredfold! Accept everything with ardent love from the hand of the Lord, then everything will bring joy to your soul. You will forget yourself, live for the suffering, for the sake of the suffering." The late Grand Duchess carried such a high ideal of monastic asceticism in her soul. With the creation of the Kyiv communal monastery with its numerous medical and charitable institutions, the Grand Duchess brought her cherished thought to fruition. The medical and charitable institutions of the Intercession Monastery currently have the following form: a hospital for incoming patients, a hospital with two departments for 108 people, with an infectious barracks for 12 places, and an isolation room for 5 places, for a total of 125 places, and two shelters - one for the terminally ill, the other for the blind. On other days, the hospital for incoming patients accommodates 400–500 incoming patients, and there is no noticeable crowding or air pollution. Those familiar with our hospital business say that this hospital “is the only one in Russia in terms of its vastness and amenities.” It should be noted that in case of need (war or epidemic), this hospital can be converted into a model hospital with 100 beds in a few hours. In general, the medical conferences of the Intercession Monastery in Kyiv in 1896 and 1898 testified that they are the pride of not only Kyiv, but of all of Russia. “The extraordinary cleanliness, grace, welcoming appearance of the buildings and the special, indescribable, attractive shade that lies on everything made an impression and left a mark that will never be erased from the memory of visitors.” One of these doctors expressed his impressions when examining them in the following authoritative words: “I began my examination with a hospital for visitors, which is located inside in the form of a rectangular cross: in the right and left wings of this cross there are rooms for all kinds of specialties; each office is equipped with all the necessary accessories for its specialty; cleanliness, light, air and, if you like, luxury leave nothing to be desired. Having examined this outpatient clinic, for which obviously everything that can be done with the latest science and technology and, of course, sparing no expense, has been done, I went to the hospital for inpatients; this hospital is a beautiful two-story building that houses a small home church, a dining room for the sick, two operating rooms that sparkle with cleanliness, light and elegance of furnishings and instruments, and then larger and smaller wards for surgically ill women and children... I am delighted with everything I saw - I saw here something similar to what I saw in some hospitals in Berlin and new clinics in Moscow.” The activities of the hospital institutions of the Intercession Monastery can be evidenced by the following digital data from the report for the decade from 1893–1903: the hospital received 194,993 patients who made 466,523 visits; 5,020 people used the hospital; 123 people were cared for in both shelters; 501,064 drug numbers were issued free of charge from the pharmacy. And this entire system of charity was created by the energy and labors of the Grand Duchess, whose closest collaborator was the already named N.V. Solomka. The Grand Duchess, says her biographer, Dr. G. G. Levitsky, wanted active love and she achieved her ideals in the Intercession Monastery, the creation and activity of which took the first difficult step towards the real participation of monasteries in the protection of public health. With this step, a new era begins in the cultural significance of monasteries in Rus'. The institutions created by the great spirit of the Grand Duchess will certainly have significance not only as the implementation of high humanitarian goals, but also as a memorable page in the history of Russia. In a wonderful corner of Kyiv - Lukyanovka, on the high picturesque slope of Voznesenskaya Mountain, completely covered with age-old trees, a whole town of the Intercession Monastery soon grew up, in the Russian style. Every day, every year this monastery grew, became more organized, decorated and strengthened. Everything here was created under the personal supervision of the late Grand Duchess: all plans were drawn up by her, accounts for the construction and maintenance of all institutions were carried out personally by the Grand Duchess, there was not a tree here that was not planted on her instructions, there was not a nail driven in not by her order, and often in her presence. A cathedral was built, houses for the monastery sisters with premises for the visiting family of Her Highness, a grandiose hospital, a hospital for visiting patients, an exemplary pharmacy, a school for orphan girls, a shelter for the blind, a shelter for incurable chronically ill women, barracks for contagious patients, an anatomical chamber for the needs of the hospital, laundries, dining rooms and kitchens for the hospital and the sisters of the monastery, a hospice where the cold and hungry and found care, shelter and lodging for the night. The great thought of the Royal Worker was reborn here into real life, full of energy, love, self-improvement, a life full of work and asceticism, life for the orphaned, sick and homeless. And all this in silence and deepest humility, all in the striving for the highest beauty, for the highest ideals, in the striving for God. In the middle of the field, a wondrous, beautiful, fragrant flower grew, on which the eyes of the tired sick traveler and the greats of this world and people of science joyfully rested. The sublime, all-encompassing love of the Grand Duchess spiritualized, warmed and bloomed with new colors this marvelous flower. Everything here was created extremely quickly and energetically; There was literally not a moment when the living activity of the deceased died down. It seemed that she was in a hurry to quickly see the embodiment of her thoughts into a real shell; she seemed to feel the short duration of her life and was in a hurry to organize the monastery town. “I’m not afraid of death, but I’m afraid of not having time to do everything that I still have to do here on earth,” the Grand Duchess often said. And how many wonderful projects and plans she took with her to the grave. The late Grand Duchess gave all her special cares and maternal love to hospital institutions. Her love and trust in her hospital were so great that the operation that she had to undergo soon after the establishment of the monastery was performed safely in the monastery hospital; In the same hospital, in her office, she died. She lived in a hospital, lived in a hospital, worked in a hospital, and died in a hospital. An enviable fate for a true champion of science and love for one's neighbor... The Intercession Monastery is a monastery not only in name, but in the strictest sense of the word; The nuns living there lead a monastic life according to strict studio rules. The first day of the newly opened Intercession Monastery began with the Midnight Office at 12 midnight, which attracted many worshipers. As often as the Grand Duchess reminded the monastery sisters of the feat of love for one's neighbor, she just as strictly followed their feat of prayer. “All these living rosaries,” she wrote about the novice nuns, work hard and do everything and everyone for the saint. obedience. In each hospital at 6 o'clock. morning liturgy, our blind 20 girls sing... In the hospital everything is strictly monastic. Everything is in white... Preparation for a mass of operations - everything is done and succeeded, prayerfully sprinkled with water, everything secretly, firmly, with conviction and nothing for show.” Another time, in a letter to the sisters of the hospital, the Grand Duchess, praising love as the highest virtue, at the same time calls the sisters to prayer: “Continuously say the Jesus Prayer: this is a powerful force that absorbs everything bad. In this mood, you will always be complacent and happy.” “Every step with prayer on your mind! she wrote again. “Have a great weapon in your heart and mind—the Jesus Prayer.” The Grand Duchess also wrote about combining the mental, heartfelt and verbal Jesus Prayer with the feat of “serving the sick” in another letter - in the passage that we have already cited above. The late Princess, as we heard from Sister M., who knew the late sister closely, closely monitored the performance of the divine service and wrote the schedule of church services herself. One day she severely reprimanded the priest; Her anger quickly subsided - as it always happened to her - and she humbly said to the priest: “Scold me, old woman.” The majestic cathedral church in the name of St., now completed in rough form, eloquently speaks of the deep religious mood of the late Grand Duchess. Nicholas, founded by the Grand Duchess in 1896 in the presence of Their Majesties. The preliminary design of the church was drawn up by the son of the Grand Duchess, His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Peter Nikolaevich. This church surpasses all Kyiv churches in its vastness. The late Grand Duchess, when creating the church, wanted her monastery to be not inferior to other monasteries in its liturgical splendor. The Pokrovskaya monastery is a monastery, in terms of liturgical and prayerful feats not inferior to other (of course, the best) monasteries. But it is not only a monastery in the usual sense of the word: in it the monastery is inextricably linked with the hospital, feats of prayer with feats of love. The sisters serve all medical and charitable institutions, performing all possible (female) work in them, not disdaining dirty work, not retreating from any labor. Caring for the sick is primarily a woman's job, requiring attention, affection, and tenderness; A hospital nurse replaces a mother for children, and a sister or daughter for adults. The union of a convent with a hospital therefore seems particularly natural. One eyewitness says: “it was touching to see, now in one corner, now in another, young women kneeling over the beds of little patients and feeding them (during lunch); here it seemed that not only feminine, but also maternal tenderness was evident.” At the head of the sisters in their holy work was the late Grand Duchess herself. She stood at the head of the sisters because she went ahead of them in their common cause. And above all, she was a nun among the nuns, she had monastic vows, although this event in the life of the deceased remained a secret. She signed her letters with her former name: “sinful Alexandra,” “sinful novice Alexandra.” But in Kyiv they have long been convinced that it has a different name. And indeed, her spiritual testament, kept in the sacristy of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral and opened immediately after her death, confirmed that Her Highness Anastasia was a nun. And she was a nun not only in words: she led a simple ascetic life. Even on the days of the monastery’s festive celebrations, which were attended by her august relatives, there was the same monastic meager meal, without any drinks, the same simple utensils - wooden spoons and cups. The August nun also closely participated in monastery prayer. As long as her health allowed, she was present at all the daily monastery services, and sometimes she herself read the Six Psalms, the Hours, the Canon, etc. But the late Grand Duchess participated not only in the prayerful and ascetic feat of the sisters, she was the initiator and inspirer of their feats of service to their neighbors. First of all, she contributed her capital to this business; she was the founder and builder of monastic and hospital institutions. “We,” wrote the late Grand Duchess, are poor in virtue, we are rich in material resources, for I receive enormous funds; therefore, it is very natural that, as a nun, I do not need any expenses for food and clothing, that is, minimally little, and, therefore, the duty of conscience commands me to give everything I have to the realization of my ideal.” The late ascetic acted according to this duty of her conscience. But she did not pay off the poor and sick with just a monetary handout, she did not think of replacing the feat with a material sacrifice, dumping the work on others, on the monastery sisters. She was the first sister of mercy in the medical and charitable institutions she established. I will speak in the words of Prof. I. A. Sikorsky. The late Grand Duchess, writes Prof. Sikorsky, gave all her vast millions of funds to a good cause, being content with the monastery table and the modest clothes of a sister of mercy. But the greatness of Her soul was not reflected in material generosity. She did more. She decided to devote her personal strength to serving the suffering and to show in practice the possibility of practical implementation of the new thought that had matured in her mind and heart. With her extremely poor health and physical infirmities, she set out to accomplish something new and unprecedented in our memory - to connect the hospital and the monastery into one institution. This required a firm, unshakable determination; not only personal initiative was needed, but also a personal example to show in practice and with one’s own eyes the feasibility of what seemed impracticable and impossible for many! She personally came to the service of suffering people with that love and that greatest moral tension, which can be called exceptional and unparalleled. Her cause and her personal service to this cause made a deep impression on doctors and members of the VI Pirogov Congress in Kyiv in 1896. Within the walls of the Intercession Monastery, doctors and visitors saw true charity and could not help but pay tribute to the exploits of a Woman who, in her person, brought service to a holy cause to poetic animation and artistic heights; the impression turned out to be all the more powerful because the visitor, expecting to encounter earthly splendor, saw no other greatness than moral greatness. Having examined the hospital facilities, the members of the congress were convinced that concern for the comfort of the patient, for the expansion of medical care, to the most sophisticated and improved methods, apparently knows no bounds. But observers were struck not by these material generosities, but most of all by this rare example of selfless devotion to work and duty, as shown by the Grand Duchess, and especially by her tireless service to her neighbor in all roles, from the role of the largest donor to the role of a sister of mercy, nurse, mother; and it’s all so simple, so joyful! “Whoever would like to see with his own eyes the true happiness brought by serving an idea, said the members of the congress, can see it in the Intercession Monastery”... For years, continues Prof. Sikorsky, were carried out by the Grand Duchess among the sick in the full meaning of the word: she lived in one of the hospital wards, in constant direct contact with the sick, just as paramedics and nurses live. Here the Grand Duchess spent days and nights in such conditions and under such circumstances that this life must be recognized as a continuous feat. The door of her room was not closed so that even at night she could hear the groans and complaints of the sick and go to their aid. In her own words, peace and quiet woke her up, as she was afraid to miss a minute of necessary help to the suffering. This holy fear drove sleep away from her eyes. Only the calmness of the sick gave her a few moments of peace. For all difficult patients, she got up several times during the night, and this often deprived herself of even the smallest amount of rest that was necessary to maintain health and strength. From her hands the patients received medicine, from her lips they constantly heard words of encouragement, consolation and compassion. Ordinary people and especially children valued her kindness and affection so much and believed so much in the help given by her hands that they always wanted to take medicine from her own hands. She always joyfully performed this often difficult duty. During all surgical operations, the Grand Duchess was personally present and helped, as an experienced assistant, with her skillful and steady hand. She washed all the patients who were about to undergo major operations with her own hands in order to ensure the necessary cleanliness and the success of the operation, which depended on it, without relying on others in this case. Anyone who is familiar with hospital life, who spent hours amid groans and human suffering, will understand the power of the Grand Duchess’s feat. Carrying a long-standing illness within herself, having survived two difficult operations, suffering from shortness of breath and often suffocating, the great worker did not think about herself, did not care about her own health, and completely devoted herself to the high service she had chosen. She carried out the most difficult responsibilities with full responsibility, without relying on others. Her example made a deep impression on those around her. It was touching to see the Grand Duchess before the start of some serious operation, which happened almost every day in the hospital of the Intercession Monastery. At that moment, she mentally worried and felt all the impending danger and all the responsibility not only for the outcome of the operation, but also for the person’s life itself. The Grand Duchess, with a deep, but often unnoticeable to those around her, feeling of excitement, reverently made the sign of the cross and after that calmly, with firmness of spirit and rare skill, helped the operator, encouraging and inspiring the sisters. The Grand Duchess bore her labors, accompanied by continuous exertion of strength, sleepless nights and worries, with joy and considered herself, amid this very difficult life, “the happiest in the world.” And this is what she really was: tireless work of serving her neighbor, personal involvement in everyone for whom she could alleviate physical or moral suffering, and endless worries about the further expansion of the charitable institutions she created - all this gave her such a fullness of life that she truly knew happiness on earth! Her cheerful and joyful appearance strengthened and encouraged those around her. The letters the late Grand Duchess wrote to various persons involved in hospital activities when she had to be away - mostly from Nice, where she lived after the operation - these letters show how much the late Grand Duchess loved her work. In various letters she wrote: “I can’t wait for the happy hour of returning to our holy monastery. I cannot express in words my feelings of joy when I imagine the nearness of returning to dear St. monastery! The joy of seeing all of you, dear sisters, the sick, the blind, the poor, all the children! “Everything is close to my heart,” the Grand Duchess wrote upon receiving a letter from one of the sisters with a detailed description of the state of the hospital “everything is close to my heart, every breath of my dear patients is interesting to me. I am glad that there is some improvement in their health. I can't wait for the letters. My soul is always with you all, my body is only in Nice.” This is how the Grand Duchess lived, worked and felt until the day of her death. For several days we examined Kyiv - we saw it in all its church-historical grandeur: we bowed to the numerous shrines of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, from the high balcony of the hospitable Lavra hotel we admired the “font of the Russian people” - the wonderful Dnieper, both in the pale glow of a quiet moon and in a terrible thunderstorm, which old-timers will not remember; Before us passed a whole series of ancient and new churches and church monuments - Askold's grave, St. Andrew's Cathedral, Tithe Church, St. Sophia Cathedral, New Vladimir Cathedral, the monument to St. Vladimir with his wonderful electric cross, other ancient monasteries... The impression was enormous, our native history was resurrected before us, the fate of the Russian Church passed before us, thousands of pilgrims testified that this story was not over yet, that the pulse of the Christian life of the Russian people beats strongly. The wave of church history involuntarily gripped the heart and filled it with religious delight. The last point of our observations was the Pokrovsky-Princess Monastery. We approached it already in an elevated religious mood, with a heart eager to see a living human feat blossoming on this church-historical tree. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that “this bright light of piety and monastic asceticism in the royal family kindled in the era of the grace-filled renewal of Russian national thought - during the beneficent reign of Alexander III, when Russia succeeded in throwing off the pernicious spiritual shackles of the West and decisively turned to its original path of church-historical ideals of national life and thought.” And without resorting to a tendentious coloring of the fact, we can say that the late Princess loved Orthodoxy. In a letter to one church and public figure we find the following highly significant words of the Grand Duchess: “Everything I write about is old, but there is no need for innovation, on the contrary - a return to the times of Theodore the Studite! I earnestly ask you to write to me everything that concerns St. Churches; I love her like a soul”... The ideals of the late Grand Duchess were true church ideals! When we walked through the garden, filling the entire space between the buildings of the Intercession Monastery, the first thing that caught our attention was a large grave cross with the inscription on it: Her Imperial Highness the August Builder, the Blessed Empress Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna, nun Anastasia, died on April 13, 1900 at the age of 62. And the majestic image of the ascetic benefactor filled our souls, stirred up deep feelings in our hearts... The Grand Duchess, who left her regal heights for the modest ascetic life of an ascetic nun, retained humility to the end. In the last minutes of her life, under severe physical suffering, she made all the arrangements for her burial, grave, funeral service and even the memorial table. The simple pine, unpainted coffin was ready about ten years ago. The will of the Royal Nun was that she should be buried directly in the ground, without vaults, in the place she had long intended - opposite the altar of the monastery church (next to her August granddaughter, daughter of Grand Duke Peter Nikolaevich). At the burial, according to the same will of the deceased, there were no speeches or wreaths; the funeral service was performed according to the monastic rite; a simple wooden cross is the only gravestone. And we involuntarily recalled the deeply felt words of the describer of the death of Her Imperial Highness: “The modest grave hid Her physical features from our view, and the more powerfully Her moral image appears before us in all its grandeur. Her modest grave will become a national shrine because She performed a great service to the Russian people! A bow to the ground will bring Her to Kyiv and magnify Her memory, because She created new glory for Kyiv, choosing it as the place of her life and affairs! The Russian woman will bow before Her, as before the ideal image of the Merciful Sister of the Russian people! With her life, her deeds, her closeness to the common people, the deceased Grand Duchess united the Russian people with the Tsar and the Royal House - with that new strong thread, which is woven from the most sublime spiritual qualities, from love for the people and mercy for the suffering. Her merits in this matter are great. Prostration to her from all the living!” With deep feeling we also bowed to the ashes of the Great Woman. And they went to see the witnesses of her great deeds. In front of us, one after another, the monastery hospital buildings emerged from the density of the garden. We saw them, marveled at the vastness of this charitable institution, admired their amazing purity, abundance of light... But what can we say about what has already been sufficiently described and assessed by competent people, as evidenced by statistical data. With the greatest attention, we examined the surgical hospital, where we were met by Sister Magdalena, the head sister of the surgical hospital, intelligent, extremely kind, and devoted to her work. She has been in the monastery for twenty-nine years and has been in charge of the hospital for twelve years. She is the closest colleague and pupil of the Grand Duchess, about whom she cannot speak without tears... We examined the wards, operating rooms, hospital church, and dining room. In the dining room, a marble plaque with the words inscribed on it attracts attention: “Their Imperial Majesties the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich and the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna made the hospital happy with their visit on August 21, 1896.” His Majesty the Sovereign Emperor was pleased to make a generous donation for the expansion of the hospital, and it was with this donation that a new building for the therapeutic hospital of Emperor Nicholas II was erected in 1897–1898, next to the surgical hospital. At the same time, in 1896, in the presence of Their Majesties, a new cathedral church in the name of St. Nicholas was laid. This already shows how satisfied Their Majesties were with the medical and charitable institutions of the Intercession Monastery. Subsequently, after the death of the Grand Duchess, His Majesty the Emperor once again showed his participation in the charitable cause of the late Grand Duchess. During the life of the Grand Duchess, the entire management of the hospital (and the monastery) was carried out personally by her, without any time sheets or standards. After her death, the question of maintaining the medical and charitable institutions of the Intercession Monastery remained completely open. For their maintenance during 9 months of 1900, the Sovereign Emperor was pleased to order that 57 thousand rubles, as well as 64 thousand rubles, be released from the sums of the Ministry of the Household and Estates. to pay for the plot of estate land adjacent to the monastery acquired by the late August Builder. The further maintenance of medical and charitable institutions at the monastery was forever strengthened by the Highest approved annual leave from the State Treasury of 80 thousand rubles. (since January 1, 1901). All this serves as a sufficient reason why the hospital institutions at the Kiev Intercession Convent for Women are named after Emperor Nicholas II. All this, in turn, sufficiently shows why the visit of Their Imperial Majesties in 1896 on August 21 was happiness for the Intercession Monastery. But of all the rooms of the surgical hospital, the room of Her Highness the Grand Duchess, in which her exploits took place, attracted our attention primarily. The room is located next to the church. It is not large and everything in it has been preserved as it was during the time of the late Grand Duchess. Here Her great spirit blows, here traces of Her great thoughts and great heart are visible on everything. Everything that is known about the feat of this Royal Woman fills the soul of the pilgrim, upon entering this ascetic cell, with religious reverence. Here Christian active love burned with a bright flame, here in silence and modesty true Christian work was carried out, which is called in the gospel “the only thing needed”, here the Christian soul lived a full spiritual life, a life of faith and a single love for God and neighbor - here lived the one who said: “I don’t have long to live, but I wholeheartedly want to give my old strength to the service of the Lord and my neighbor.” The stamp of this single feat of service to God and neighbor lies here on every thing, in all corners. Not far from the door, to the left, in the corner, there is a short couch with a simple pillow, shoes on the floor in front of it, and a small round table next to it. This, Sister Magdalene told us, overwhelmed by a hot stream of memories, is the place where the late Mother slept. I usually slept sitting up. She had sore legs. She hardly ever went to bed. She bowed her head on this table, did not spread anything, only wrapped her legs in a blanket. And how I slept! The doors were open, and she listened to what was happening in the chambers. As soon as the person on duty answered a sick call at the wrong moment, the already deceased mother appeared and did what was needed. She was even on duty at night. On the left there is a bookcase against the wall. These are the few books from the rich library of the late Grand Duchess that were tabletop for her. We read the names of Sts. on the spines. Demetrius of Rostov, John Chrysostom, Macarius of Egypt, Basil the Great, etc. To the right, in the front corner, is an icon: in front of this icon, the late Grand Duchess, returning to her cell after hospital labors, used to pray, saying out loud: “I thank You, Lord, that You have deigned me to serve the sick.” In front of the icon is a lectern, on which is a large Slavic liturgical gospel. Almost all the text is underlined in either red or blue pencil. It is difficult to say what is hidden under these marks; but in any case, here we see an indication of a careful reading of this holy book. In front of the lectern in the wall there is a window into the church, and in front of it is a chair: here the late Grand Duchess listened to the divine service when her strength did not allow her to stand in the church. On one of the tables filled with various kinds of things, a psalter, perhaps taken from a lectern, attracts attention: the psalter is notable for the fact that the inner cover is filled with many sayings inscribed in the late Grand Duchess’s own hand: “If the Lord pleases, we will live. -The mind is arrogant, but it creates love. -You called me in sorrow and delivered you. - Moreover, my beloved brethren, remain in the firmament, always abundant in the work of the Lord, knowing that your work is never in vain before the Lord. -Do not trust in princes and in the sons of men. “For I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus on my body,” etc. Knowing the religious views of the late Grand Duchess, her view of the primacy of love, her humility, her pain, we can easily understand why her gaze diligently focused on these sayings. We seem to be reading the chronicle of her spiritual life, eavesdropping on her conversation with God, her prayerful sighs. On the table we see a large, lined notebook in which the late Grand Duchess personally wrote down those newly arriving at her hospital. Any newly admitted patient seemed to join a family; she was no longer considered a stranger, she was considered one of their own, dear. The Grand Duchess tried to get to know not only the disease, but also the soul of the patient, her psyche. She especially loved the common people, depressed not only by illness, but also by grief and poverty. At her insistence, they often did not turn away patients whose fatal outcome could no longer be delayed either by surgery or therapy - they were left in the hospital in order to at least provide them with relative comfort in their last days, to give them external peace. “If it were possible, I would embrace the whole world with love,” the Grand Duchess often repeated. Her closet contained delicacies and wine for the sick. And she usually brings the patient a glass of port wine, then tea with rum, or treats for the children. We looked at the last written page of the notebook: “1900 March 26. Sunday. No. 145 Influenza Daria Nemaya 3 dept. 232 Tubercul. art. cub. Grisyukova. No. 228 Sarcoma mam. Erokhin." This was the last day of activity of the late Grand Duchess. On March 26, she went to bed and did not rise again until her death, which followed on April 13. She had already listened to the services of Holy Days and Easter, lying in her cell. The shroud was carried around the church through the cell of the Grand Duchess and, for kissing, was raised on her head. Lying down, Her Highness looked at the lights of the Easter illumination, arranged under the direct supervision of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. The deceased celebrated Holy Easter in the circle of her August relatives. She died on the 2nd day of Easter. The Virovsky monastery is located in the Sedlec province, Sokolovsky district. From the railway station The village of Sokolov to Virov is about 25 versts. Our train arrived in Sokolov at 9 am on September 17th. This day is a holiday in Virov. At the station, I and my companion boarded a single-car. The miserable pavements of the county town gave way, as soon as we left it, to a magnificent government highway. We suddenly understood why our driver promised us with confidence that we would still find the festive service in Virov. The horse ran at a fast trot... It was a wonderful sunny day, in the brilliance of which the fields of the North-Western region spread out. I wanted not to talk, but to think and think. Against the background of reality, pictures of the distant and recent past unfolded in the imagination. “This is the farm of so-and-so,” our driver told us from time to time. Huge crosses with Latin crucifixes rose everywhere. And these features gave the landscape a unique character, awakened memories of a unique history, and made us think about the future and “our” tasks. We drove through the fields of Catholics and Kalakuts (persistent Uniates). I couldn’t help but think about the topics raised by the priest-publicist I. Fudel in the famous trilogy “Our Business in the North-Western Region”: “The monastery is located in an area inhabited entirely by stubborn people who, in their hatred of everything Orthodox, are supported by secret Jesuit propaganda. These unfortunates, having forgotten the faith of their ancestors, have been outside the influence of the church for decades, refusing to enter the church fence; Infants are not baptized; they grow up and die without church guidance. Blank ignorance and savagery, confused by the enemy’s slander, are the reason for this state of affairs.” Catholicism in Poland has political significance. In 64–65, Muravyov decided to cleanse the region of Catholicism. “Conversions” of Catholic peasants appeared in entire parishes. The missionaries turned out to be officials who themselves visited the church only on service days. Along with missionary officials, a special type of “combat” priest appeared, in the political sense of the word. “This is a very special type of priest, unfamiliar to central Russia and developed by the life of the western outskirts mainly through the influence of Catholic concepts on it. That’s what these priests are called—combat priests. They are a fairly exact copy of the priests. At least their actions are entirely based on the position: the end justifies the means. An arrogant attitude towards their parishioners, subordinating them to themselves through finely crafted discipline, inciting in them political hatred towards their opponents - sufficiently characterizes them. The open and secret struggle with the priests by all possible means, the constant search for persons who persistently deviate from Orthodoxy, the influence on them through police officials, the constant going through the courts and the initiation of cases of seduction - these pastors occupy all their free time." The results of such missionary work by officials and pastors, it is easy to understand, were not particularly favorable for the true cause of the Orthodox Church. It is necessary to look for new ways of Orthodox missionary work. “The more light is brought into this darkness of the stubborn, the more warmth these stubborn people feel, the sooner the artificial barrier between them and us will collapse. And only a woman can bring this light and this warmth. Who doesn’t know the enormous influence of a woman in a family? A woman can bring into the family the spirit that is instilled in her, and she always does this with that amount of fanaticism and perseverance that only a woman is capable of. Therefore, raising a girl, raising future wives and mothers is the first condition and the only sure means to achieve our goals. We say education and emphasize this word, since simple literacy training is still too insufficient to influence the family. What is needed here is development in a certain direction, tempering of the spirit. This development is provided by religious and moral education in a good parochial school under the influence of the Church.” This is the situation in which our famous northwestern monasteries of a new type - Virovsky and Lesninsky - operate. I did not travel to see the missionary fruits of the activities of these monasteries - I am interested exclusively in their moral, evangelical tasks - and I am glad that the venerable pastor-publicist puts our northwestern cause on a moral basis. But if we are talking about the church environment, which gives a special shade to their moral activity, then I consider it necessary to note the changes that were made in this environment by the recent manifesto on freedom of conscience. Many have solved this issue, from a theoretical point of view, radically and without restrictions. But it was difficult to foresee what consequences freedom of conscience would lead to on the northwestern outskirts. Orthodoxy quickly found itself persecuted and completely defenseless. National Catholicism in Poland celebrated freedom of conscience with unusual solemnity. The area through which we were driving abounded, in addition to ancient crosses, with fresh triumphal gates made of greenery. These are traces of a Catholic bishop's tour of the area under new conditions. He was accompanied by huge crowds of jubilant people, he was surrounded by a cavalry of several hundred horsemen in national costumes. This pomp alone oppressed the Orthodox. But this is not enough. The victorious cries of Catholicism were heard everywhere: “The end of Russian schism has come. The Tsar himself accepted the Polish faith. Hurry, the Catholics told the Orthodox, to accept Catholicism, otherwise you will soon be left without baptism and wedding.” Entire parishes of those who had previously converted to Orthodoxy through political means now declared themselves Catholics. The original Orthodox were faced with all sorts of difficulties in satisfying their religious needs. The cry of the Orthodox was heard... Of course, these victorious cries of Catholicism, its offensive, would not have suppressed Orthodoxy if the Orthodox had turned out to be more prepared for the new order. But new orders appeared unexpectedly; the Orthodox people were not prepared for them. On the eve of the manifesto, we were not allowed to write about freedom of conscience. At the moment of the essentially joyful manifesto, the bitter fruits of the Byzantine system of church life were reflected. And so, regardless of how the issue of freedom of conscience is resolved from a theoretical point of view, in practice the attitude of Orthodoxy towards Catholicism in the northwestern region has set before the champions of the evangelical world a high task - to strengthen, console, encourage the persecuted, pacify the warring... We drove along the Drogichinsky highway from Sokolov to Skreshev for 19 versts. Here the road to Virov turns to the side. Not so long ago, this remainder of the journey to the monastery presented travelers with difficulties that were almost insurmountable during muddy times. Now, at the request of the late Abbess Anna, this path has also been highwayd all the way to the monastery... We went down into the ravine, climbed up the slope, and the Virovskaya monastery, located on the high bank of the Bug, opened before us. Enclosed only by a low hedge, not hiding behind walls, the modest monastery showed us, as soon as we began to approach it, its inner life: the lawn inside the fence, between the buildings, was dotted with festive people - in the depths in front of the main church, where the liturgy was not yet over, with pilgrims who could not fit in the small church, and closer to the fence and everywhere - with children. Motley festive crowd. And we were unpleasantly surprised that right under the monastery there was brisk work going on - autumn plowing. Our driver dispelled our bewilderment: the small, offensively small area occupied by monastery buildings is surrounded by land that does not belong to the monastery. If it weren’t for the absence of lord’s buildings near the monastery, if it weren’t for the wide view opening towards the Bug, if it weren’t for the well-known modesty of the holy place and the all-conquering meekness of its inhabitants, who do not fence themselves off from the world, but bring it love and goodness, then it would be terrible for this monastery, lost on an alien outskirts... We entered the monastery at a step. To the right and left, a living, cheerful wall of children stood, having already heard their mass. Hundreds of curious, trusting eyes looked at us, and we were greeted by friendly children's voices. We saw with our own eyes what is difficult for residents of central Russia to see: a monastery overcrowded with children. We entered the monastery from the west; on the eastern side of it flows the Bug, on the high bank of which stands the main monastery church in the name of the All-Merciful Savior - a former Catholic church. Two rows of monastery buildings run from the north and south sides. On the north side, to the left of those entering, the first thing that catches your eye are two beautiful and huge buildings - an orphanage and then a school with St. Leontief Church for children. The buildings are new stone, two-story. Further, opposite the church, in the depths of the garden, there is a small hotel; in front of it, closer to the church, are two miniature houses: one is used to receive honored guests and the other is picturesque. This row of buildings ends with services located below on the river bank and not visible from the entrance. To the right of those entering, still outside the fence, there are five houses for the monastery clergy. Then, inside the monastery, there is a series of buildings, seemingly connected to each other - an almshouse, a hospital, a “monastic” church in the name of St. Seraphim, cells and, already opposite the church, in the depths of the garden, the refectory, the abbess's room, the office. The last premises are the old priest's house, surrounded by a veranda, which serves as a refectory in the summer. A quick overview of the monastery buildings is highly instructive and gives rise to many thoughts. Everything that catches your eye, perhaps beautiful, comfortable and even rich - these are churches and charitable institutions. The churches are still relatively poor. The main church is poor and not spacious enough; The “monastic” house church touches with its modesty, but the children’s church is already good - two floors high, with a choir. Both buildings for children serve as a real architectural decoration of the monastery. In any case, what is striking, along with the beautiful and rich children’s premises, is the modesty of the monastic premises. In the monastic building there are cells for only a few nuns; The abbess's room is more than simple and unpretentious. The sight of the monastery buildings involuntarily makes one ask: where are the sisters located? A close acquaintance with monastic life gave us the answer to this question: the sisters - and there are up to 200 of them - find refuge in the same place where they undergo obedience: in a pharmacy, in a hospital, in an almshouse, in an orphanage, in a school. Some corner, a closet in the attic, on the floor in a room that is vacated at night - in the children's dining room, etc., etc. - these are the places of night rest for the working sisters. Everything for others and almost nothing for oneself - this is the motto of the monastery. At the hotel we washed ourselves off the road and changed clothes, and hurried to church. We saw the end of the liturgy, which was celebrated by the Kholmsky Eminence Eulogius. From the side room at the altar where we stood, the progress of the service was not visible; words and singing could be heard from a distance. And the thought was carried away into the distance; I thought about what had happened before where the place is now holy. “Virov was once the terror of every belated traveler. The ravines above the Bug, covered with bushes in the place where the women's Virovskaya Hermitage was now settled, served as a convenient corner behind which in the old days more than one robber and tramp lurked. Of course, this was a long time ago and has become a thing of the past. The surrounding residents and even the authorities then had reason to avoid this place, and the wanderer made a significant circle just to get around the known hangout. Virov's later history is not complicated. In 1894, the Virovsky church, which had been empty for many years due to its closure, was rebuilt into a church, and on July 31 of the same year the newly built church was consecrated”: this is what I had already read from S. Kolosov “From a travel notebook”. Pictures from the past were drawn in the imagination in contrast to the present. At the end of the liturgy, a religious procession was held to the grave of the late Abbess Anna, located not far from the church on the south side. A modest grave, but how much it speaks and reminds the inhabitants of Virov. This is their shrine. The late abbess Anna is the same for the Virovsky monastery as V. Princess Anastasia in monasticism is for the Intercession Monastery and what abbess Catherine is for the Lesninsky monastery. Just as during her life the monastery lived with her, so now it lives with the memory of her. “To make sure, Abbess Sophia (in the world Princess S.A.) wrote to us. Shakhovskaya), successor to Abbess Anna, from whom I received a heartfelt blessing to visit Virov, - in order to see to what extent the memory of the holy ascetic is alive and constant in our monastery, you need to come to us and then you will see that, as one pilgrim who did not know her put it, - in Virov the song “Eternal Memory” completely loses its terrifying meaning, so it is constantly and lovingly heard both in church and on the road the grave, where the sisters and children sing it several times a day, and in the cell of the late Mother, in which lithium is served every week and which we have left in the same form as it was during the life of the deceased. It is not for me, Her unworthy successor, to add anything to Virov, to the spiritual structure of the monastery, and I only ask you to definitely come and pray with us, at our grave.”... The late Abbess Anna is a central figure in the history of the Virovsky monastery. Participating in the sincere and fervent prayer of the Virov workers for the deceased, I reproduced her life in my memory. (The following biographical information is taken from the “Obituary of Abbess Anna of the Virovsky Monastery,” written by priest Mizetsky, former rector of the Siedlce Church (and now, it seems, serving in Warsaw), who took a close part in the life of the Virovsky monastery and published several brochures in order to popularize information about it). Abbess Anna of the Virovsky Monastery, who died on August 29, 1903, in the world Anna Aleksandrovna Potto, the daughter of the head of the artillery warehouses of the Brest Fortress, was born in Brest on December 9, 1865. While still a baby, she was left an orphan and without a mother. On a photographic card, preserved from the time when she was 6 years old, we see Anna Alexandrovna thin, with thoughtful, serious, modest eyes beyond her years, with thick, long two braids... In Warsaw, “Anya” is made unrecognizable, a different creature. She is there in Mrs. Krendel's German boarding school, from where she goes to the first girls' gymnasium. When she comes to Brest on vacation, no one recognizes her: lively, graceful, dancing, enlivening everyone. At 15 ½ years old, Anna Alexandrovna graduates from high school with a medal. Appointed to the position of assistant to the main teacher of the Kholm Mariinsky School, Maria Naumovna Nolle, she finds her second mother in her, under her guidance she undergoes everyday science and becomes a serious worker. Six years of administrative, educational and economic life in Kholm were excellent preparation for the future abbess of the Virovsky monastery. A completely new, hitherto unknown world is brought into the ideal soul of Anna Alexandrovna Potto by the Kholm Mountain, Archbishop Leonty, Bishop Flavian, learned monks - Anthony, Vladimir, Seraphim... At this time, the Lesninsky monastery began to attract the already wonderful Anna Alexandrovna with its exploits. When she arrived from Kholm to Brest, a new change struck her. “Is it true that Anya is entering the monastery,” asked her former friends... The retirement of M. N. Nolle and the transfer of Anna Alexandrovna from Kholm to the Kalisz gymnasium made her withdrawn until she entered the Lesninsky monastery two years later. Here she had before her the life of the teacher. Theodosius in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra before becoming abbess: she was the first to come to church, the last to leave; diligently participated in reading and singing in the choir. Under the guidance of the elder Archpriest Timofey Sofronovich, she studied almost the entire church charter, from the literal fulfillment of which she did not deviate even an iota until her death. Those who knew her also know her art of using a pen - she brought this gift to the service of the monastery, working constantly in its office. Knowledge of clerical work was very useful for Virov later. She gave lessons to children at the monastery school, and she soon became the dean of the monastery... On September 22, 1890, Archbishop Leonty tonsured her into the ryassophore. The famous Abbess Catherine released many of her chicks from her Lesninsky nest. In different places they continue to carry out her great apostolic works. Teolin, Radochnitsa, Turkovitsy, Krasnostok... But the works of M. Anna in Virov are more important than others. Having spent a year in Teolin, from October 18, 1893, where she worked in the creation of the monastery, on September 18, 1894, she received the appointment to be the head of the Virovsky department of the Lesninsky monastery. What did she find then and what did she leave behind? She found a church and two wooden dilapidated houses, still in ruins, leaving the numerous buildings she had created... Mother Anna bought land in the monastery from the landowner for 6 thousand rubles, donated by the Sovereign Emperor from personal funds. Mother worked a lot until she received the estate of Stava in the Grodno province for the monastery. It is still on lease from the treasury. Near the monastery, M. Anna bought two estates - one in Chekanov for 37 thousand rubles, which she personally begged from the Sovereign Emperor. There she set up an agricultural school for children. Another is in Molozhevo, where she erected several stone and wooden buildings for a two-class boys’ school. With what funds did Mother Anna build and arrange all this in the Virovskaya monastery, in Chekanov and Molozhevo? It’s hard to imagine how incredibly hard she worked to obtain the funds for all this. Firmly believing in God's help, burning with compassion for her neighbors, she refused no one, accepted everyone, built for them on credit, clothed and fed them on credit, and then shed tears in front of whomever she should and asked. What constant difficult circumstances she was in - she was horrified! And so all the time, until death. Having visited the monastery in the first year of Mother Anna’s life in Virov, its life writer, Archpriest Mizetsky, learned here that Mother Anna and 12 sisters had not eaten anything for several days; there is no bread or potatoes. But they don’t say anything or write anything. To increase his personal assistance, the venerable archpriest made a subscription among the ladies in Sedlec and sent what he collected to Virov. Soon up to 30 children were studying at the monastery. For them, too, the gathering was in Sedlec. Donations were collected for everything - dresses, linens, scarves, shoes, etc. A year passed, and the poverty in Virov was indescribable. Got o. archpriest from Archbishop Flavian a letter to come to him regarding the sad state of the Virovsky branch of the Lesninsky monastery, since it has no means of subsistence. This branch of the Lesninsky monastery then existed only as church land in Chekanov. He has already gone with M. Anna to Warsaw. But just on this day, Fr. sent his first letter with money to M. Anna. John of Kronstadt. There was no end to M. Anna's joy. And the Lord agreed to prolong Virov’s existence. The highly ascetic, educational and charitable activities of Mother Anna in Wirow became famous in Warsaw, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Help began to be sent to her from everywhere. Fr. began to especially favor her. John of Kronstadt, who even visited Anna's monastery. In Warsaw, the Prince of Imereti and his wife Anna Alexandrovna were very favorable to her... Archbishop Flavian often did charity to the monastery and was attentive to the needs of its abbess. His Eminence Jerome loved her, perhaps more than anyone else, and helped her a lot personally and in the monastery. He especially expressed his fatherly love for her in a speech when elevating her to the rank of abbess on August 1. 1899, presenting her with the abbot's staff. At the same time, Virov was elevated to a first-class monastery. The fame of the Virovsky monastery and its abbess reached the Tsar. On May 23, 1898, in the report of the synodal chief prosecutor, he wrote: “The beneficial activities of the Virovsk community are important for the entire population in the region. Land acquisition is imperative. I donate the amount of 6,000 rubles needed for this from myself.” Two months after this, on July 21, M. Anna had the good fortune to introduce herself to the Emperor and the Empress. On October 9, 1901, in Spala, she presented herself to Their Majesties for the second time and there was honored with a long conversation about the state of her monastery. The Emperor not only fulfilled all the requests of M. Anna, but then, on the occasion of the Nativity of Christ, and beyond the request, he blessed the monastery with 1000 rubles. Before her death, M. Anna was consoled by the news that the Sovereign Emperor ordered the release of 23 thousand 500 rubles annually from the State Treasury for the needs of the Virovsky monastery. In April 1902, M. Anna was on business at the monastery in St. Petersburg, and there she developed severe consumption. In order to save the precious life of a dear person, M. Anna was sent on April 22 to Italy, from where on July 20 she returned recovered, with the hope of recovery. But she immediately devoted herself to work with such fervor that the illness returned, and she, sick, was again sent to Nervi on November 17. On May 7, 1903, she returned from abroad without a voice, barely moving. On her way to Nervi, on a special occasion she visited the Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto, and received his blessing. Then no one knew that he would soon be Pope Pius X. A month before the death of M. Anna received 2 thousand rubles from the Kyiv Metropolitan for the construction of a refectory church in the name of Seraphim of Sarov. On July 31, the foundation stone of this church took place, but M. Anna could not see this celebration; her illness had already confined her to one place. On July 19, she was carried to church for the last time. Since August 1, she received communion daily. On the last day I received communion twice, in the morning and in the evening. She herself said to read prayers for the outcome of her soul. When they didn’t read something clearly, she asked them to read it slowly and clearly. I said goodbye to all the sisters, crying and sobbing. At about 12 o'clock at night I asked to read the Gospel. We read about the beatitudes. Enduring terrible suffering, she asked every minute: “Pray, pray that the Lord will help me endure this suffering. I asked God for suffering. I didn’t know they were so heavy.” She asked her confessor to put his hands on her head and pray. She said it made her feel better. At 12 o'clock at night she released her confessor, telling him: “go home and pray there that the Lord will accept my soul.” The sisters later heard the dying woman say: “Lord, glory to You! Lord, thank you!” At 1 o'clock in the morning the ascetic of Christ gave up her spirit to Him... This biography is the life of a saint, but it also differs in some features from the usual type of life. She was lively, graceful, loved dancing... Then the most acute asceticism - such asceticism that the Lesna abbess Catherine sends her away to an independent post in Virov with the words: “I don’t want you to die in consumption before my eyes.” These words turned out to be prophetic. But even dying from her asceticism, M. Anna did not fit into the frozen form of everyday holiness. “She wanted to live,” M. Sofia, who accompanied the deceased to Nervi, told us. “She didn’t want to die,” M. Ekaterina also reported. “Don’t be angry with me,” the deceased told her as she said goodbye, “I repent, I repent.”... On a canvas of such cheerfulness, the picture of Christian aspiration to heaven turns out to be a religious mystery that goes beyond the scope of social benefit. From a religious point of view, individuals are valuable, not deeds. In the description of the burial of M. Anna, one page deeply sank into my soul. The first day and night after her death were rainy. On Sunday, August 31st, in the morning a wonderful clear sun rolled out from behind the Bug. So it was, writes Archpriest Mizetsky, that it dates back to the 15th century, when, according to information from the Vilna Central Archive, there was an Orthodox Church here; This is how it rose in 1712, when the unforgettable founder of the Church of John the Baptist in Virov, John Godlewski, died; So it went back 100 years after that, when Kushel burned everything created by Godlevsky; This is how it arose when in our days, after the reunification of the Uniates, priest Virovsky made Virov the center of perseverance; This is how it rose when this priest shot himself on Sunday morning twenty years ago; This is how it rose when 10 years ago the church and Orthodoxy were resurrected again in Virov... There was such a case. Someone’s skull from the ancient Virovsky cemetery, washed out by the Bug, was carried by water to the shore of the monastery when Mother Anna was standing there. She took a skull from the water, blessed it, and said a prayer over it, in vain to the east. And the sun looked at that skull. Mother carried him up to her mountain and buried him near the church. For nine years, the Virovsky sun, rising behind the Bug, first of all looked into M. Anna’s cell and almost always found her at work, exhausted, not yet allowing her eyes to sleep. Sometimes the sun saw there what was so carefully hidden from everyone, for example. a sick beggar lying in the tiny cell of the abbess... In the last two months, the sun had already looked at her, sick, withered, and looking towards death. On August 31, after the previous cloudy days, it appeared in all its glory to see the glorious burial of Anna Virovskaya, who had closed her eyes forever, never falling asleep in night and day labors and prayers. I remembered this page because on September 17, 1905, the bright sun illuminated the glory of the procession and the crowds of tearfully praying monastery sisters and monastery children. The late ascetic chose the place of her grave herself - on the right side of the Virovsky Church, opposite the altar. This is where she asked to be taken out in her last days; she sat there and said: “This is where you will come to me and talk to me at my grave”... The red ringing drew our attention to... the famous monastery bell tower. It is located south of the entrance to the church, not far from it. It looks like the top of a windmill, very dilapidated. Of course, this is the only bell tower in its squalor. No less remarkable is the bell ringer Feon who lives there. This bell ringer, on someone’s advice, rang after M. Anna’s death day and night—40 days and 40 nights. In P. Zemny’s brochure “Among the Friends of Humanity”, when describing this bell tower, it is said: “here, under the bells, in a miniature cell, mother Fiona the bell ringer huddles.” This mistake gives rise to good-natured monastic humor... I later saw this servant of the Virovsky church. Such endless evangelical simplicity shone on his face, which is not often encountered... At the end of the service, I witnessed a touching picture from monastic life... Abbess Sophia left the management of the monastery due to the weakness of her health and especially due to illness in her legs; on the morning of this day, the abbot's staff was presented to her successor, M. Susanna. In the garden, on a small platform in front of the former priest's house, a heartfelt farewell took place for the Virovsky residents, sisters and children, with their Mother, who was leaving the management of the monastery, although she did not leave the monastery. What I saw spoke eloquently of the heartfelt and tender love of the monastery workers and children for the worthy deputy of the late Mother Anna... The new abbess Susanna (daughter of the famous St. Petersburg artist Melnikov), who immediately before worked in the Krasnostok monastery - from the same “Lesninskaya” school, belongs in this “family” ... Then we were invited to a meal on the veranda of the “priest’s” house and from that moment until our departure we were continuously in the affectionate atmosphere of the usual and simple-hearted hospitality of the former Abbess Sophia and the new Abbess Susanna. In addition to the Right Reverend Eulogius, who departed shortly after lunch, there were Abbess Ekaterina of Lesninsk and Elena of Krasnostok. Before us was a family of kindred spirits, warmed by one idea of ​​Christian goodness, one kind of Christian activity, albeit with individual shades. The lively and instructive conversation, with interruptions, lasted until late in the evening. In the same “priest’s” house there is also the cell of the late Mother Anna. It is difficult to imagine a living room of a smaller size and with such simple furnishings. Front corner hung with icons; in front of him is a lectern. Ascetic bed. A miniature unpainted table on which the deceased carried out extensive writing... How much was experienced, changed minds and felt within these walls, how many tears were wiped away here, how much suffering was alleviated. An eighty-year-old man died here, for whom there was no place in the almshouse. Here lay a 14-year-old Catholic girl suffering from smallpox. A girl sick with diphtheria was housed here; M. Anna looked after her and after that she herself became dangerously ill. The large family of the officer in trouble was all accepted by M. Anna in Virov and was placed in a house behind the monastery for full maintenance until the trouble was over. The family of the official, who was imprisoned and later acquitted in court, also escaped hunger and cold in Virov. When you learn all this, you begin to understand what great deeds are, in which great souls are revealed. “You will know them by their deeds.” And a double feeling fills the heart. On the one hand, you deeply comprehend your own insignificance, but at the same time you rejoice for man, for humanity, and in this contact with great souls, with their deeds, you yourself become better, purer; at least I want to be better. This is the value of “another human feat”, different from social benefit. Excellent hospitals and schools can be established with money, and of course the success of a medical or educational business does not depend on the fact that for this business, for its foundation, “a human life is lost.” But the value of achievement is not only that it replaces good institutions - it is dear in its effect on the human soul. When you see him, hear about him, your heart becomes warm and joyful - and nothing can take away this joy, on the contrary, it will illuminate all darkness, conquer all anger. The missionary work of such “Orthodox” people as M. Anna has the same character of spiritual peace. Here is the priest’s story about the late ascetic, already published in the press. “I was invited,” the priest reports, “by the abbess of the monastery to bid farewell to a Catholic dying in the monastery. I immediately went to do my duty. I approached the monastery and what did I see? This is thin, pale and tall M. Anna in front, and behind her all the nuns with lit candles in their hands were waiting for the priest with the Holy Gifts and greeted me, the servant of God, with a humble bow. I have seen all sorts of things in life, but the truly Christian act of the Virov nuns confused me, and I was not immediately able to let the respectable people understand how touched I was by their behavior. Bewilderment appeared in my soul: how is this so - just yesterday I heard victorious cries that the Virov nuns had come here to fight and win, and today I see them humble, giving due honor to my religion, my shrine? Quite a bit of time has passed since then; I learned more about the affairs and life of the Virov nuns. I don’t know whether the nuns will defeat history, whether they will achieve a radical revolution in the religious views of a certain part of the population, but that they will live to achieve general respect from the surrounding population, there can be no doubt. As a priest, a representative of the opposing party, I may have special views on the mission of nuns; but, as a Christian, I can only rejoice that the charm of the Orthodox faith and the Russian people comes to us from the eastern border not through the zemstvo guards, fines and restrictions on rights, but through true ascetics." And here is another, also published in the press, conversation with a Polish Catholic woman who would like to send her boy to Virov. - Do you know the Virovskys? “Everyone here knows quite a few of them.” Everyone is helped, no matter who comes and why. “Aren’t you afraid, having given your child to the nuns, that they will change their faith?” - Eh, they even teach faith there and even kalakut. We all worship the same cross. They do not touch our faith. There they are praying, there they are praying! Righteous people... All this is quite convincing... The next day we celebrated the early liturgy in the monastic church and went to the choirs in the children's church for a while during the late liturgy. The monastic church was filled with nuns to one side and lay pilgrims in the rest of the church. These pilgrims are from the Grodno province, from Zabuzhye. I must testify to the strict regulations of the Virovsky service. Looking at the rows of dark figures and stern faces, it was easy to imagine that you were among a monastic community that had no other goal than the “salvation of their souls.” And even, perhaps, not every “ideal” monastery prays as much and as regularly as in Virovsky. And, of course, such beautiful singing could be desired for any monastery. I would like to ask what inspired the well-known negative view of these monasteries. True religious people read these lines with horror: “No one in the depths of the Orthodox Church prevents the establishment of communities in the likeness of monasteries; Such a community was created in Bose by the deceased princess-ascetic of our days. But this is not a monastery in the proper sense of the word: it is an ideal, if you like, charitable institution and nothing more. Even if its structure of life resembles that of a monastery, even if such an institution is called a monastery, this will only be an exception to the general rule, some deviation from the highest ideal of monasticism. We can point out quite a few such deviations. These are our women's monasteries in the western region: Lesninskaya, Virovskaya." The highest ideal of monasticism, in the opinion of the author of these lines, is exclusively soul salvation, service to "holy egoism." And the fact that in the named monasteries the feat of prayer is brought to perfection - and who can pray like that, if not the one who sees human suffering? - this circumstance shows that from a certain point of view, for the ideal state of the monastery, a positive condition is considered insufficient - prayer feat, but they also require a negative condition - a fundamental abstinence from the feat of serving one’s neighbor. And these views are expressed under the banner of Orthodoxy. Let these monasteries of a new type represent a deviation from the established form - after all, this is a deviation towards the ideal. And if representatives of historical monasticism renounce this new type, then so much the worse for them. One could rejoice if there were “quite a few” such deviations. When I entered the choir of St. Leontief Church, my eyes were presented with a sight the likes of which I had never seen. The whole church was full of children - only a choir of nuns stood at the top and some pilgrims in the corridor. Children stood in groups, with young children in the middle. The suits are monotonous, with minor differences in color between groups. Boys in red shirts, girls in blue sundresses. The kids carry bags with handkerchiefs over their shoulders. The children are washed, healthy and happy; stand decorously and pray meaningfully. There were more than 400 children here. The picture was amazing; it was difficult to take my eyes off. This is the victorious banner of the Virovsky Monastery, this is evidence of its ascetics before God and people. “This is the letter of Christ, through his ministry, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of flesh of the heart.” They prepare people for God and society, in the best sense of the word. After all, all of these are either children of poor parents or abandoned to the mercy of fate - this is the material from which enemies of society and God, activists and sufferers of the bottom, hooligans, destructive elements are naturally produced. And their Virov sisters accepted them, picked them up, washed them, fed them, taught them, taught them to pray to God - with their hearts warmed by love. Then we inspected the children's premises and the school. In the building with the church there is a second-class girls' school with up to 130 girls. In the shelter for children and school students, literacy rates - 163; there are 11 children there. Then a two-year boys' school in the village of Molozhevo - 120 students; For now, they go to the monastery children's church for services. Finally, Chekanovskaya Practical School of Agriculture and Home Economics - 24 girls. We first examined both children's monastery buildings. I will not touch upon teaching and educational technology. Let me just say: everything that is humanly possible is done here for children. We have to economize in everything, and above all in the premises, because they accept more than the space allows, although the monastery is still forced to refuse many. They are especially crowded in the bedrooms: there are two-story solid bunks, separated by small partitions. It is easy to understand that the bed linen is not fine Dutch, but it is clean. The neat appearance of the beds and good air reveal to the observer the voluntary and compassionate care of the ascetic sisters. Even such bunks are not enough for everyone. There are mattresses stacked in the corner, which are laid out on the floor at night. How easy it would be to avoid this cramped situation, if only... to reduce the number of children in custody. But here they know only one limit - physical necessity, but the heart is expanded by love to infinity. The children sang and recited poetry with obvious pleasure. The choral pronunciation of poetry is especially good. Children who cannot read and write learn to sing and recite poetry from their voices. The little ones' room made a particularly strong impression... The brochure “Among the Friends of Humanity” by P. Zemny, who visited the Virovsky monastery, says: “For games, every child has... fast legs. When I asked if they had any other toys or games, e.g. balls, skittles, then many of the guys had sad faces. Obviously, if they know about these good and useful games for them, it is only by name. One of the boys hesitantly asked: “Uncle, bring us some toys!” He was supported by others, and it was clear that they all wanted to get some toys. Maybe others will hear the little ones’ request, respond to it, and together we will be able to bring joy to the children and give them the opportunity to spend long winter evenings without pranks and boredom, but with benefit and pleasure.”... I read these lines before I went to Virov. I took advantage of this reminder from their author and can only be grateful to him. I repeat now these lines in the hope that some of my readers, wishing to visit the famous monasteries, will remember to bring children a little joy... We then examined the almshouse and the hospital with no less attention. There were up to 40 people in care in the almshouse. Old women and children. There is a man - completely paralyzed, admitted to an almshouse, almost abandoned on the street. I remember such a case. Several years ago in Tambov, a seventy-year-old old archpriest lived out his life, and, to top off his misfortunes, his legs were paralyzed. The penny pension was barely enough to hire a nurse. His only daughter, who served in a girls’ gymnasium and had an apartment there, was forced to take him in with her. The authorities forbade her to do this under the pretext that it was indecent for a “man” to live within the walls of a women’s educational institution... Obviously, the Virov sisters are far from such pharisaical scrupulousness. Among the rest of the suspects there is a blind woman, a woman with seizures - all sorts of representatives of human suffering. I inquired to find out where that megalocephalic boy was, about whom it was reported in the press that “his mental abilities are fading away every year, but his incredible physical strength is increasing, so that sometimes none of the sisters can cope with him.” It turns out that he was sent to a well-known St. Petersburg charitable institution for such unfortunates. Nurses provide extensive medical care. They see several thousand outpatient patients a year; Medicines are also provided free of charge. Nurses involved in treatment rarely go to the doctor, especially since this is associated with significant difficulties: the nearest doctor from the hospital lives several miles away. In the hospital wards, in addition to the sick sisters, we had three girls in the same room: one of them, recently admitted, suffers from bone tuberculosis. A pathetic child whose days are numbered. At least the last hours will be made easier by his tender care. After lunch we went to Molozhevo and Chekanovo. Molozhevo is located to the north, about two versts from the monastery, upstream of the Bug. When leaving the village, opposite the street, dominating it, now stands the architecturally exquisite two-story stone building of the Molozhev School, which began construction under the late M. Anna. It fully satisfies all the latest requirements for school buildings. Abundance of light and air. All that remains is to dry out the inside of the building a little and the school students will move into it. The inside of the house church is not yet finished at all. In the basement there is a kitchen area. It’s hard to believe that this building is only 30 thousand old. The land here near the Virovsky Monastery is about 15 morgues, cut into an inconvenient strip, which the monastery cannot eliminate, despite all its efforts. A school garden, a vegetable garden and an apiary were built on this land. At some distance from the stone building there is a new wooden house, which now houses the school. The house is quite comfortable, but not spacious enough for 120 people living in the school at full expense. Near the new stone building, the first premises of the Molozhev school are still preserved, about which in Tser. Ved. No. 24 for 1900 says: “This school is located in the building of an old tavern. The rotten walls are somehow covered with lime. Everything bears the imprint of extreme poverty.” The legend is fresh, but hard to believe. But one cannot help but believe, seeing now this pitiful shack. It now houses school workshops - shoemaking, carpentry, etc. The needs of the Virov schools are met and together the students are trained in various crafts. On the way from Molozhev to Chekanovo we passed by the Virovskaya monastery. Here we said goodbye to M. Susanna, who did not accompany us further. The entire monastery was in front of us... When we then passed the village of Virov, we observed the custom of the Virov abbesses - passing through the village, handing out gifts to children... The Chekanovsky estate, which is located on the way from Virov to Sokolov, is managed by a manager, a former landowner, and an experienced housewife. We examined the garden, poultry and barnyards and ponds in which fish are bred... We heard the students singing, saw their various works... Over the evening meal, in the apartment of the kind manager, we continued the “Virov” conversation. Late in the evening we said goodbye to M. Sofia. It was the darkness of an autumn night, intensified by the cloudy weather. But the comfortable monastic carriage made this night journey not terrible. Deep feelings of reverence for the exploits of the Virovsky workers and heartfelt gratitude for the hospitality of the Virovsky abbesses filled our hearts. I introduced myself to the abbess of the famous Lesna monastery, M. Catherine, in Virov and here - which was part of my plans - I received an invitation from her to visit Lesna. Returning from Wirow, my companion and I turned from the Siedlce station to Warsaw. There was no strength to deny myself the pleasure of admiring the “capital” of the Polish region, located on the banks of the Vistula. We looked with special attention at the ancient Catholic churches and the new Orthodox cathedral, which was still being built inside. From Warsaw we drove back, beyond Siedlce, to the station. Bela, located 12 versts from the Lesninsky monastery. It was not particularly pleasant to be in an unfamiliar county town at the beginning of a dark autumn night. But the horses from Lesna were waiting for us. The flashing lights of the Jewish town quickly flashed by, and we were plunged into darkness, which was dispersed into a small space by carriage lanterns. Once or twice in their light, as in a dream, peasant carts appeared, now left behind. The road, especially in the second half, was very difficult. We arrived at the Lesninsky Monastery around 11 o'clock at night. When the coachman asked where to take us, we answered that the best thing was to the hotel. But, as if repenting of a momentary temptation, he immediately added: “You need to ask your mother.” As soon as we arrived at the house where mother was, and she was informed about us, we immediately heard her voice: “of course, here, here.” Following her, we entered the dining room, dinner was ready for us... Of course, this is, first of all, a small detail from travel impressions that you remember with pleasure. But in the course of my story, this small feature should be given more serious significance, since it is characteristic of the direction of the Lesninsky monastery and its leader: attention to people, concern for their needs, and not ascetic isolation - take first place here. I heard these basic views on monastic work from Mother Catherine back in the Virov conversation. They give the Lesninsky monastery a new character, different from the traditional one. Famous preacher Archbishop. Ambrose told Mother Catherine: “You are founding a new monastery according to a new charter. God bless you." The novelty of the Lesna Charter lies in its decisive preference for love over all other commandments. The gospel is in love, and monasteries must live according to the gospel. “I can’t stand the typikon,” says M. Ekaterina, meaning, of course, not the liturgical structure of the typikon, since worship in Lesna is performed splendidly and according to the rules, but meaning a special love for typikon iotas, for statutory casuistry, placing typikon truth above all. Statutory severity, according to M. Catherine - if it is not a hypocritical appearance, is usually found among neurasthenics. There is nervous asceticism - asceticism with anguish. A person imposes it on himself either under the influence of some incident or under someone else’s influence. He is convinced or is being convinced of the salvation of asceticism - and he needs to constantly maintain this conviction in himself, he needs means for this. One of these means is the typicon letter. This is a kind of hypnosis, and its psychological significance cannot be denied. But one should not sing hymns to him. This yoke should not be imposed on everyone; it should not strangle living things. This is a form that can only be tolerated if there is a living content, a living act of love, and which without this condition easily turns into a deceptive appearance. For honest and straightforward natures, but not far-fetched in mind, the system of bowing and an ever-empty stomach produces, frankly speaking, insanity, which makes them useless to anyone and anything. M. Catherine not only does not monitor the strict fulfillment of the ascetic rule in her monastery, but even restrains the jealousy of the nuns when it is necessary. There can be no talk of hypocrisy in her monastery, since life in this monastery does not represent anything attractive in material terms and, on the contrary, each sister has too much living to do, which only love for one’s neighbor and faith in God’s truth can meekly endure. One might rather be wary of something else—excessive jealousy in ascetic asceticism. And the abbess is watching over this. She forbids fasting exhaustion to those sisters for whom it threatens with illness, distracting from work. Thus, some sisters, as an act of obedience, use the meat table. Here they look at life as God's capital, which should be useful and not lie buried in the ground. They protect life and take care of it so that it shines with good deeds. They look at health from the point of view of benefit to their neighbors. They know only one sacrifice - for the good of people, they know only one service - serving God in their neighbors. With full and clear consciousness M. Catherine displays this banner at her monastery; she selects the nuns of her monastery exclusively from this point of view, she wants to control only the ascetics of love, she values ​​in her nuns only one ability to work - in serving their neighbors. She does not accept or removes from herself not only those who cover up their inclination towards parasitism and laziness with a monastic robe, but also true ascetics who deserve full respect, unless they are convinced that the typikon is a secondary matter. And the extremes of the ascetic direction cause indignation in her. “They don’t wash for God! Does God really need our dirt? God is a God of purity and light, and not a God of dirt. From a purely philosophical point of view, dirt is corruption, and corruption is the domain of Satan, and not the domain of God.” No, this is not enough – to recognize the service of love, the service of one’s neighbor through sharing. It is not enough to consider it a matter along with other matters. It can be a true matter only when it is put in first place, when it is placed above everything, when it is considered the only thing needed. M. Catherine does not want to allow fanatics of asceticism to have love. “Their heart is filled with hatred. Believe me, they are capable of calling the people to massacre... I visited one of “your” ascetics. When he recognized me as the abbess of the monastery where they eat meat and where children are raised, he kicked me, shouted, and scolded me. “Such a monastery,” he said, “needs to be cursed. Not a monastery - one where they eat meat. A place where there are children is not sacred. Babies are little devils.”... My God, God! exclaimed M. Catherine, “the children to whom the Lord promised the kingdom of God, whom He blessed with love and tenderness, to whom we must become like in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, the children are called little devils!” Yes, this is not only not evangelical Christianity, it is worse than paganism, it is the denial of all religion and morality. The Gospel does not curse the world as God’s creation, does not curse everything that is natural and legal in it, does not want to throw a black veil over everything, does not want to clothe everyone in a black cassock. The children of God appear from the world, and the children of the world become the children of God, first experiencing the worldly. He who said: “Blessed is he who was young in his youth” is closer to the gospel than the fanatics of asceticism, the servants of corruption and filth. The one who loved in the world, who lived its joys and sorrows, will come to Christ sooner than those who forcibly drowned out everything human in themselves. They are close to the walls of the kingdom of God, but far from its doors.” With no less certainty, M. Catherine speaks out against other aspects of the special technique of monastic soul salvation, for example. revelations of thoughts. In this case, she relies on the authority of John of Kronstadt, who instructed her: “do not have revelations of thoughts in your monastery. This is trouble, trouble." This advice met receptive ground. M. Catherine is against the monk delving into his soul! More work, and less narcissism, fussing with yourself. Through deeds you need to recognize not only others, but also yourself. A person is more inclined to nothing than to narcissism. M. Ekaterina recalls the words of I.S. Turgenev: “a person can talk about everything with pleasure, with delight, but with appetite only about himself.” The revelation of thoughts usually comes down to self-validation, to self-justification. “I am suspicious of the love of frequent confession... I do not approve of recording sins... Open and brief confession is desirable.” Mother Catherine herself (in the world Countess Evgenia Borisovna Efimovskaya) accepted monasticism in her thirty-fifth year. Until that time, she had experienced a lot and changed her mind a lot. To begin with, she grew up as a weak, sickly child. Children's imagination painted tempting images of a healthy life and a strong body. The paints for the fantasy work were taken from children's textbooks. “I will be a Spartan”: this was the first ideal of the future Christian ascetic. In the family, under the supervision of the mother, nannies and bonnies, it was difficult to realize this ideal. But from the age of 21, dreams become reality: the young dreamer sleeps with the window open, even in cold weather. Hard bed. Cold washes. Moderate table. This harsh regime becomes a habit, tempers the body, strengthens the will. Initial education is subsequently supplemented by self-education. Not by systematic, pedantic completion of courses, but by impetuous striving into one area or another. A series of hobbies are experienced successively in pursuit of truth and beauty. The soul does not know half the matter; She devotes herself entirely to everything, looking for her calling, which would absorb all her strength, would become a religion for her. Evgenia Borisovna is interested in sculpting, German poets, and theater. During his passion for theater, he dreams of going on stage. He takes Italian lessons from an Italian singer and masters the language in 6 weeks. Traces of aesthetic education are still noticeable in the Christian view of M. Catherine. Evgenia Borisovna was more deeply and lastingly interested in literature. For some time she lived both spiritually and materially through literary works. On this basis, she had many acquaintances - with Turgenev, E. Tur, Markevich, Aksakov. She met I. S. Turgenev in Paris. I read my literary works to him, listened to his comments and judgments; Conversations with him also went beyond literary interests. I would like to imagine in what direction I. S. Turgenev influenced Evgenia Borisovna... I re-read pages from his writings dating back to the time Evgenia Borisovna met him. His prose poem “Nymphs” belongs to this time. Who doesn’t know these wonderful lines?.. “Across the wide semicircle of green mountains, friendly laughter rang out, joyful chatter and splashing arose. Pan is risen! - young voices roared. Everything there, in front, suddenly laughed, brighter than the sun above, more playful than the streams chattering under the grass. The hasty tramp of light steps was heard, the marble whiteness of wavy tunics, the living scarlet of naked bodies flashed through the green thicket... Then nymphs, nymphs, dryads, bacchantes fled from the heights to the plain... They appeared at once along all the edges. Curls curl over the divine heads, slender hands raise wreaths and tympanums - and laughter, sparkling, Olympian laughter, runs and rolls along with them... The goddess rushes ahead. She is taller and more beautiful than everyone else - a quiver over her shoulders, a bow in her hands, a silvery crescent of the moon on her raised curls... This is Diana. But suddenly the goddess stopped... and immediately after her all the nymphs stopped. The ringing laughter died away. I saw how the face of the suddenly numb goddess became deathly pale; I saw how her legs turned to stone; how an inexpressible horror opened her lips, widened her eyes, looking into the distance... What did she see? Where was she looking? I turned in the direction where she was looking... At the very edge of the sky, beyond the low line of the fields, a golden cross was burning like a fiery point on the white bell tower of a Christian church... The goddess saw this cross. I heard behind me an uneven, long sigh, like the flutter of a broken string, - and when I turned around again, not a trace remained of the nymphs. "... It is difficult to point out another, equally beautiful and strong image of the relationship of Christianity to paganism. This problem was undoubtedly presented to the great mind of Turgenev. Evgenia Borisovna’s rapprochement with the Aksakov family lasted longer, and the influence from this side was undoubtedly more definite and more lasting. The influence of Slavophilism with its belief in the special calling of the Russian people. “The history of the Russian people is unique in the whole world - the history of a Christian people not only by confession, but by its life, at least by the aspirations of its life... Russian history, in comparison with the history of Western Europe, is distinguished by such simplicity that it will lead to despair a person accustomed to theatrical antics. The Russian people do not like to strike beautiful poses; in its history you will not find a single phrase, not a single beautiful effect, not a single bright outfit with which the history of the West amazes and captivates you; personality does not play a big role in Russian history; belonging to a person requires pride, but we don’t have pride and all the seductive beauty of it. There is no chivalry with its bloody virtues, no inhuman religious propaganda, no crusades, or in general this incessant dandy drama of passions. Russian history is a completely different phenomenon. Here the people on earth set themselves a different task; Christian teaching deeply formed the basis of their life. Hence, amid the storms and unrest that visited us, this prayerful silence and humility, hence the inner spiritual life of faith.”... The Slavophiles instilled deep love for their people in Mother Catherine, and we must take this influence into account if we want to fully understand her activity, which was so new to monastic traditions. Christian love for her is not an abstract concept, not a dead commandment, but a living force embodied in love for the people. How important this is “in the Christian appearance of the Lesna abbess is evident from the fact that she firmly wanted to become a monk on February 19... And yet she did not have to... A practical champion of the ideals of Slavophilism in the narrow field of relations with children was S. A. Rachinsky, the nephew of the poet Baratynsky and a friend of the Slavophiles. Having left his professorship at the university, he devoted his activities to the public school. His views on the initial education of the people are strictly systematic. The Russian school must be unique, just as the Russian people are unique. What features define the image of the original Russian school? First of all, our public school shows, under the most unfavorable conditions, a decisive tendency to be a religious, church school. Despite the fact that before the introduction of the parochial school of the later type, our clergy treated schools and the teaching of law in them with indifference, despite the fact that the intelligentsia went to the people with nihilistic propaganda, public schools themselves acquired a more and more ecclesiastical character, assigning a central place among their educational subjects to the Law of God. This religious, ecclesiastical character, imposed on our school by the force of things, determines its other sharp feature - the curriculum, which differs from the curriculum of all foreign schools. The Church Slavonic language and church singing should take pride of place in the Russian school curriculum. The study of the Church Slavonic language, constituting in itself an excellent mental gymnastics, should give life and meaning to the study of the Russian language, give unshakable strength to the literacy acquired at school. Participation in church reading and singing will further open up broad horizons of religious and artistic development for our people. In recent days, it has become common to talk about the need for the people's theater. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to develop aesthetic tastes among the people. But it is not in the sphere of detached art that one must seek to satisfy the aesthetic needs of the people, but in the sphere of their practical needs, in the sphere of their everyday life. The Russian people are deeply religious people, and the first of their practical needs, along with satisfying bodily needs, is communication with the Divine. This need, the source and condition of all human art, must first of all be satisfied and can be satisfied only with the help of art. He does not need a theater, but a church worthy of its high purpose - a school that reveals to him the treasures of the church. It is not enough to give the people artistic impressions in stage performances; it is necessary to stimulate their mental and artistic activity. It is precisely this kind of activity that our church opens up wide scope for every person who has received a real, and not imaginary, elementary education, which is possible in a Russian rural school. This activity consists of church reading and singing. Church reading is an art that has its own traditions, its own unwritten laws - an art that requires both natural talent and many years of practice - an art that can be brought to a high degree of perfection, the most popular of the arts. But even wider scope for truly folk artistic activity is provided by church singing. Anyone who has even the most limited vocal means, even the most mediocre musical ability, can participate in it. These inclinations, so widespread among our people, completely insufficient for solitary artistic activity, in choral singing acquire a deep meaning, a high price, and give access to the highest spheres of human art. To evoke and develop this activity means to meet the needs of the Russian people. Take a closer look - the folk song, the folk tale, these tenacious echoes of a different faith, a different worldview, are fading and dying out among the people. Among the painful monotony of a gray, working life, among the lies and vulgarity wafting from the half-educated layer of the rural population, where is the light for the soul of our peasant, where is the response to those aspirations that lie at the bottom of this soul, which constitute its most essential essence? In a church holiday, bringing him a half-distorted echo of a wondrous ancient chant; in a fabulous, but warmed by faith, story of a dark wanderer, in a trip to a distant monastery, where his prayer finds sounds worthy of it, in reading the Holy Scriptures or the Lives of the Saints. The school must give the Russian people the means to use all these treasures of spiritual life. And if at the present time, in moments of awakening of conscious Christianity in our people, the rival of the church is the tavern; if drunken revelry too often drowns out any movement of the spirit in him; If there is not a quick and decisive turn in this struggle, then eternal shame to all of us, people of leisure and prosperity, thought and knowledge! Shame and curse on our dead education!... The third feature of our rural schools (northern strip) is due to purely external reasons, but has an immeasurable influence on its internal life. Nine-tenths of the students in our rural schools do not go to school, but live in it. Our villages are so scattered, our students are so small and so poorly dressed that they can go to school every day from only one, many two, or three villages. Everyone living in more remote villages comes for a whole week, with a supply of bread, and sits at school all day... This circumstance turns a rural school from an educational institution into an educational one. School takes over a child's entire life and becomes a great force that leaves an indelible mark on him. Which one? This depends on the spirit of the school, on its organization, on the people who manage it... One thing is certain, that for people of leisure and wealth, thought and knowledge, it is not enough to build school premises, provide them with benefits, and assign licensed teachers to them. We ourselves need to live the spiritual and moral life that we want to inspire in the students of our schools... S. A. Rachinsky himself was the first to follow this call. Having built an excellent school building in his ancestral Tatev, S. A. “having abandoned all his habits, all the comfort and peace of a civilized life among his relatives, moved from the manor house to a school and began to live the same life with his students”... For those who “studied” school work from S. A. Rachinsky, his image made a charming impression. One of them writes: “Sergei Alexandrovich’s invincible passion, his inspired teaching could not help but captivate us. We saw that he worked incessantly all year round, we saw the unquenchable fire of his selfless service, and did we feel sorry for ourselves?.. Among my memories of the years of my teaching in Glukhov, of this competition in tirelessness, the memory of this delight in work is one of the most precious "... Countess E. B. Efimovskaya “labored” and “studied” in Tatev. And of course, she learned a lot here. The ecclesiastical character of Lesninsky schools is not just a sign made by external authorities - it serves as an expression of its internal conviction. Observing these schools and, in particular, listening to the beautiful church singing, for which Lesna can truly be famous, you involuntarily recall the school views of the Tatev ascetic. With these instructions I do not think I can exhaust all the influences under which the soul of the future abbess of the Lesninsky monastery was formed, but it seems that the most important of them are noted. Now I will try to sketch an outline of the external events of her life - the events with which Providence prepared her for Lesninsky service. The father of E. B. Efimovskaya served in the Smolensk province in elections and was the leader of the nobility of the Gzhatsk district for 23 years. When his economic position was shaken and the hereditary estate of Klementievo passed into the treasury, he entered the civil service (in Kalisz), which gave grounds to retire from his previous electoral service. He moved to his new place of service, and his family moved to Moscow. Soon he became apoplectic; his mother, having collected what she had, went to him, and Evgenia Borisovna and her sister were left in Moscow, left to their own devices and without means. I needed to get on my own two feet and start working life. Both in terms of natural energy and development, E.B. was fully prepared for this. The head of the Nikolaev Institute offered her a position as a French teacher, an offer that was accepted. However, E.B. did not stay here long - no more than a year. For her, the official patterns of teaching and educational work were shy and the atmosphere of the prim relations between female service personnel was difficult. Meanwhile, the mother and her sick father returned to Moscow, a second blow followed, and the father died. E.B. was looking for “her” business, in which her soul could find scope. On the advice of teachers at the Nikolaev Institute, she opened a boarding school for twelve girls to prepare for the gymnasium. Here, for the first time, her pedagogical inclinations and teaching and educational techniques found application. Particular attention was paid to education, both moral and physical. Daily washing was practiced. Educational work with E.B. was shared by her sister and one hired teacher. A widely-staged business could not bring anything materially except losses and debts. In the fourth year, a circumstance occurred that forced this business to be stopped. The apartment for the boarding house was changed. Late at night E.B. was packing books. The lamp was on the floor. Immersed in work, E.B. stopped too close to the lamp: her dress caught fire. The maid girl who came running to the scream was so lost that she could not provide any help. In vain E.B. shouted to her: “fur coat, fur coat.” She didn’t understand anything. Covered in flames, E.B. was forced, without losing her presence of mind, to go into the front room, take a fur coat and cover herself with it. The fire was extinguished, but the legs were terribly damaged. Eleven months of severe suffering followed. The wounds that opened on the legs stubbornly resisted medical care. My legs cramped. At the first signs of recovery, the patient was transported to the village. “I learned,” says M. Ekaterina, “all the charm of village silence. It was as if I was waking up after several years spent in feverish activity.”... Over time, no traces of the illness remained; but E.B. has developed an aversion to meat and still cannot stand the smell of smoke. This misfortune happened in 77. The boarding business has stopped. Need forced me to look for new activities. It should be noted that E.B.’s mother remarried her husband. E.B. successively prepares one boy for school in Saratov, raises two orphans, a brother and sister, in St. Petersburg, then from Moscow accompanies one sick girl abroad - to Menton and Paris. With the patient, in addition to E.B., there was a Russian doctor who received 12,000 rubles. per year, and a girl for services. The doctor, observing E.B.’s honest and disinterested attitude to the case, could not hide his surprise and told her: “Your place is in the monastery.” This is the first indication in E.B.’s life of her later activities. In Paris, E.B. met I.S. Turgenev... When E.B. then settled in St. Petersburg again, studying exclusively literature, she had to deeply feel the tragic event of 1881... First, in the company of her brother’s student comrades, she became closely acquainted with the liberal trends of Russian thought. Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev were close to her thoughts. The sad event of 1981 produced a sharp change in her sympathies... After a while, she received a place at the Catherine Institute. But she didn't work here for long. Through the doctor with whom she accompanied the sick woman abroad, she received an offer from the Right Reverend John to head the junior classes of the diocesan school, located in the Velikobudishchi Monastery, whose abbess was also the head of the school. Within the walls of this monastery school, Eva’s pedagogical abilities were developed once again and more widely than before. B., - and moreover, in a direction not only humanitarian, but Christian-humane. Until now, she remembers with a shudder what she met at this school. There was unlimited dirt here; the children, one might say, were abandoned. And this was a completely natural fruit of a one-sided ascetic attitude towards children and dirt. “If,” says M. Catherine, children are recognized as little devils, not the joy and adornment of our lives, not the beginning and guarantee of the kingdom of God, but an obstacle to soul salvation and a reminder of human sinfulness; if dirt is considered a gift from God and a gift to God; if they exhaust themselves for the sake of God; then what is the basis for joyfully and lovingly caring for children, carefully washing and feeding them? " And Evgenia Borisovna raised a decisive fight against this kingdom of dirt. Meeting distrust of the whims of the “countess” and ridicule of the new order, she began to wash the children herself and comb their heads, taught them to be neat, watched them, how they got up and how they lay down, watched over the preparation of the table. We had to deal with strange difficulties encountered in every little detail. The girls were given water to drink at night from an unclean well, located not far from the children's room, although in the same monastery there was a good well, but at a more or less significant distance from the school, E. B. repeatedly asked the abbess to give orders on this issue. Finally, she was given the abbess’s answer: “We don’t have extra hands and time to carry water from afar; if you want, carry it yourself.” And E.B. began to carry water. And only this measure had an effect on the abbess. The same thing was repeated in the question of student dresses. They wore ugly bras, which were cut by the mother of the treasurer in accordance with the monastic ideal: the front side of the bras was shortened and, on the contrary, the back was lengthened, so that all the girls looked hunchbacked. They avoided, you see, any reminder that girls were future women. They taught them - children, girls - to stand above panache. And when E.B., indignant in her aesthetic sense, began to fuss, they answered her: “good deed, cut and sew it yourself.” And she cut and sewed dresses for 108 girls in her own way. Another side of the monastery school that attracted the involuntary attention of a fresh person was the gloomy attitude of the students and teachers towards the monastery authorities. The abbess, many of whom are often such that they can barely sign their name, cannot exercise authority in the school. Meanwhile, the monastic authorities insist on authority in forms that may offend human dignity. Low bows and kissing of the hand are required: all this is difficult and offensive when there is no moral respect for the face, when internal dignity does not correspond to external honor. All this created a gloomy atmosphere of hypocrisy and petty struggle. For teachers, the question of kissing hands was both a continuous subject of conversation and a touchstone of their civic courage. When meeting with friends, each one hastened to declare: “I didn’t kiss you.” The location of the school in a monastery was decidedly demoralizing for both students and teachers. E.B., with her characteristic energy, set about resolving this Gordian knot. She was helped by the religious feeling that grew stronger in her during this time. Having become close to the teachers, who greeted her with distrust at first, and to her students, E.B. treated herself and taught others to treat the monastics with respect. Already by her arrival, the question was floating in the monastery air: “Will the countess kiss the abbess’s hand?” And when she respectfully kissed the abbess’s hand, it was as if a weight had been lifted from the monastery sisters’ shoulders. Her example also had a beneficial effect on the other side. The newcomer's reputation was finally established in the eyes of the nuns when she bowed to the ground in the church of the treasurer's mother, who was mortally offended for the lack of trust in her cutting art... However, under such conditions, activity that required an enormous expenditure of energy and did not produce appropriate results, encountering annoying difficulties at every step, could not continue for long. Narrow powers did not correspond too well to efficiency. E.B. moved to Moscow and lived with her mother for some time. Then, at the shelter, A.F. Aksakova replaced the sick warden. Her rapprochement with the Aksakovs dates back to this time. In St. Petersburg, at the direction of Countess Tolstoy, who was a member of the Humane Society, E.B. took part in the charitable activities of the Society. Then she studied at the Tatev school under the guidance of S. A. Rachinsky, with whom she subsequently corresponded. The idea of ​​devoting oneself to some task entirely, of completely surrendering to the service of one’s neighbor, took on more and more definite features: E. B. decided to become a monk. “I’m going to the monastery,” she told her loved ones. "Where?" - they asked her. “Where God will point”... At this time, Archbishop. Leonty developed the idea of ​​an educational and charitable monastery for the purpose of missionary influence on the Uniates and those who persisted; Lesna was planned as the location for the monastery. Archbishop Leonty was looking for an educated and energetic abbess who would be able to put his idea into flesh and blood. “There is a hive, but there is no queen,” he used to say. They pointed him to E.B. An offer followed, which was accepted with enthusiasm. Lesna has a shrine - an icon of the Mother of God. According to legend 1, this icon is revealed. It was found by shepherds about 200 years ago, precisely in 1683 on September 14, on a pear tree. The icon was placed in the Bukovych Orthodox Church. But soon, already in 1686, the Poles “by deception and violence” took the icon from the Orthodox and at the place where the icon appeared, in Lesna, they founded the Pauline monastery at the beginning of the 18th century, which for a long time became the center of Latin propaganda. In 1863, the Paulines were removed from the monastery for participating in the rebellion, and in 1875 the Lesna church was transferred to the Orthodox department. In 1884, it was allowed to establish in Lesna, according to the thoughts of the archbishop. Leontiya, Orthodox Holy Mother of God women's community. On October 20, 1885, E. B. Efimovskaya arrived in Lesna with five sisters and two girls. At first, only a community was founded, which was ruled by E.B., not yet bound by monastic vows. The community was transformed into a cenobitic monastery on August 26, 1889. By the nature of its activities and general structure, the Lesninsky monastery is the same as the Virovsky monastery. Lesna, like Virov, brings spiritual enlightenment and medical care to the local population. Lesna is raising 356 children - 245 of them are students of a nine-year church-teacher school, 23 students of a vocational school and 21 of an agricultural school, 67 youngsters, including 19 “sliders”. The Lesna school is a whole system of sequential schools: a literacy school with a 3-year course, a two-grade school with five departments, a second-grade three-year school, and a church-teacher school, also three years. The three years of literacy school correspond to the first three years of a two-year school; Having passed these three classes, some students continue in the two senior departments of a two-year school, while others, the best, enter a second-grade school. This latter produces teachers for literacy schools, but the best students continue their studies in the church teachers' school, which, therefore, has a generally nine-year course, with an almost gymnasium program, and prepares teachers for parochial schools. Pupils of the lower classes, who show less inclination towards theoretical learning, are transferred to practical agricultural and craft schools. The junior classes are at the same time the place of practical teaching activities for students of the senior church teaching classes. Hardly any other of our monasteries contains within its walls as many intelligent nuns as Lesninsky. The eight teachers of this monastery are all our own. The salary they receive goes entirely to the monastery's treasury and is the only monetary benefit from the treasury to the monastery. However, the monastery currently has up to 370 acres of land and conducts a fairly wide-ranging economy, which is a necessary condition for the existence of agricultural and, partly, craft schools. And all students, to the extent possible, take part in household chores. Another type of charitable activity of the Lesninsky monastery is medical assistance to the surrounding population. All hospital work, medical, pharmaceutical, and paramedical, is managed by the nurses themselves, who never seek the assistance of doctors. At the head of this matter is the treasurer of the monastery, M. Nina. The monastery hospital, satisfying the monastery’s own needs, receives several thousand outside outpatients a year, to whom it also provides medicine free of charge. There is an infirmary. At present, a huge infirmary building has been built and is already being finished inside, in which there will be permanent 43 beds - 35 for monastery residents, of which 10 are for infectious patients, and 8 beds for the people. We started exploring the monastery the next morning, from the garden and ponds. When it was founded, the monastery was surrounded by a swamp, which only brought harm both hygienically and economically. It needed to be drained. An engineer was invited who, for a “decent fee,” built a pond, which, however, did not achieve its purpose. I had to correct and complete this matter on my own. Mother Nina took care of him... I must say a few words about this assistant and friend of M. Catherine. Mother Nina is a “mythical” person in the Lesninsky monastery. Just as the spiritual structure of the monastery is entirely the creation and work of Mother Catherine, so the entire technique of the economic and charitable life of the monastery is connected with the name of Mother Nina. Her omniscience, versatility of activity and inexhaustible energy are amazing and even border on incredible. Starting from the ponds, we observed the connection of her name with all sides and with all corners of the monastery. Large buildings are currently underway in it - in addition to the already completed hospital, a large agricultural school is being built and some buildings are being carried out in the barnyard: mother Nina took on the architectural work, including drawing up plans and general supervision of the execution of work. She is in charge of all hospital affairs: she is the only doctor and has assistants only in pharmacist and paramedic work. As the treasurer of the monastery, she is in charge of the entire monastic economy and the entire household. When she joined us, and we stayed with her for several hours at a time, we were amazed at the number of different requests addressed to her, and the instructions she gave, and the answers: the farm manager and the head of the barnyard came to her, she gave orders in the kitchen, and in the dining room, and in the field, and the painters. And all this with such authority, with such knowledge of the matter and with such attention to every detail! M. Nina (in the world Natalya Grigorievna Kasakovskaya) experienced a lot of grief in her youth... However, I am not authorized to convey what I heard from her on this subject... She learned medicine from her brother, a doctor. She went to the monastery against the will of her father - after putting all her brothers and sisters on their feet (she lost her mother early). Mystically minded; her soul rises to visions. So she saw her father at the moment of his death with amazing clarity and with details that were later confirmed by eyewitnesses. This vision alone keeps her soul in a constant religious mood. But her soul also burns with tender, active love. Her energy is amazing especially in view of the fact that she underwent several difficult surgical operations, endured much physical suffering and saw death at close range. Now she is an irreplaceable assistant to Mother Catherine, who completely provided her with the entire technical side of monastic life. But she is not only her assistant, she is her friend in the highest sense of the word. They are mother and daughter. Despite her ability to work beyond all expectations, M. Nina lives on medications and needs constant attention. With maternal tenderness, M. Ekaterina will remind her to take the drops, throw a shawl over her shoulders at the right moment... They say that they need each other, and to the observer this seems an axiom. They think together, feel together. M. Nina built a whole system of ponds connected to each other and to the river: the water in them is constantly flowing. All the ponds are hidden in a vast garden that shows signs of careful care everywhere. All this is not only hygienic and economical, but also artistically beautiful. Excavation and gardening work is still ongoing. Then we visited the hospital and schools. At the hospital we found M. Nina and her assistants preparing medicines for which several outpatients were waiting: the appointment had just ended... From the hospital we went to the new infirmary building, where the last plastering and painting work was underway. The building plan was created with knowledge of the hospital business and with love for it. Every little detail is foreseen. Particular attention was paid to the isolation of contagious patients: for them there is a special procedure and everything they need - a first aid kit, a kitchen... By the way, the local need was also taken into account in the design of the hospital: children who are newly admitted and returning from vacation usually suffer from skin diseases. There are special rooms for such patients... In general, the huge infirmary is richly designed. There is an operating room and a room for preparing medicinal herbs, etc. But the attention of a non-specialist visitor is primarily attracted to little things that testify to the extreme care of the building manager: for example, the stoves were given pyramidal tops so as not to trap dust; The corners of the walls and floors are covered with plaster, so that dust from the brush will not be saved in the corners. Etc. etc. The large school building has a complex internal structure. Many classrooms in different departments of the school, rooms with classroom aids - a library, a physics room, bedrooms, washrooms, rooms for young children... The general impression is the same as in Virov. The only difference is that now only girls study in Lesna. The visitor cannot help but notice the healthy appearance of the children and their relaxed, trusting attitude towards their elders. It is easy to assume that older children have sufficient mental development. This is not only evident from their answers, but also from the school program. Obviously, they will take a lot from their alma mater into the life of the region. It is also necessary to mention the custom of the monastery to send children on summer holidays to the villages - and not only to their relatives, but also to those who take in orphans. In this way, the children do not break ties with the village from which they were taken and in which they will live. The monastery prepares them for the people. He prepares them for a missionary purpose and their upbringing is church-based, but not one-sided ascetic... We saw all the children assembled (except for the smallest ones) in the dining room. The closely spaced tables were surrounded by children, like a swarm of bees, working diligently at their wooden cups. When we entered, the barley soup had already been finished, and the attendants were serving pumpkin with milk. The dishes were prepared nourishingly and tasty. The children did not pay attention to the visitors, who were quite absorbed in one thing. In the afternoon, we observed children in the field, half a mile from the monastery, harvesting potatoes. The worker made a furrow with a plow, to which a gear was attached, which quickly rotated perpendicular to the furrow and scattered the torn potatoes. The children, placed in their areas, picked it up. The work was brisk. The weather was good, the evening sun was shining brightly... Returning from the field, we went into a bread shop. There is a lot of work here: up to 20 poods of flour is baked for bread every day. We found a curious procedure for stirring the dough: it is done here using a corresponding device, which is driven by a horse slowly circling in front of the bread shop window... But it is not this cunning device that makes the bread room remarkable. This building, which in addition to the bread store also houses a laundry, provided the first hospitality in Lesna to the newly arrived Mother Catherine, who then still had a secular name. You just need to look at this building now to clearly imagine the situation in which the Lesninsky business was started. Repeatedly renovated since then, the building has a gloomy and pitiful appearance; even as a room for bread and laundry, it is now tolerated due to extreme need. What was it like at the time when the founder of the monastery arrived in Lesna? It formerly housed the commune administration. Low ceilings with threatening beams, windows that barely rise above ground level and decorated with iron bars, an earthen floor, damp air... As was her habit, M. Ekaterina slept with the windows open, through which frogs entered the room... The poverty is terrible... Before leaving for Lesna, Evgenia Borisovna visited K. P. Pobedonostsev, who received her with the usual courtesy and excellent attention to her plans. When she started talking about financial assistance for this case, G. Chief Prosecutor hastened to calm her down with significant words: “Work. If there is a case, there will be funds.” That is, - M. Ekaterina commented with a sigh, - first do the job, and then we will give you the funds... And in this poverty I had to work more than one job, I had to do many things and keep up with everything. While setting up the monastery, conducting extensive correspondence, creating plans for buildings and teaching and educational work, Evgenia Borisovna herself carried firewood and water, looked after the first cow she bought, and - above all - “discharged the duties” of a psalm-reader. And these responsibilities were not easy. O. Sofronovich was a strict old man, a lover of regulations, and quick-tempered. Services began early and were long. I even had to conduct church writing and deal with the consistory. It could not have happened without voluntary spying on the part of “certain from Jacob.” “Were those five sisters who arrived with you your active assistants?” I asked M. Ekaterina. “They left me very soon.” One got married, and the rest showed no inclination towards a new business. Among them there was one of the usual typical mood: she followed the strict letter of the regulations, which did not prevent her from loving food, and did nothing... The emerging community also had enemies. Where the service buildings of the monastery are now located, there was a Catholic village. The Catholic peasants, embittered, harmed the newcomers in all legal and illegal ways, and especially annoyed them with theft... Catherine worked for a long time until she got them evicted to the plot of land allotted to them. This, of course, is too incomplete a description of the feat of Christian love that the abbess of the Lesninsky monastery undertook. And yet it is easy to recreate the picture of the initial days of the Lesna community using these strokes. It can be understood that the work presented required M. Catherine to exert all her strength and gave her complete moral satisfaction. She felt that she was now doing a real, necessary thing, and it seemed to her that “all her previous life she had lived only the day before.” Much has been done by the Lesna abbess during the years she spent in her monastery. Currently there are more than 200 assistants around her, many of whom are intelligent. Hard years of continuous hard work apparently left no traces on her. She is now over 50 years old, but her vigor and mobility are extraordinary. How many times we walked with her on a long day through the garden, field, buildings and living quarters with permanent stairs - and everywhere we could barely keep up with her. No less physical energy was preserved in M. Catherine’s soul: liveliness and joy. Talking with her is a real pleasure. Telling her entire long life, everything she had endured, reliving everything again in her memory, she involuntarily, in her facial expression, in the sound of her voice, and in her words, revealed such heartfelt sympathy for all the people she had to encounter that it was impossible not to feel the whole depth of her heartfelt life. M. Ekaterina also likes to talk about theological issues... It was just as interesting to talk with M. Nina and the sisters who are in charge of the school. All these are people who have changed their minds a lot - and each of them is ready to lay down their soul for their faith. This creates a curious atmosphere of living thoughts, living deeds, which is so different from the environment of dead books and other people's words. Here they think in their own way, they think their own thoughts, they think with their heads and hearts. M. Catherine gathered them around her and gave them a job. And how many people are hiding everywhere, just waiting for a living cause to begin somewhere, eager to join a good beginning. M. Ekaterina’s personality leaves its mark on everything. Even churches testify to her spirit, her constant impulses towards light and love. So the cornice of the church in the name of St. Sophia, at the monastery refectory, is decorated with an evangelical inscription, which begins in the altar, goes around the entire church and returns to the altar: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another: as you have loved, that you also love yourselves. Everyone understands this, as my disciples are by nature, if they have love among themselves. No one has greater sowing love, but whoever lays down his life for his friends.” The miniature church in the name of the martyrs of the union, Anthony, John and Eustathius, is a church of light. The Gospel in the hands of the Savior, on the right side of the altar, is revealed in the words: “I am the light of the world.” This icon of the Savior, as well as all the icons that make up the altar barrier, are painted on glass and illuminated during the day by the altar windows, and at night by lamps placed in such a way that the same light effect is obtained... The Church in honor of the Resurrection is striking in its unique structure: it is only an altar with choirs, placed on a high crypt. The entire small wooden building is in the Russian style, decorated with a patterned dome, and the entire church is colored. From the large square in front of this church-altar, three staircases lead to it - the middle one is for the clergy, and two side ones are intended for the communicants, of whom there are several thousand on major monastic holidays: they go up one staircase and go down the other. The Trinity and Vozdvizhenskaya churches are ancient churches. Of these, the first, small one, has a well inside, which, according to legend, was formed in the place where the pear with the icon stood. The structure of the church is simple, but looking into the wide and deep well, in which the dome of the church is reflected, is a rare pleasure. On one side of this church there is an extension with reservoirs for water from a well and windows through which, during a festive gathering of people, water is released to those who wish to receive it. The water is considered healing. On the other side there is a row of 8 confessional booths, to which people approach from the square before communion. The main monastery church of Vozdvizhensky, a former Catholic church, can be called magnificent due to its original internal structure. Four columns divide it into three parts - a wide middle one and two side ones. The altar of the middle part is placed very high and a wide, majestic staircase leads to it. The iconostasis, however, is low and the Lesninsky shrine, installed high on the rear altar wall, is visible from the church. It is noteworthy that the altar does not reach the back wall and, separated from it by a space of about two arshins, is fenced off by a wooden lattice. This is not noticeable from the church, and even when you are in the altar you will not immediately notice that you cannot approach the icon. But this space behind the altar has the appearance of a corridor along which people walk, through the side doors, and during the service, without disturbing it at all, even imperceptibly. Meanwhile, the icon comes down and the pilgrims, usually crawling along this corridor on their knees, venerate the shrine. At the entrance, across the entire width of the main part of the church, there are choirs. They sing well in Lesna. We were in the St. Sophia Church for the early liturgy. But besides that, we heard Lesninsky singing - in the main monastery church. An early day passed, rich in impressions and many thoughts. The sisters were also tired from their usual hard work... The majestic church was sparsely lit by a few candles from the choir, where the singing sisters were seated. There were only a few of us below: M. Ekaterina, M. Nina and the two of us - in front of the rear right column and several sisters at the left entrance doors... The harmonious sounds of Christian prayer rushed from above and filled the dark bulk of the beautiful church. The timid wax light was lost in the thick darkness and strong sounds alone took possession of the whole soul. In this prayer one could hear loud praise to God, who gave the strength to bear these labors, and the tears of human grief trembled in it, and love sounded, powerful and joyful, and tender hope shone through, at times turning into the impatient call of the coming Lord. And when the touching words of the song were heard, “Behold the bridegroom comes at midnight, and blessed is the servant who will be found watchful," I felt how appropriate these words were here - and my heart beat hard from the influx of excitement associated with the Christian issue. From time to time, a quiet whisper. Nina asked: “Isn’t it true that they sing here completely, completely differently than in other places?” And it was clear that they sing differently here because they feel here differently and live differently than everywhere else. And I eagerly listened to the prayer. I wanted to penetrate into its depths and discover from it what lies at the very bottom of these workers’ hearts, what may be hidden from their own clear thoughts in the distance of the soul... I do not understand the technical beauty of music and singing, and their effect on me is reflected in the intensified experience of my own thoughts and my own feelings, often too far from the words of the author and the thoughts of the composer... And in those unforgettable moments I thought my thoughts. I thought: why is faith not heard in this prayer - that powerful and firm faith that threatened to crush the world and defeat its evil? Here, in this corner, waves of worldly troubles and suffering reach. The few victims of worldly life who wash ashore here are raised by merciful sisters: they wash the wounds of the unfortunate, feed the hungry, and nurse poor children. But why are the waves of this worldly sea so formidable and indestructible? Why is it so vast, and why is this “helicopter city” so small and so weak? Why does it seem that these sisters emerged from the foam of human suffering, they are torn from God, like shooting stars, by the power of grief and troubles, they themselves are suppressed by this power? He carried the young soul in his arms For a world of sadness and tears... She is beautiful - this soul, beautiful and divine, but why is she a delicate flower on the strong tree of the world, why does she so passionately call for the coming Bridegroom, why is she so eager to leave the world to which she is alien? Where is the faith that would itself go out into the world and see it at its feet, would go out into the world with the hope of changing it, with the consciousness of its power to recreate the world, to flood the entire surface of the earth with its love? Isn't that what Christianity is all about? Is it now only in the tender female soul and no longer has masculine vigor?.. The Christian leaders I described in previous essays are developing activities that take the form of personal Christian charity, the feat of serving one’s neighbor, sacrificing personal life on the altar of human suffering and needs. Further, from the next essay, I will describe another type of Christian life and activity - the establishment of a living Christian community, a community of people seeking the truth. In descriptions of the first type of Christian activity, I limit myself to the persons and institutions depicted above, because I consider this type to be sufficiently outlined in its most prominent representatives, but this does not mean that these few representatives exhaust the actual number of workers of this type. I want to indicate to readers what kind of living people there are who still perform their quiet exploits today, but I do not take upon myself the task of listing everyone, how many such figures reality itself knows. There are more of them, much more than those mentioned above. I say this not in the sense of a groundless assumption, but on the basis of the information at my disposal. So I could point to the Pyukhtitsa Assumption Convent 2. It is located in the Estonian province, Wesenberg district, 25 versts from the Ievve Baltic railway station. d., two versts from the village of Pyukhtitsa, on Bogoroditskaya Mountain; has existed since August 15, 1891. At the monastery there are: Pyukhtitsa two-class parish school with a boarding school; Ovsovskaya auxiliary school; free public library; an orphanage in which during the reporting year August 1, 1903 – August 1, 1904 there were 18 girls aged 7 to 15 years; hospital and infirmary. Princess E. D. Shakhovskaya, the wife of the former Estonian governor, Prince, takes a close part in the charitable institutions of the monastery. S. V. Shakhovsky, buried in the monastery... I could further name the Pereslavl Fedorov Monastery 3, which has existed since the 16th century, and as a women’s monastery since 1667; located about 4 versts from Pereslavl, on the shore of the lake. The monastery's charitable and labor activities especially developed under the current leadership of the monastery, Abbess Eugenia (since 1875). At the monastery (and its three hermitages) there are 4 parochial schools and several small homeless orphan girls are raised. The monastery is famous for its handicrafts. The monastic sisters - and there are up to 400 of them - weave linens, make rugs and carpets, sew with satin stitch and gold, embroider banners and icons, make all kinds of flowers and models, sew vestments, linen and shoes, make soap, make bricks and pots of various styles, make up paints themselves, dye and whitewash, bind books; The sisters who do not want to do needlework do agricultural work for the monastery. The monastery amazes the visitor with the efficiency and tirelessness of the sisters. I could name the Pechenga Monastery in the Arkhangelsk province, on the Murmansk coast. This monastery is extremely remarkable. I don’t know if there is any printed information about him. Founded in difficult climatic conditions, the monastery, under the leadership of an energetic archimandrite, launched quite a wide cultural activity, coming from this side to the aid of the local population. A monastery, for example, seeing the hopeless need of some pathetic Lapp, gives him a cow, which remains with him until she becomes useless from hunger and cold, then the monastery takes her away and nurses her again... One could name many loners. Eg. famous sister Varvara 4. Having lost two husbands, she lived in the Kiev Intercession Monastery under the leadership of the Grand Duchess, then worked in the St. Petersburg Society of Zealots of Faith and Charity, and finally in 1897 settled in the village of Lyubani Novgor. lips and devoted herself to the service of tramps, whom Petersburg throws out in abundance. She opened a donation canteen for them, helps them with clothes and shoes, treats the sick, consoles the penitents at the foot of the cross, reads the gospel to them, talks with them, and organizes common prayers with singing. She deeply feels the plight of these people with a “pass”, thrown out of St. Petersburg and not tolerated in the village. “These unfortunate people,” she says, “outcasts,” are superfluous to everyone, they interfere with everyone. They have only one way out of this situation - to end up in hard labor... So should we really turn away from these unfortunates forever? Should we forget that they too bear the image of God? Don't they have heart, soul and feeling? Aren't their eyes crying? Doesn’t their body suffer from the cold and their stomach doesn’t ask for food?.. And how pitiful, dirty, cold, hungry, and miserable they are. In winter, they come to the door, huddle, shudder in their rags, shift from foot to foot in supports, in torn felt boots, in shoes, in bast shoes... Oh, my God, you think, these are people, people! After all, You redeemed them all equally with Your suffering - how can I dare to judge their poor? After all, these are Your “little ones” who ask for so little... At this time, it seems that there is nothing I wouldn’t give to them... Sister Varvara has to go through a lot of threatening stories with these tramps, who are not always kind and gentle... From the recent past, it would be a crime not to recall the “saint” Dr. Haas (1780–1853) in these pages. A luxuriously published and artistically composed book by A.F. Koni is dedicated to him... This foreigner, having arrived in Russia in his youth, remained in it forever and devoted himself entirely to the martyrs of the Russian prison. He tried to make their lives easier, remove unnecessary suffering from them, reduce the inevitable, bring possible consolation to criminals, soften the suffering of the sick, revive and support the person in each of them. What he did to combat the cruel shackling of transit prisoners, the poor maintenance of prison buildings, etc. - all this is difficult to recount in a few lines. He worked tirelessly, communicated with the powers that be, fell on his knees before them, shed tears, begged from the rich, convinced, complained, threatened, suffered insults, insults... Visiting each batch of transit workers several times, he brought them provisions, asked them about their needs, over the course of several days got to know each of them, kissed them at parting, and saw them off on foot several miles from Moscow. When visiting sick prisoners, he sat on the edge of the patient’s bed, entered into a conversation with him, often kissed the sick, brought them pretzels and delicacies, and celebrated Christ with everyone on Easter. He loved to make donations to prisons “from an unknown charitable person,” and he gave credit cards to poor patients at home along with a prescription. Of the larger fortune that he had amassed in the first years of his medical practice in Moscow, by the day of his death there was nothing left and he had to be buried at the city expense. “The surest path to happiness,” Haaz wrote to his pupil Norshin, is not in the desire to be happy, but in making others happy. To do this, you need to listen to the needs of people, take care of them, not be afraid of work, helping them with advice and deed, in a word, love them, and the more often you show this love, the stronger it will become, just as the power of a magnet is preserved and increases from the fact that it is continuously in action.” Haaz himself lived by this rule. A number of figures of this kind stand before me. In this gallery of living souls there are names from all walks of life and position - titled persons, merchants, rural teachers and a seminarian teacher... I think that from the descriptions presented, to which I limited myself, it is clear to the reader what a living soul is. Living souls are bearers of Christian love. To achieve life on this path, you need to surrender to love completely, without looking back, you need to see happiness in deeds of love, you need love for your neighbor to inspire a person, inspire him. Whoever counts good deeds arithmetically, who says: I’ll give this, and that to myself, who evaluates a good deed legally and expects a reward for it, does not understand what it means to live by love. Christian love is not understandable as a duty, an obligation - it is understandable only as inspiration. Debt is for the slave, but in the kingdom of Christ they are free. The inspiration of love gives a complete and sufficient reward to its bearers... I agree that the organizers of Lesna and Virova, Doctor Gaaz, sister Varvara are the most vibrant carriers of living life, making it possible to describe their activities expressively and clearly, to point out it as a fact of our life, that they are not limited to the number of living people. You can not have such high-profile affairs, you can act in a more modest environment and still live a real life. You can put your whole soul into the humble occupation of a rural teacher, a sister of mercy, and live as fully as Doctor Haass or Sister Anna... But I insist that the real fullness of life in the sphere of personal achievement can only be revealed on the basis of Christian love. Let the shades be different and the appearance be varied and the words sound different each time, but the essence of the matter is love. What touches me, touches me, delights me, draws me to myself is the inspiration of love, its self-forgetfulness, its joy. And we are all brought up in such feelings, we are all saturated with Christianity, filled with its air, fanned by its breath - and we cannot leave its atmosphere, we cannot imagine ourselves on the moon. I’m not talking about the dogma of Macarius, not about the differences between Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, not about the boundaries between the church, schism and sectarianism, I’m talking about the Christian spirit, about the evangelical worldview, which we learn not from the books that fill our air. We cannot imagine human feats not in the radiance of the rays of love... Nemirovich-Danchenko leads stories about “cheerful people.” Female students, students, the street, the attic, the police, the janitor - a familiar frame of everyday life. But what shines in this frame is all of it – love, God’s love for one’s neighbor. In this hubbub, in this bustle, in this St. Petersburg fog, in this diversity of the police street, quiet words are heard, covering everything, penetrating everything, spiritualizing, comprehending: “You can’t reason like that. If you look back at every step and tremble for your skin, it’s better not to live like that. After all, we are not really oysters... People are brothers. If you hit one, it must hurt your neighbor. For each other, and God for everyone. And then, who cares for the truth if not the young? If we now learn to be silent and to endure, there is nothing to say, then we will be good." You see, cheerful people are the same living souls. It’s nothing that you can’t see rags here, or Anna’s black cassock, or the old dress of Dr. Haass, that you can’t hear excerpts from Chrysostom here - the essence of the matter is the same. Our heroism is the heroism of love, our life is the life of love. And outside of its rays we cannot imagine life. We don’t know how else we can fill the boundlessness that opens before us, the freedom in which we feel, those loud words that are heard so much in our lives. Looking into this abyss of freedom, having heard enough of these loud words, one of the heroes of “The Bottom” says: “Brother, I am sometimes afraid. Understand? I’m afraid... Because what’s next?.. Everything is like in a dream... Why was I born?.. And this question: “what’s next” fundamentally undermines any positive-individualistic philosophy. And until the answer to this question is given, until the abyss is filled, until the content for lofty words is found, until then every desire for freedom, every protest is vulgar and disgusting. “Sometimes you think, you think. And suddenly everything will disappear from you, as if it will fall through somewhere. In the soul then, like in a cellar, it is dark, damp and completely empty. There is nothing at all! It’s even scary... as if you are not a person, but a bottomless ravine”... And in this helplessness in the face of inner bottomlessness, cultured people come together with tramps. Having mastered complete freedom, having won for himself complete freedom from social shackles, the tramp stopped in bewilderment before the terrifying emptiness and bottomlessness. But even a cultured person - how can he justify his protests, his revolutions, except the poetry of love - selfless love for the people? Children breaking the shackles of a bourgeois family in pursuit of the light of science, spouses throwing off the burden of mutual obligations, sisters rushing into the distance, parents abandoning their children, how can they justify their freedom if not the beauty of all-encompassing love? And take away from their aspirations this note of love for their neighbor, take away this justification from their impulses - you will see at the other end the same petty-bourgeois happiness from which they are running, the same animal well-being that they want to rise above. We cannot be amazed enough at the vulgarity of the hero of Artsybashev’s story “The Wife,” who rebelled against family ties for the sake of “free revelry” of unconnected people. We cannot sympathize with the protesting heroines of E. Chirikov’s new dramatic essay “Ivan Mironych”, because we feel that they will fill the “new life” with old vulgarity like “Japanese screens”... But besides the utilitarian vulgarity that challenges the kingdom of Christian love, there is also an enemy of this kingdom, attacking it from the side that seems most safe - from the religious side. This enemy is modern theorists of traditional asceticism. Traditional asceticism can be looked at in different ways, and we are not talking about it. But its modern theorists, whom we are talking about, take it in a certain light. They consider the feat of asceticism the highest form of Christian life, the highest Christian ideal, and at the same time asceticism is understood in a sense that decisively distinguishes it from the feat of Christian love. In this respect, modern asceticism speaks with such clarity and certainty that any theory can envy. I mean mainly the article in Shower. Thurs. (1902, part 3 p. 194 next). “What is a monastery? asks the author. – What should a monk’s thought be entirely focused on? Exclusively on your personal salvation. The whole purpose of his life and deed was to cleanse his heart of passions and make it an abode of unceasing Jesus Prayer. To the question: why did he run away from the world into the desert? he could answer: let the world forget me, let me die for it - I absolutely want to belong to my Lord.” This is “selfishness of salvation”, “holy egoism”. “If the followers of the Buddha consider solitude necessary as a means to moral perfection, then who dares to deny this to someone who seeks Christ with all his heart, who strives to live the life of the disembodied while still in the flesh?” So, monasticism, according to this writer, like Buddhist hermitage, is the path to achieving natural, physical perfection - ethereality. But Christianity is different from all paganism in that a pagan wants to rise to God by natural improvement, to reach Him in ecstasy, in contemplation, in the refinement of nature, in a dead life, while a Christian wants God to dwell in him, wants to live in God’s way, and since God is love, then to love in God’s way. To love God's way means to love without end, absolutely. And vice versa - absolute life is available to a person only in love. And this is living life. Christian union with God is a union of love. A Christian does not live a gloomy, elemental life, but a bright, divine-human life. The new commandment of the gospel, which sets the line between paganism and Christianity, is the commandment of love. True, the Christian commandment about love is two-part; Christian love is, first of all, love for God - love for Him with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The commandment to love one's neighbor is the second and similar one. Neither of these two parts of the Christian commandment should be neglected. The fact that religious love is, first of all, love for God is the absolute nature of Christian love, which decisively distinguishes it from utilitarianism, from social ethics, which lacks a flight to heaven, which is reduced to earthly well-being. Utilitarian ethics is that people should be happy, that society should prosper, even if the individual has to suffer for the sake of society; on the contrary, Christianity is for the lover to live an absolute divine life. Utilitarian love is calculation, Christian love is creativity. In utilitarianism, the objective outcome is everything; in Christianity everything is in personal creativity, in relation to which the objective result is only the fruit. Take away its first part from Christian love, and it will also turn into vulgar concern for human well-being, into philistine concerns about social happiness, into charity - private and public, the price of which is in the arithmetic value of alms. However, the second half of the new Christian commandment is no less important. The power lies in the fact that love for one’s neighbor is not just a mathematical addition to the love of God, but forms a shell for it, gives it flesh and blood, makes it real, gives it the meaning of living force. If it is said that the commandment to love God is the first and greatest, then it is also said: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” To love God and not man is only paganism; to love man in God’s way is Christianity. In Christianity, whoever says that he loves God, but does not love his neighbor, is called a liar, who does not have the divine life in himself. While evangelical love for God irresistibly leans towards love for one’s neighbor and is embodied in it, monasticism sees love for one’s neighbor as a detriment to love for God, and defends its religion from the demands of love for one’s neighbor as from desecration. In this rupture of the Gospel commandment, in this direct striving towards God, in addition to the path of love for one’s neighbor, monasticism believes personal salvation, holy egoism, in this it sees its specific feature. The article we are talking about is remarkable because it does not stop at such conclusions. From a monastic point of view, the author recognizes the feat of love for one’s neighbor as only an “exception” due to weakness, due to the inability to endure the higher feat of fasting and prayer, recognizes it only as a matter of “need,” only a secondary “share” that defiles the monk, distracting him from the main thing, but he is decisively against making the feat of love obligatory for the monk, he calls it “innovation.” “Whoever wants,” the author writes with amazing frankness, “whoever wants the feat of caring for the sick, or working in schools, let him go to those charitable institutions where it is needed. He has nothing to do in the monastery." Comparing these views, justified by the practice of ordinary monasteries, with those carriers of Christian love who are described above, we must recognize the fact of divergence in the moral consciousness of modern Christianity. Two ideals became one against the other: the ideal of prayer, which tolerates love around itself as weakness, and the ideal of love, which acts prayerfully - the ideal of death and the ideal of life - the ideal of buried alive and the ideal of living souls. The kingdom of Christian love seems to us to be alien to any external boundaries; it embraces those who love church Orthodoxy, those who are ascetically minded, those free from typical legality, and those of heterodoxy; it wants to be universal and all-encompassing. This internal struggle is the religious meaning of our time. We must evaluate it fundamentally, we must treat it consciously. It contains the germs of our development. It is easy to foresee that the ideal of death is a relic, and the ideal of living souls is the ideal of the future... IV. Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood The above-mentioned Christian figures can be subsumed under one type of activity - the type of personal Christian charity, personal achievement. Another form of Christian life is a Christian association, a Christian hostel, a religious union. Of course, personal Christian feat can be placed in the conditions of one or another social organization, and, on the other hand, a Christian association in any case presupposes the efforts of personal feat according to the very idea of ​​Christian life, cannot do without assistance from personal aspirations for internal improvement, cannot be placed outside the goals of the latter. But the significant difference is that the bearers of personal Christian achievement - whether in the form of a symbolic system of personal salvation or in manifestations of Christian love, living life and work - rush only into the depth of Christian life, into the depth of personal mood, they crave the fullness of religious good to the extent of internal penetration of it, while in a Christian association the main attention is directed to the breadth of the Christian cause, to the arrangement of all aspects of life according to the Christian spirit, to the fullness of religious good as it expands to the entire sphere of reality life. That is why, just as before we did not talk about ascetic salvation, so now we do not dwell on monastic hostels: lastly, as in seclusion, life is squeezed into the framework of a Procrustean bed according to the ideal of mortification. The Christian community is a community of love and work, an association of living people with the goal of sanctifying the entire breadth of worldly life with religious rays. That is why, further, it is especially instructive not so much to recall the history of primitive Christian brotherhood, which was colored by faith in the imminent end of world life, as to observe the experiences of Christian brotherhood in modern times, when the organization of religious associations is based on the desire to religiously sanctify long-term existence. These experiments serve as an answer to the question whether and how it is possible to make a truly Christian life, not shortened either by the assumption of its imminent end or by detachment from its existing conditions. And such experiences have only recently appeared. Since the apostolic fraternal community had completely disintegrated since the time of Constantine, throughout the Middle Ages the only representatives of Christian brotherhood were monasteries, the historical merits of which in this regard would be unfair to deny, and indeed the organizers of later labor brotherhoods themselves do not deny. “From that moment,” says one of these organizers, “the corrupting leaven of worldly orders was admitted into the primitive Christian community and all independence was taken away from it, and at the same time the opportunity to protect itself from harmful elements, the church became worldly and very soon it became the need of the Christian conscience for people of living faith to separate themselves from the worldly parish, which had lost the spiritual essence of the apostolic community, which had become “this world.” And so desert dwellers and cenobitic monasteries appeared, who carried through the darkness of times to the present day the great idea of ​​labor brotherhood, who were the guardians of the great traditions of the apostolic age. What greatly obscured the understanding of their vital significance was that they were “ascetic” labor brotherhoods and, thus, denying earthly life, could not serve as the norm for it, could not be recognized as a normal phenomenon. If we free the idea of ​​a communal monastery from under the cover of asceticism, especially the poorly understood, self-sufficient asceticism, we will get a fraternal community and common selfless work on the basis of brotherly love, we will get a labor brotherhood.” Therefore, from a broad church-historical point of view, labor brotherhoods cannot be called an innovation, but according to the conditions of their emergence in later times, they turn out to be a new phenomenon, since they were born now not as a natural fruit of existing forms of church life, but as a protest against the lifelessness of frozen forms, as the fruit of a new concept of Christianity. In the communal concept of Christian life, the important thing is that here the Christian faith spreads its wings over the whole world, wants to embrace all people and expand over all future times. After all, personal activity of love, mercy and charity - no matter whether it appears to us in connection with Christian ideas or not - does not have the character of a comprehensive faith in our eyes. This is precisely the soteriological activity of love in the person of Christ the Savior of the world. His calling was not to give more sick relief, more unfortunate people consolation, but His task was to demonstrate His love in such a way as to solve the religious problem of the whole world, to bring a radical change in the attitude of the Heavenly Father towards people, to direct the general historical life differently. His disciples and first followers performed the work of their love from the same angle of world salvation, each “replenishing” the “work” of Christ in their own measure. This concept of the work of love stood in essential connection with eschatological expectations, with hopes for the speedy completion of world history, for the change of heaven and earth... Nowadays this connection of love with all-conquering faith has been forgotten. This is not dogmatic thinking on our part, but a simple observation of modern reality. Today we do not see workers of love who would proceed from any hopes for a quick transformation of the world, who - better said - would make the implementation of such hopes dependent on their activities. Therefore, modern workers of Christian love, no different in this respect from pagan lovers of humanity, are determined in their activities by more natural pity for human suffering than by the inspiration of faith, are caused and even created more by present suffering than by future ideals, are rather suppressed by the hopelessness of human suffering than hope for the salvation of the world. Therefore, from a Christian point of view, experiments in the communal structure of life are undoubtedly interesting, since it is here that we see the transition to a real transformation of the world, to the practical implementation of the kingdom of God, to the propaganda of love itself between people, and not to communicating only to people the products of one’s love. Modern Christian communities remind anyone familiar with church history of primitive Christian life, primitive Christian communism. However, the importance of the latter should not be exaggerated. It is necessary to admit either the extreme lack of information about him, or to assume a later idealization in the ancient stories about him 5 . In any case, one must keep in mind the important difference between later communities and the primitive Christian community, that in the first days of Christianity eschatological expectations were alive. Even more important is another difference, which may naturally follow from this - the difference that the primitive communication of property was the communism of consumption, and not the communism of production and labor. A Christian family gave all its surplus to the benefit of the community, or a Christian distributed all his property to the poor - this is how primitive communism was expressed, and production and labor remained entirely the task of the Christian family, which did not change its character. But obviously, only with the high enthusiasm of Christians and the tense expectation of a speedy end was it possible for all Christians who owned lands or houses to sell their estates and all property and put the price of what was sold into a common treasury, which supported everyone. This type of communism destroyed the very possibility of production, and therefore the conflict between the working family and communal consumption, gradually intensifying, reduced Christian communism to simple parish care for the poor, to lukewarm charity. The later ardent preaching of John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and other teachers of the church could not produce anything significant in this regard. On the contrary, the newest community, depending on many cultural conditions, is a cooperation of labor, a communism of production and consumption. This creates a new concept of Christianity and poses new challenges for it. And it is interesting for us to see not only how this problem is practically solved, but also what system of ideas and concepts its solution comes from. The founder of the Exaltation of the Cross Labor Brotherhood, N.N. Neplyuev, in his writings 6 reveals with tirelessness and possible completeness the foundations that led him to a new cause. These foundations, these views on the Christian cause, in any case, deserve attention. The reader is first of all impressed with the idea that ascetic asceticism and feats of personal charity are insufficient from a Christian point of view. With an ascetic understanding of religion, Christianity will never become what it should be - a universal religion and the true basis of life for all humanity; it will always remain the property of rare exceptions who strive not to live by faith, but to die to live for the sake of faith. Monasticism never could and cannot be taken as an example to follow precisely because, refusing all the joys of life, it thereby denies the possibility of living by faith, gives a reason to shirk life by faith to those who do not sympathize with asceticism and are too little familiar with the eternal truth of God's truth in all its harmony to judge modern life without getting lost in the motley variety of its extreme complexity. Even for such a believing person as our brilliant Dostoevsky was, the Christian worldview and ideal were so obscured by the lies of life in our pseudo-Christian world that in his favorite heroes, such as Prince Myshkin and Alyosha Karamazov, he presents to us only pathetic parodies of Christians. The only Christian in Dostoevsky, the elder Zosima, who renounced the world, involuntarily suggests that according to his concepts, Christianity and asceticism are synonymous and that intelligent people, like Zosima, must certainly renounce the world, and not transform the world, that only such kind-hearted nonentities as Myshkin and Alyosha Karamazov, who only know how to endure everything in a Christian way, can remain in the world, confessing Christ. when it comes to an active attitude towards life, they do not even understand that the work of the Reasonable God must be served intelligently, that the cross is madness only for the enemies of Christ, but for His followers so much intelligence is needed in order to rationally accept the cross and rationally carry it in life, as would never be required for any other less reasonable task... The founder of the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross does not deny the importance of asceticism; he arms himself against the materialistic enslavement of the spirit by the flesh. He is not against asceticism as a means of spiritual life, as a path to freedom of the Christian cause; but he is against one-sided asceticism. Recognizing asceticism as obligatory for every true Christian, he at the same time considers poorly understood asceticism to be an enormous evil, one of the main obstacles on the path of Christian progress, on the path to the implementation of Christianity in life. Asceticism is poorly understood when it turns from a means into a self-sufficient goal. It is poorly understood when from active it becomes passive, from the free will of the spirit it becomes slavish obedience, when from being characteristic of a given personality it becomes stereotyped and, especially when, from ordering the soul, it becomes drying up and deadening the soul. It is not abstinence, not sacrifice, not the sorrows of ascetic deeds that are pleasing to God, but love is pleasing to God. Asceticism should lead to love. If the fruit of asceticism is not love, then it has no value in the eyes of God - Love - moreover, it is an insult to God and gross blasphemy, real idolatry, exposing a complete misunderstanding of the One in whom they believe. The cruel God, for whom all joy is an insult and only suffering and sacrifice are pleasant, has nothing in common with God - Love. This conversion of an ascetic from a Christian to a pagan is inevitable as soon as, carried away by the exploits of asceticism, he forgets the main goal, does not hunger and does not thirst for the truth of love... But personal charity, which is one of the most obscure phenomena of modern life, is also insufficient. Some completely calm their sometimes awakening conscience on it; others admire it as one of the most graceful manifestations of civilization; still others argue about the superiority of one or another type of it; the majority undermines all respect and trust in it, making it an ordinary social entertainment, a fashionable toy, one of the sports for killing time. Particularly guilty of the latter are secular women, who, bringing into this matter their frivolous fussiness, their passion for a vain exhibition of outfits, their rudely self-confident, inviting coquetry, too often present themselves not as a majestic image of a modest, loving Christian, but as a vulgar type of a broken, chansonette singer, dressed up in a good fairy costume. Of course, not every charity has such a farcical appearance, but even the most sincere unsystematic charity, based on a feeling of heartfelt participation, living pity, is only a palliative that does not prepare a better future, does not organize life on the principles of goodness and love - on the contrary, it is often harmful, since it lulls the conscience, covers the dirt and ugliness of life with colors that are completely unnatural, inconsistent with the foundations of this life. This is a childish attitude towards the matter of love, in which love will always remain an adornment of life, and will not become its basis. This is truly pouring new wine into old wineskins. Of course, it does not follow from this that there is no need to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or alleviate the suffering of the sick. All these are works of living love. We must not just rest on that small degree of love, in which we are content with unsystematic help to those few whom we see, and to those few sufferings that directly hit our nerves, without doing anything to prevent innocent suffering, which, being no less real and cruel, hit our nerves less. Humanity has lived for so many centuries on the basis of fear and self-interest that evil is routine and good is the exception. The fruits of evil are innumerable. A whole life, the greatest fortunes are nothing in the matter of scooping up this sea of ​​evil and sorrow. The broadest charity in this direction is naive sentimentality and short-sighted utopia. To do charity haphazardly means, floating on the lifebelt of wealth through the bottomless abyss of grief and suffering, to pull drowning people out of the water not in order to put them on the shore, but in order to, after allowing them to breathe a little, again plunge them into the same abyss in which they were previously choking. We must grow to that degree of love at which the urgent need of a loving heart becomes not limited to consoling people tormented by malice, but is the need of rational love to organize life on the basis of goodness, to protect millions of people from the possibility of innocent suffering. You have to be an exceptionally hard-hearted person not to feel sorry for someone exhausted by hunger, or shivering from the cold, or covered with purulent wounds. The sight of these sufferings disturbs the peace of our souls. Feeding, clothing, and healing under such circumstances is a matter of decency, decorum, and one’s own comfort. The degree of love that can become the basis of life begins only from the moment when our love ceases to be a whim, when it becomes our normal attitude towards the whole world, the natural state of our soul. Only then will we not overlook the forest for the trees, will we not forget the duties of love for all humanity because of the whim of love or pity for individuals, will we not forget the suffering of the mind and heart due to the more physical suffering that beats on our nerves, will we understand the need to follow reasonable paths towards the goals outlined by love. Feed the hungry, but do not forget that you did nothing to ensure that there were no innocent hungry people, and let that small deed of love that you did not calm your conscience, do not obscure from you that great deed of love that you can and, therefore, must do. If, while doing a great work of love, you are distracted from it by doing small things because the sight of private suffering hits your nerves so much that the whim of pity for one makes you forget the rational work of pity for all humanity, do not deceive yourself, admit that you have taken from the great work of love for many, whose suffering you do not see, what you gave to put an end to the suffering that accidentally caught your eye... These words will be literally and without hesitation repeated to you by any member of the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross if you speak to them on the issue of personal charity and the organization of love into brotherhood. One can guess that this is a sore point for them, that they most often encounter objections from this side. The Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross is an oasis among the world around it, it consciously wants to be such an oasis. The extent to which it is isolated in the environment of life that embraces it is evident from the fact that during the service in the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross we did not see anyone outside the brotherhood - not only from neighboring villages, but also anyone from the same populous Vozdvizhensk economy in which the brotherhood took refuge. Even the brotherly church sees only brothers. And every good deed here is subject to the condition of entering the brotherhood. A worthy person will be accepted into the brotherhood, but in principle his property will not be spent on those outside the brotherhood. And this principle for brotherhood is the stated view of personal, unsystematic charity. I will not now examine this view critically, since in general in these essays I first and most of all try to be an objective narrator. But I cannot help but notice that this view is not fully developed enough. When carefully studying the works of N.N. Neplyuev, I did not find a single line or a single word in them on the following two points. Firstly, for some reason his personal charity seems predominantly frivolous. After all, one can rebel against charity evenings with dancing and exhibitions of more than one outfit not only from the point of view of organized brotherhood, and, therefore, what can we say about such distortions. This is a technique of bad polemics, bad apologetics. The enemy's weakness is still a long way from our own strength. After all, subjectively, in terms of the energy expended, in terms of the inner fullness of the spirit, personal charity is not necessarily a small degree of love compared to the organization of brotherhood - let us remember Dr. Haas. On the contrary, even in the conditions of labor organization, only the individual can be the container of love, i.e. and the organization itself can be considered as personal charity, otherwise it will be only a form without an inner spirit invested in it and sanctifying it. This is a theological question of significant importance, whether the same Christian absoluteness is expressed in the organization of brotherhood, which can undoubtedly be expressed in personal charity. Of course, from the point of view of the labor fraternity, it remains possible to respond by pointing out the insufficiency of personal charity, in its highest representatives, to combat the innumerable fruits of evil. But one must take into account the fact that brotherhood is not enough to protect millions of people from the possibility of innocent suffering. Brotherhood is only an oasis; it solves the issue of community life, but does not solve the issue of social structure. If personal charity cannot embrace all the unfortunate, then the brotherhood, in principle, does not want to know all those sufferers who are outside its borders. And here we move to another point. We have seen those arguments by the force of which the reader is elevated from personal charity to recognition of the higher importance of fraternal organization. Let us accept the force of these reasonings, but with this transition, can we stop at the level of brotherhood and shouldn’t we reach activities aimed at building the whole society, and not just a fraternal oasis? After all, this activity is aimed precisely at ensuring that there are no completely innocent hungry people in all of society, in all of humanity. However, we will return to this point below. In addition to criticism of one-sided asceticism and unsystematic charity, the negative basis of the idea of labor brotherhood is the “criticism of evil” of our entire present life, supposedly Christian - the state, science, literature, art, the economic system of society... Let us not follow the author along all the paths of his criticism, which everywhere comes to one negative result - to the recognition that our life in all its aspects does not have a Christian character. Let us not dwell on the difficult position that we occupy in modern times. anti-Christian economic system of society, the working class, in general, and the agricultural class, in particular, since, on the one hand, we cannot recognize the goal of “brotherhoods” to change the economic conditions of social life, and on the other hand, we must recognize the right to criticize modern economic relations not only in the name of the idea of brotherhood. The modern economic system finds strict judges both among representatives of personal Christian perfection and among those who strive for the reorganization of the entire society. By this I want to say that no matter how beautiful the numerous pages in the works of N. N. Neplyuev are, which depict the sad results and unfortunate victims of the capitalist system, they would be characteristic of the idea of ​​labor brotherhood only if the only logical way out of the economic difficulties of the present time was the idea of ​​brotherhood. I select from these pages only those that are characteristic of the idea of ​​fraternity of labor and logically lead to this single conclusion - and these are precisely those that speak of the sad situation among the few best workers among modern society. According to the observation of N.N. Neplyuev, the vast, overwhelming majority of the common people do not have a living faith, do not know the most basic Christian truths, do not understand the most basic Christian virtues, are deeply dissatisfied with their lot, are afraid of the authorities, envy the rich, are often despondent and become more and more embittered every day. Only in the form of rare exceptions are among him the people of God who believe by living faith. How do they live, these rare exceptions? Such a person will not be burdened by work and by satisfying only basic needs, but he will not avoid martyrdom; The capitalist system of life erects at every step of his path such exquisite instruments of torture and traps that his whole life will be a continuous series of moral sufferings, among which the prophetic word of the One who knew and foresaw everything will sound as support and joy for him, saying: “Blessed are you when they revile you and persecute you, and in every way unfairly slander you for My sake.” If this man of God really became an enemy of the world in order to be a friend of God, before he chose a girlfriend in life, believe me, he will rarely find a girl whom he could love and make his wife, without feeling with his whole being that he is betraying both God and Christ; most often, he, who understands love better than others and is more in need of loving and being loved, will, against his will, be doomed to a lifelong hard labor of cold loneliness. He will rarely find reciprocal love even in the form of sincere and lasting sympathy... If, on the contrary, he became a conscious Christian after marriage, having a wife and children, his situation may be much worse than cold loneliness; to live in constant communication with beings who are completely alien in spirit, to love them and to realize that every word and every step of theirs is in irreconcilable discord with their own convictions and sympathies, that every word of their own is for them a ridiculous eccentricity, that every action of their own is for them a stupid impracticality, in a word, to be a friend of God and to live with those who want to remain a friend of the world, living according to the customs of this world, is an hourly torment that can transform everything life is one continuous torture. Even in the best case, when the wife shares his way of thinking, when she also believes with a living faith and wants to live by faith, when this Christian couple, this small church of Christ, deeply understands their parental responsibilities and looks at children as a precious deposit entrusted by God and for which they will have to give an answer, what an incessant fear, how much jealous suffering for a poor person to realize the perniciousness of the surrounding moral atmosphere, the endless variety of evil temptations of the environment and not be able to protect your children from them... Let's now look at the economic situation of a Christian worker. Preachers of the fiction of the capitalist idyll think that a Christian worker needs only hard work and frugality, so that, while remaining a good Christian and an ideally honest person, he can not only live comfortably, but also save money. Empty words. Diligence presupposes a love of useful work, the ability to willingly and cheerfully acquire our daily bread, but diligence does not necessarily presuppose selfish work for one’s own benefit. A hardworking Christian loves work that is more useful for many neighbors, and not more profitable; on the contrary, for profit it is necessary to engage in work that is more profitable than productive, and thereby takes away the daily bread from others. In the modern economic system, a Christian cannot withstand competition and will not earn an extra penny. Finally, in order to understand how impossible it is for a hardworking Christian to put a penny aside for a rainy day in the present way of life, we only need to remember what glaring need surrounds him, to what extent this need is in sight, constantly before his eyes, annoyingly extorting his sympathy and pity, to what extent this need is understandable and familiar to him. A poor person cannot buy himself the expensive luxury of isolation from the surrounding need and suffering of his neighbors. For such honest workers, brotherhood is inevitable. In material terms, the brotherhood would guarantee its fellow members, their widows and orphans from the poverty that too often befalls innocent people. Fire, loss of livestock, illness, crop failure, bad behavior of the head of the family, the foul play of a dashing person - all these disasters that could ultimately ruin a lonely peasant family, left to its own devices in the midst of a fierce struggle for existence, would not have had such fatal consequences in a brotherhood. The Brotherhood, by annually contributing a certain percentage of net income to fixed capital, could gradually accumulate an amount sufficient to buy new lands from time to time and thereby ensure a normal increase in its population. An ill brother would be cared for and his entire family would be supported at the common fraternal expense, and upon death, his widow and children would enjoy the patronage and material support of the brotherhood as long as they wish to live in the brotherhood, obeying its charter and the structure of fraternal life. Children would not be a burden, often intolerable, and growth would not be delayed by artificial means. In this way, daily bread would be provided, without, however, providing such a bait for the sake of which selfish people would agree to join the brotherhood. Intellectually, the brotherhood would provide the opportunity to develop in communication with more educated people, devote leisure hours to general reading and conversation, establish a common library, give children a Christian education in a Christian school, invite scientific specialists, agronomists and technicians to the common account as managers of work in the fields and factories belonging to the brotherhood, or provide the means to receive a special education for their own children, if the brotherhood so desires. In moral terms, brotherhood will provide the opportunity for honest coordination of the entire system of life with faith in the midst of unanimity and unanimity of fraternal communication with those who sincerely desire to be not only in words, but also in deeds, faithful children of the One Heavenly Father, will provide the opportunity to breathe in the life-giving atmosphere of the Christian mood of the entire surrounding society, will also provide an invaluable treasure of calm joy of the spirit, protecting him from the chaos of the life exchange, protecting him, his wife and children from pernicious communication with those whose every word and every step is a renunciation of God and a betrayal of His Christ. So, brotherhood seems to be a panacea for all those disasters in which every Christian worker, left to his own devices, unwittingly finds himself. Let me note by the way that, according to N.N. Neplyuev, for a Christian landowner, the establishment of a brotherhood within the boundaries of his estate represents an equally urgent need, if he does not want to turn from a Christian into a businessman or doom himself to lifelong hard labor as a miserable sheep, tormented by wolves, to whom he pays a salary. The only way out of this unbearable situation is for every Christian landowner to put all his spiritual and material forces into organizing a labor brotherhood, and to lease out all his lands and factories to this brotherhood. A positive justification for the idea of ​​brotherhood is also given. An entire theological system is revealed. The main idea of ​​this system - and perhaps the only one closely related to the idea of ​​fraternity, and there is no doubt that this system can only claim significance as an introduction to the doctrine of fraternity - the main idea is the primacy of love. Rapturous hymns of love. Love is always sacred and sanctifies everything, purifies everything to holiness. Love remains sacred under all circumstances. She is no less sacred in the heart of an atheist, and in the heart of a robber, and in the heart of a fornicator. Their evil indifference to God and the rest of his creation is sinful, so sinful that in this dark abyss the holy drop of their exclusive love drowns, but this drop remains in itself no less holy and makes sacred everything that is done in the spirit of this sincere love. That is why an atheist, a robber and a fornicator who has this drop of shrine in his heart is better, purer, more holy than a self-righteous Pharisee deprived of it. Infinitely purer, holier, more kindred in spirit to God and all the participants in the great brotherhood of angels and saints in heaven are those representatives of living love who are called atheists, robbers and fornicators, than those fallen coffins who, under the letter of faith, piety, legality and strict morality, hide a proud, cold and evil heart. "God is love." Where there is love, there is God. This is precisely the main difference between the divine and the demonic: where there is love, there is God; where there is anger, violence and cold indifference, there is sin and hell, there is a demon. And the demons believe and tremble, but do not love. Everything is accessible to demons, except love, as long as they remain demons. The demon who loves will become an angel. This view of love is confirmed by the experience of personal life. I, N.N. Neplyuev says about himself, from early childhood carried the religion of love deep in my heart and was, in a sense, a fanatic of love. Where love was not felt, I was sick from boredom, frozen from spiritual cold. I was painfully sensitive in this regard. Not only the presence of a rudely unkind person, but even the presence of an indifferent, cold person gave me severe, sometimes almost unbearable suffering - paralysis took possession of me, painful as death. And I loved nature little, and it seemed to me indifferent, cold, and it froze my heart until I understood it as a reflection of thought and love, until I discerned the stamp of higher reason and higher love on it. Only manifestations of love consoled me, illuminated my soul with a quiet light, warmed me with tender affection, and were something familiar to me, giving meaning to existence. This is how I perceived the impressions of the outside world, and this is how I treated what was happening in the recesses of my own soul. To love was such a need for me that everything else seemed boring, vulgar, petty, low, cold, callous, cruel to me!.. This constant thirst for love, this inability to be satisfied with anything other than love, this every-minute feeling of a deep discord between the nature of the soul and the phenomena of earthly life, were the main reason for the instinct of living faith of my childhood... Of course, before this childhood faith turned into a conscious, definite Orthodox faith in God-Love and the primacy of love, a long path of severe moral suffering and bitter disappointments stretched... Love is of primary importance in the life of a Christian. But it’s not enough to say this. The logic of love is necessary - a harmonious worldview, illuminated by the rays of love, the discipline of love is necessary, which could make love triumphant, the work of organizing goodness in life is necessary. This work is more and more necessary for the good of all churches, all states, all peoples. Humanity has developed too mentally to be able to treat faith and life with the same naivety and thoughtlessness. A certain ideal and a certain program of continuous progress towards this ideal are necessary for peoples. The peoples are tired of hanging around in one place indefinitely, not understanding where they are and where they are being led. And the church, until it organizes good in life, until it offers believers any specific program, cannot have any definite influence on life and thereby loses all vital significance. This is exactly what non-believers state, calling such a faith absurd, an outdated utopia, only suitable for consoling the sick and feeble-minded people, and calling those who believe in such a faith Pharisees, hypocrites and idiotic bigots. To raise the banner of faith high, to prove that it is still a living torch, capable of satisfying minds and hearts, to prove that faith also contains the most reasonable program for ordering life, organizing goodness - this is the sacred duty of the church. And for any state, this is the key to peaceful development and unity in brotherly love of all classes of society. The organization of good in life comes down mainly to moral education and to the organization of work. To be moral, one’s convictions, one’s faith are not enough; one needs the training of the soul, education from childhood. It is impossible to achieve favorable results by mixing the matter of education with the matter of training, selfish discipline with voluntary discipline, frightening punishments and bribery of rewards with selflessness of love and moral influence. Mental and physical education must be brought into harmony with moral education, forming one whole with it, disciplining and improving the mind, body and will. It is impossible to educate the will by limiting ourselves to preaching morality and good advice. It is necessary that goodness be strictly organized in the lives of children, in the bosom of school, so that children can immediately put into practice the advice given to them. Thus, while preaching to children universal love, logic and the discipline of love, it is necessary that educators in all this show them a good example, so that the internal life of the school and all relationships in it are harmoniously organized on these principles, so that pupils learn to be faithful to them in the little things of everyday life and have the practice of true brotherly relations. Only under these circumstances can they gradually reach the height of moral transformation, at which the logic of triumphant love and the discipline of the will become natural for those who previously found anger, indifference and unbridledness. The first stage of a harmonious organization of good in the life of a school consists in an organized union between all children of good will who make up a fraternal circle, which can create a healthy moral atmosphere and facilitate the possibility of mutual assistance in the matter of moral self-improvement. The second stage is the senior fraternal circle, uniting all the best moral forces of the school for the work of systematic moral influence on younger comrades in years and spirit. Punishment and rewards should be replaced by weekly meetings summing up the moral life of the school, which should have the character of a unanimous, closely knit family. Along with education, work must be organized. It must be strictly organized at the beginning of brotherly love, without which in the economic field there will inevitably be a brutal struggle or a ruinous and shameful armed peace, which will inevitably lead to disunity and bitterness, making fruitless and ridiculous all attempts, more sentimental than reasonable, to correct the evil, on the one hand, by preaching peace and unity, on the other, by disorderly charity. The question is not to find work for those who need it, not to raise the wages of those who have work. All this falls under the category of charity and improves the situation of individuals and families, without changing the nature of the general state of affairs, without preventing the possibility, even the necessity, of competition, struggle, disunity and bitterness. As long as the most difficult and unpleasant work is at the same time the least profitable and honorable, the struggle for honorable, profitable and pleasant positions will be inevitable. It is necessary that the very nature of work change completely, so that work ceases to be a means of profit and career, which is deeply immoral and inevitably leads to a fierce struggle with all those who simultaneously want to make money and make their career, leading society to deceive the armed world between competitors. It is necessary that work become an urgent need of love, an act of brotherly heroism, completely free from any character of venality and self-interest. It is necessary that all types of labor should be given equal rights to jointly developed values, and that the most difficult and unpleasant work should be rewarded by public opinion, special public gratitude and respect when it is performed in the spirit of selflessness, humility and love. A labor community, coherently organized on truly fraternal principles, is necessary in order for labor to exist in these conditions. Only the fraternal labor community represents the true solution to the social problem and can harmoniously organize life, relationships and all types of work on the basis of peace, love and unity. Among rich people, all people of good will should understand the moral advantage of this peaceful resolution of the social question... The form that implements these ideas of peaceful labor and progress is brotherhood, which pursues three goals: 1) to educate children to realize the primacy of love and the good habits of sustainable, triumphant brotherly love; 2) harmoniously organize all life, all relationships and all types of work on the principles of brotherly love, and 3) if possible, and outside of brotherhood, support the phenomena of life related to the first two goals. This is the kind of brotherhood that the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood wants to be - in the village of Vozdvizhensk, Glukhov district, Chernigov province, 20 versts from the city of Glukhov and 6 versts from the station. Gorelye Khutora M.-K.-Voron. and. d. The Charter of the Brotherhood was approved on December 23, 1893. I will not touch upon the history of the Brotherhood, which is instructive in many respects. I will describe its current state. In the brochure Brief information about the Orthodox Cross Exaltation of Labor Brotherhood - publication of the Labor Brotherhood (Chernigov 1905) - this is how the purpose and character of the Brotherhood are defined. The brotherhood is a productive and consumptive fraternal artel, uniting in itself all kinds of charity in the form of self-help, and is an experience of unity and harmonious organization of the parish by educating the soul of the people to the voluntary discipline of faith and love and creating from this spiritually healthy material on the basis of faith, acting love, a living, healthy social cell of brotherhood - the parish, so necessary for the health of the living organism of the Church and the State. All the property of the Brotherhood constitutes the inviolable property of the very cause of the Labor Brotherhood and is only for the use of the members of the Brotherhood as long as they remain in the cause of the Brotherhood, and not only is the peaceful acquisition of daily bread for themselves and their families through friendly joint activity ensured, but the fate of the sick and elderly, their widows and orphans is also ensured, just as each member of the Brotherhood is equally provided for as long as he remains faithful to it, and from ruin from any accidents, such as fire, loss of livestock, deceit, treachery and bad associations. Brotherhood is a guarantee of the strength of family ties, moral dignity, honest life of a Christian family and a healthy spiritual atmosphere for the normal spiritual development of Christian children. Thus, the Brotherhood, providing the opportunity for people of good will to honestly reconcile their lives with the ideal of faith and realizing for the meek their inalienable moral right of isolation from evil and the evil, which makes it possible to move from self-defense and struggle to the peaceful creation of good in life, at the same time is for all its participants a spiritual sanatorium, so necessary for the mind and heart of humanity, which is seriously ill with anti-Christian habits, and for everyone - a precious experience of transition from a fierce struggle towards the peaceful creation of good in life - a real program of peaceful progress on Christian principles... This is the significance given to the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood by its founders. Let's see how these lofty goals are achieved in different aspects of fraternal life. Life is religious. The Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood is a member of the Spiritual Department and its full title includes the name “Orthodox”. It consciously wants to be a religious brotherhood. According to the recognition of its founder and its members, the covenants of Brotherhood, peace and love are the covenants of God. Their implementation requires grace-filled forces, and these forces can only be obtained from the Living God through the participation of His grace. According to this, the Brotherhood is aware that the work of the Brotherhood cannot be a human work, as has been proven by the experience of mankind, all of whose communities fell apart without resting in love, but must and only and can be the work of God. The brotherhood was founded at the Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, where regular holiday and fasting services are held. In addition, the reception of new members of the Brotherhood and into fraternal circles of schools is carried out with special solemnity in the church, and new members are prepared for this by fasting, confession and communion of the holy mysteries. In addition to general prayers in the morning and evening for fraternal families and schools, there are prayer meetings in the Brotherhood and both schools for those who are especially zealous. In addition, conversations are held by class in schools, and sometimes general discussions on all issues of faith and life with the aim of awakening Christian self-awareness... We were at a Brotherhood prayer meeting on Friday evening. This collection deserves to be described. We have never seen anything like this before. Everything we saw here made a strong impression on us. The peculiarity of this prayer meeting is that the prayers are said partly by the priest, and for the most part by the worshipers themselves, without a predetermined queue, by direct inspiration. And the prayers themselves are living improvisations, although most of them are initial improvisations, which over time have become established for ordinary use. That there were complete improvisations here was obvious to us - the visitors - from two prayers - one about the parents - members of the fraternity, who had lost a child whose funeral was taking place in those days, and the other about us - the visitors. And the inspiration of the remaining prayers had an irresistible effect on us. Who doesn’t know that reading in our churches is the most boring part of worship? At those services in which reading predominates rather than singing and sacred rites, such as Lenten services, rarely does anyone attend without a dull, bored expression on their face. The monotonous voice of a church reader, rushing to read out the prescribed prayers, inducing sleep, which is difficult to fight. That's not what we saw here. The prayers were said with inspiration. As soon as one finished, the other brother or sister began. Individuality was evident in each voice; one could hear a living soul, feeling in its own way. Some pronounced the words of prayers with such sincerity, which had an infectious effect on the listeners. The primitive Christian community, led by the Spirit of God, was resurrected before us. We especially remember the voice of one sister who said two or three prayers - so expressively, with such deep feeling, with such sincere faith... The prayer meeting took place in one of the halls of the girls' school. There was an icon on the wall opposite the entrance, and to the left, not far from the entrance, a table with a Bible. We took a place near the wall to the right, and the members of the Brotherhood to the left. The meeting began with the prayer of St. pronounced by the priest, who stood in front of the icon. John Chrysostom about before reading the word of God: “Lord Jesus Christ, open the eyes of our hearts to hear Thy word and understand and do Thy will, as we are strangers on the earth: do not hide Thy commandments from us, but open our eyes, that we may understand the wonders of Thy law. Tell us Your unknown and secret wisdom. We trust in You, our God, may you enlighten our minds with the light of Your mind, not only to honor what is written, but also to create, so that we may not read words to ourselves as a sin, but to renewal and enlightenment, and to holiness, and to the salvation of the soul, and to the inheritance of eternal life. For You are the One who enlightens those who lie in darkness, and from You comes every good gift, and every gift is perfect.” After this, the priest, sitting in front of the table, read a section from the Bible. He then stood before the icon again and said the usual initial prayers. Then came the prayers said by the members of the Brotherhood. First, prayers for the king. The first prayer is about the tsar, the reigning house and the fatherland: “Remember, Lord, our Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, His Spouse, Mother and Heir. In the difficult times our fatherland is going through, do not, O Lord, forsake Your Anointed One for the sins of the Russian people: send Him the wisdom of Solomon, the courage and meekness of David; surround Him with wise advisers and assistants in a great and difficult matter, so that He will accomplish everything for Your glory and for the good of His people. Lord, most merciful! With a contrite and humble heart, we fall to You and pray to You, forgive our sins and iniquities and those of our compatriots and do not do the same to all of us according to our sins, but according to Your great mercy, spare Your creation, Master, have mercy and save our fatherland from enemies visible and invisible, internal and external.” The second prayer for the Tsar: “For our Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, we collectively pray to God: visit Him, O Lord, with Your grace, so that He may be Your unfailingly faithful servant, the supreme leader of His kingdom, the wise supreme judge of the righteous, for the good of the subjects, according to the eternal truth of Your righteousness, the supreme zealot. Bless His works, guide His steps, command Your angels, that they may receive His mind and heart under the shadow of their wings. May His passing through the earthly race and the terrible responsibility of the might of His might not be a judgment or condemnation, but may it be for the salvation of His soul, for the good of the peoples of His kingdom, for the creation of the kingdom of heaven and for You, the King of kings and Lord of lords, for eternal glory. God! with the light of understanding of Your ways, enlighten His mind, ignite His heart with the inspiration of holy love, with the humble joy of the consciousness of His poverty, make Him worthy to be Your co-worker in Your Russian field and preserve Him for us for many years.” The next prayer is for Russia. “On our fatherland, the Russian Empire, pour out Your grace, O God! May all the peoples inhabiting it be united into one family, You, the Heavenly Father, who confesses with one mind, who unanimously organizes their whole life according to faith, may there be one flock and one Shepherd. Let there be daily and spiritual bread for everyone without exception. May there be peace and love between all of us and may the machinations of enemies internal and external, evil sowers of tares in Your field, who through writing, word or deed, bring unsteadiness into minds, bitterness into hearts, temptation, discord and all kinds of filth into life, will be powerless. Send, O Lord, good workers to Thy Russian field; may they announce it with the words of Thy truth, may they enlighten it with the example of life by faith. Send, Lord, to the Russian people a sensitive heart, may they understand the holy speeches of Thy chosen ones, may they understand Thy holy will and invariably and with joy do it, may Rus' be truly holy, may it unite with one mind and one accord into one great Brotherhood of Christ, in thought, word and deed faithful to God and His Christ. May our Rus' be the light of the world and the salt of the earth, may all nations see an example of a good Christian life and glorify our Heavenly Father. Lord, Master of the world! Visit our homeland with Your grace, may it be clothed with holiness, like a robe, and may its sons in their humility be worthy of the wedding garment, in which they must enter into the palaces of Your kingdom.” This was followed by a prayer for the patriarchs, synod, metropolitans, archpastors, bishops and Christian presbyters, then a prayer for the rector of the fraternal Church of the Exaltation of the Cross, and then the next prayer for the Brotherhood. “Our Father! Remember our Brotherhood, the Duma of the Brotherhood, elders of families, brothers and sisters, Prayer and Brotherhood Circles, pupils and pupils of Brotherhood schools and dormitories, children of our Brotherhood, friends of the Brotherhood, everyone who commanded us to pray for them and who pray with love for us, all our brothers and sisters who are in our fatherland and in other countries scattered about Christ, all who labor in Thy holy field, all in Thy name united in commonwealths and unions. Enlighten our minds with the light of understanding of Your truth, warm our hearts with love and joy, put useful words into our mouths. Reward us not according to our sins and do not take Your Holy Spirit from us. Command Your angels, that they may receive our minds and hearts under the shadow of their wings. Sanctify and strengthen, O Lord, our Brotherhood, heal the illnesses of our souls, O Life-Giver, and in our infirmities do Thy great and wonderful works. Amen". Prayer for the Guardian of the Brotherhood. “Visit, O Lord, with Your grace the Guardian of our Brotherhood, Your servant Nicholas. Enlighten his mind with the light of understanding of Your truth; warm his heart with love and joy. Command Your angel, may he protect him from all evil, may he guide him in all Your ways, may he comfort and encourage him in moments of fatigue and sorrow. Guide him, O Lord, on Thy path, that he may be a good instrument in Thy hand and a faithful executor of Thy holy will. For the love with which he arranges our life according to Your teaching, forgive him his mistakes and sins. Vouchsafe him to lead our work along Your path and bring it to the end of good. Visit him, Lord, with Your grace and give peace, rest and quiet joy to his soul.” Another prayer for Brotherhood. “Lord Jesus Christ, clear Sun, pouring light and joy on the world, illumine our Brotherhood with heavenly light, constantly life-giving with the inspiration of love and joy in the Holy Spirit, bless and strengthen us for the work of creating the eternal kingdom, according to the will of the Heavenly Father. Jesus, Bright Joy, receive our Brotherhood under the canopy of Thy love, may we be worthy sons of Thy holy and immaculate Church, may we be citizens and shameless subjects of our Christian Fatherland and the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, may we be our fellow citizens, loving brothers, hungry for righteousness, thirsty for living water - the verbs of eternal life, oh the will of God and life according to faith, tirelessly zealous. Jesus, Bright Joy, accept our Brotherhood for the holy work of building the kingdom of heaven. May we love one another, just as You have loved us, so may we love each other. Let everyone know that we are Your disciples by the inspiration of our love for God and neighbor, by the light of understanding of the eternal truth of Your truth and pure Christian life by faith. For our beloved brothers, we collectively beg You, may Your grace be upon them, may their minds be light, the minds of their neighbors illuminating, their hearts a holy flame, the souls of their neighbors warming, and every moment of their life fulfilling the will of the Heavenly Father. We believe, Lord, that You have shown us the way and the truth and the life. We confess that we are unworthy to bear Thy holy cross, we earnestly pray to Thee - forgive us our boldness, accept our life for Thy holy work and in our weakness do Thy great and wonderful works, so that the enemies of the Living God may be scattered and the walls of heavenly Jerusalem may be built.” Prayer for love in the Brotherhood. "God! Fill our hearts with love! Give us love for our chosen ones. Give us love for Brotherhood, for brothers and sisters in Christ. God! Fill the hearts of our chosen ones with love. May they protect our lives from discord and temptation. May they arrange our life worthy of the Brotherhood of Christ. God! Fill the hearts of all people with love. Give us love for goodness and truth. Give us pity for the grief of our neighbor. Our wisdom is in love! Love is our quiet joy!” Then prayers were heard - for teachers, for the sick, to the Most Holy Theotokos, for the mournful, for those of remembrance and repentance, the priest’s prayer for his flock, etc. We consider the minutes we spent at this prayer meeting the most memorable in our lives... Our life is so poor in inspiration, so degraded by monotonous forms, that we must consider every opportunity to observe the bright sparkles of living life as happiness. Coming out of this meeting, we shared our impressions with each other - and our opinions agreed that we were present at the sacrament of living prayer, that the members of the Brotherhood of Labor opened their souls to us, that we looked into their innermost life - and became family to them... On Saturday evening we attended the all-night service... The rector of the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross, Fr. Alexander once told us in a conversation that sometimes they hold all-night services in the open air, and we begged him to do just that now. He did not refuse for long, pointing to the sky threatening rain. But we begged him, and he gave in. The clouds soon cleared and a wonderful summer evening arrived. All the fraternal buildings are located among a luxurious park, and the all-night vigil was celebrated in its shade. The united choir of the Fraternity and its schools, directed by one of the members of the Fraternity, can boast equally of excellent voices and excellent formation. The choir’s traditions are the best: they are students of Kalyshevsky. All around was the warm silence of a fading summer day. Slender sounds bursting from the depths of the soul, compressed on all sides by the thicket of the forest, rose to the sky in a mighty stream. It became absolutely clear that the evening service was especially appropriate in the open air, since its content was closely related to nature. Pictures of world creation and the emergence of luxurious earthly life from primeval chaos arose: all nature glorifies its Creator. The praise of people must merge with the voice of creatures... In the lap of nature, history began - a long history of the struggle between light and darkness, a sad Old Testament story that led humanity to the consciousness of its complete powerlessness, to a thirst for help from above, from the East. “Quiet light” appeared as the Savior of man who came to the west of the sun... And there was something enchanting, hypnotizing in this correspondence between nature and the sacred song... New Testament times have come, new high tasks have arisen for man, which should capture all the powers of man. And it was impossible to look at these groups of brothers and sisters in their simple, monotonous costumes without deep feeling. They are doing a serious, great thing, they must and can pray with deep sincerity... The next day we listened to the liturgy in the fraternal church, built in 1893 - in the name of the Exaltation of the Life-Giving Cross of the Lord. The abundance of crosses is striking. Large, blue glass crosses in white frosted windows, large white crosses on each half of the exterior doors. Inside there are even more crosses. The entire church, in the shape of a cross, is painted uniformly with light blue paint with dark blue columns at the corners, the same large crosses on both halves of the internal doors, arches and window frames. The iconostasis is light carved oak, with inlays and relief decorations made of black oak. A whole row of crosses above the iconostasis, many straight and St. Andrew's crosses of black oak and the same stars adorn the iconostasis itself. The large chandelier, shutters, hanging chandeliers and four large crosses with three candlesticks and many hanging small crosses on the walls are all made of crystal. On the walls, on both sides of the iconostasis, are large dark blue church banners with a gold fringe and two smaller banners of the senior and junior Fraternal Circles of the school: one red with a large gold cross, the other blue with a silver cross... An hour before the liturgy, teachers had conversations in individual classes. We split up - I attended a conversation with the senior class led by F.E. Chvertka-Spanovsky, one of the three students from the first graduating class of the school who remained in the Brotherhood. The senior class, having just passed their final exam, were the new candidates for the Brotherhood. The conversation took place on the topic of the Brotherhood, its meaning, and the motives for joining the Brotherhood. The ease with which religious and social topics are spoken here is noteworthy. The conversation lasted for an hour, and all the time, without interruption, Fyodor Evfimovich’s speech rumbled... Schools are of enormous importance in the life of the brotherhood: they provide the main contingent of members of the Brotherhood. It should be noted that the practical implementation of the Brotherhood’s ideas outlined above began with N.N. Neplyuev’s attitude towards the rural school. He tells the following about himself. The impossibility of living without love, the impossibility of lovingly doing without conscious faith in absolute truth and the truth of love, without embarking on a rational work of love, forced me to grab, as an anchor of salvation, the idea of ​​devoting my whole life to educating the children of the people in the habits of love, preparing for them the opportunity to harmoniously organize life and all types of work on the basis of brotherly love. This idea was given to me by a dream in which I saw myself in a hut, in the company of peasant children with whom I was talking. Their faces seemed to be transformed, enlightened by a harmonious combination of the light of reason and the inspiration of love. Among them I breathed a dear, dear atmosphere of love. This dream gave impetus to my thoughts and my will... He took into his care several of the poorest orphans of M. Yanpol. This is where his business began. Nowadays, on his estates there are several schools for preschool children and men’s and women’s agricultural schools. These last two are actually fraternal schools. The Vozdvyzhenskaya lower agricultural (men's) school of the 1st category is maintained by the Brotherhood, which, under the obligation of a deed of gift, allocates 10,000 rubles annually for its maintenance. In addition, 3,500 rubles are allocated annually for teachers' salaries and government benefits for educational supplies. Here you need to add up to 2000 rubles. annual income from school facilities. All students - up to 80 in number - are fully supported by the school. The school course is five years with a specific theoretical program and practical classes. The academic year runs from October 1 to April 1, working hours from April 1 to October 1. Winter holidays from December 15 to January 15. For practical training, the school has a farm at its disposal, which consists of: about 50 dessiatines of arable land, 12 dessiatines. meadow, more than 1 day under nurseries, tree and fruit, 8 working oxen, 4 horses, 4 cows, a pigsty - the equipment necessary for cultivating this plot of land. Pupils perform all the main chores in these sizes. Educational and working time is distributed as follows: in winter from 8 to 12 class classes, and from 12 ½ to 4 hours of work in workshops (carpentry and blacksmithing) and on duty - around the house, in the barnyard, etc. In the summer, exclusively work. This educational and practical program satisfies the general goals of the school, which are defined in the school’s charter as follows: “this school aims to disseminate among the people, mainly through practical classes, basic knowledge of agriculture in general, and partly in gardening and distillery production, as well as in the crafts of carpentry and plumbing.” From everything we have seen, we have the opportunity to testify that the Vozdvizhensk school stands quite high and has outstanding means of agricultural education. It was especially interesting to see the practical training of students in both workshops, where their successes were revealed quite clearly. But this is not the only goal of the school. Next to this general goal stands a second, special goal - to educate the souls of children in the direction of conscious faith and love for the Lord God, love and devotion to the Tsar and the Fatherland, and the Orthodox Church, as well as in brotherly love for one’s neighbor and a sincere desire to create Brotherhood in life. Simply put, the school must prepare candidates for the Brotherhood. Parents who wish to enroll their children in the Vozdvizhensk school are warned that the school aims to prepare from among its students the greatest possible number of convinced leaders of the Brotherhood and that, consequently, their children, upon graduating from school, may, due to sincere conviction, wish to join the Labor Brotherhood, so those parents who do not wish this should not place their children in the school for fear of an extremely undesirable discord between the influence of the school and the parents. The Vozdvizhensk school does not impose any obligations on pupils in this regard, but the desire is openly expressed that the pupil should not be forced to choose between love, trust and respect for the school and teachers on the one hand and love, trust and respect for parents on the other. In this sense, the school enters into a formal condition with parents. This goal of the school sets before it a unique task of education and has created a complex pedagogical system, on which we must focus our attention. Let us first note that the students are protected from any outside influence: all the teachers of this school came from its walls, its own pupils. There was even a plan to appoint a student of this school as a priest-teacher, but the intended candidate, one of the three brothers from the school’s first graduating class, died soon after leaving school. It is known that the Brotherhood did not get along well with the teachers of the law for a long time. Now the fraternal priest is a student of the Novgorod Seminary, Fr. Alexander Alexandrovich Sekundov, with whom everyone in the Brotherhood is happy. And no wonder. Unshakably firm in Orthodoxy, heartily devoted to the cause of the Brotherhood, the young priest attracts people with his friendliness, responsiveness and straightforwardness. The head of the educational work is the school trustee N. N. Neplyuev. How he looks at this matter and what he does in this regard, he speaks about this with complete certainty. I, say N.N., stand at the head of the matter of moral education in school and jealously protect it from everything that can inhibit the spiritual growth of pupils and support in them anti-Christian habits of mind and heart. I consider my main responsibility in this direction to be to clarify for students the absolute truth of the Christian worldview and provide guidance in the matter of coordinating their own thoughts and feelings with the Christian ideal. To do this, I take every opportunity to read the Holy Scriptures with my students and talk with them about the word of God. I take advantage of every opportunity to illuminate every phenomenon of the surrounding life, every event that took place within the walls of the school, and every act of a student for the Christian conscience from the point of view of Christian truth. To fulfill my duties in guiding the children in character education, I do not miss a single Saturday circle during my stay on the farm, very often, and on Saturday evenings weekly I gather the senior Brotherhood Circle for a joint discussion with them about the characters of their younger friends, and sometimes just for a friendly conversation or reading, I am often present at meetings of the junior Brotherhood Circle, if possible, every day I receive, in turn, each of the members of the senior Brotherhood Circle and his younger friends in order to talk with each of them separately. In addition, throughout Great Lent, students come to me every day in groups or alone to pray, often twice a day, which serves as preparation for fasting and the holy sacrament of communion, and at the same time serves as an attempt to awaken a prayerful mood of the spirit when praying together with a person who is a sincere believer, outside the distracting presence of many people of different moods. I devote my Sundays and holidays to school and the Brotherhood without reserve, finding it my highest joy to merge my life as closely as possible with theirs. As soon as a child enters school, he becomes dear to me by the very fact that he has become a candidate for brothers in Christ. I treat them all equally simply and kindly as long as I have the right to do so, without violating justice, without betraying goodness and without violating my own feelings. As the child's attitude towards the environment becomes more conscious, his attitude towards good and evil is more and more determined. To those children who, by the high qualities of their souls, acquire my primary love and respect, I do not hesitate to express these feelings; they gradually rise from the position of pupils to the position of close friends, respected helpers and, finally, completely equal brothers in Christ. In relation to those who show vicious inclinations, drowsy apathy and stubborn love of sin, having tried tenderness, persuasion, and severity, I naturally become more distant, moving from the position of a loving and affectionate educator to the position of a demanding boss and even a complete stranger. A student who has lived five years in our school, amid daily calls for love and goodness, if, upon leaving school, he declares that he prefers the position of a mercenary to the position of a brother in Christ, naturally thereby becoming more of a stranger to me than all millions of people... The closest assistants to the Trustee are teachers who are completely imbued with his views and act entirely in his spirit. But the education of the school is not limited to these figures, it goes into self-education - and this is the most interesting feature of the Vozdvizhensk school. Each of the five classes has a foreman, elected by each class monthly from its ranks. The sergeant major is required to maintain order in his class. All students are obliged to obey him in everything related to the duties he has assumed. The case must be presented in such a way that the elected foreman has the right to demand unquestioning obedience to his orders. The student, in response to a demand addressed to him by the foreman, which seems unfounded to him, can express his opinion; if the demand is repeated, he is obliged to obey unquestioningly. In the Saturday meeting - circle, each pupil can declare motivated displeasure against the elder, whose actions are thus subjected to strict scrutiny. In addition to the elders, who act for the whole class, the assistant teachers from among the pupils are the so-called elders, who together make up the senior Brotherhood Circle: each of them is assigned several younger pupils for immediate guidance. The elders live with their younger ones in the closest communication, in the dormitories they sleep next to them, and the elder’s bed is in the middle between the beds of the younger ones, at lunch they sit with them at the same table and the rest of the time they try to be available to them as often as possible. The seniors are chosen by the younger pupils themselves, who on the notes indicate the names of the seniors in order of greater or lesser desire to have one or the other of them as their leader. An exception is made only for new arrivals, who are distributed among the elders without first expressing their desire, since they do not know any of the elders. If the elder does not have a sufficiently beneficial influence on the younger, then the latter is invited to choose another elder. Among themselves, the elders form a close-knit association - the Senior Brotherhood Circle. Entering Art. Br. Kr. they don’t immediately entrust juniors; at first he is only allowed to be present at all meetings of the circle and, only after being convinced of his spiritual solidarity with the circle, he is solemnly, with prayer, accepted as one of the members of the circle and several juniors are entrusted to him. Every day, in turn, one of the members of Art. Br. Kr. comes to the Trustee with his younger ones. Every Saturday Art. Br. Kr. meets in the evening to discuss the behavior of the younger ones and their attitude towards the elders. By January 1 of each year, all seniors write detailed characteristics of their juniors; Around January 7, these characteristics are read at meetings of the Art. Br. Mug 7. The preparation for the senior Fraternal Circle is the junior Fraternal Circle, which unites, in the terminology of the fraternal school, not children who have finally conquered vicious inclinations, but those students who have discovered a sincere desire to fight such inclinations and have especially shown good feelings towards their brothers in the circle. The purpose of this union is mutual assistance of students in the matter of independent moral self-improvement. From time to time the Junior Brotherhood Circle meets to discuss the behavior of its fellow members. But the Junior Brotherhood Circle is not content with its own internal life; it extends its observation to comrades outside the circle as well. As soon as a desirable mood is noticed in one of the latter, the members of the Junior Brotherhood Circle look after him, invite him to their meeting and, with general rejoicing, declare to him their hopes for him. The admission of a new member to the Junior Brotherhood Circle is accompanied by prayerful solemnity. Reading Matt. XVIII, 15–17 with explanation. Then they sing and read prayers appropriate for the occasion, the newcomer kisses the cross and banner of the Junior Brotherhood Circle and promises to love the Junior Brotherhood Circle and all its members. The celebration ends with the newcomer being given his first brotherly kiss and everyone joyfully congratulating each other on the acquisition of a new brother. Another school, the Preobrazhenskaya Lower Women's Agricultural School of the 2nd category, which is headed by Maria Nikolaevna Umanets, in all respects is a copy of the men's school, the other, the women's, half. In general, the life of schools opens up a harmonious educational system of circles. The teachers are a fraternal family headed by a trustee; each of them has in his immediate care several members of the senior Brotherhood Circle, about whom he writes characteristics; each member of the senior Brotherhood Circle supervises several younger ones. All students keep personal diaries. The teacher's family, the senior Brotherhood Circle and the junior Brotherhood Circle gather to discuss common issues. Each association maintains journals. Journals of general school life are kept. On Saturday circle there is a meeting of all schoolchildren. There are also general meetings for prayer and conversation. There are literary and musical evenings. We attended such an evening with the participation of members of the Brotherhood of Labor and had the best impressions. Exemplary recitation, a wonderful choir, a very good balalaika orchestra, artistic and ideological living paintings. The picture symbolizing labor and the Brotherhood of Labor was especially good. I do not express critical judgments about this educational system: this is a matter for specialist teachers. But I cannot help but admit that the Vozdvizhenskaya and Preobrazhenskaya schools really educate children. And this is especially striking if we recall the matter of education in our state and church schools, or better said, the complete lack of education in them. A system of punishments that alienates the authorities from students - this is what education is replaced with here. On your knees, without lunch, in a punishment cell - this is how they think to educate. But, of course, they don’t educate at all. Our schools lack the main educational element - the personal example of the authorities and teachers - and in this respect the church school is quite similar to the secular one. Teachers consciously and persistently withdraw from the work of education. The authorities, especially the monastic ones, consciously and stubbornly keep themselves at a distance from the children, so that the reverent fear in the children does not fade away. In addition, the surrounding social life makes school education completely impossible. School, as well as church, speeches about the power of good, about holy self-denial, about God's mercy to the righteous remain the voice of one crying in the desert, while violence dominates in life, sinners prosper and the destinies of history are no longer ruled by the righteous. Life also educates - in addition to dead systems of moral theology, sluggishly repeating other people's old words... That's why Vozdvizhenskaya and Preobrazhenskaya schools are perhaps our only educational schools. They are surrounded by the life of the Brotherhood, which strives to live according to the teachings of Christ. Children in them are brought up by the personal example of their mentors, by their close words - they are brought up mutually. Regular school punishments do not apply. But instead of their embittered system, here they watch every student - a trustee, teachers, comrades, they know the soul of everyone, his personal life, his mood, character, inclinations, they talk to him about him, he is allowed to express himself both orally and in writing, he is interested in the matter of self-education. They say that in these schools, as in fraternal life, you don’t hear about smoking tobacco, theft, or drunkenness. This is easy to believe. Not only are there no such gross vices, but a certain religious and moral mood is beyond doubt. I spoke with my disciples on issues of Christian life, tempted them - and I can testify that they are ready to give an answer to anyone who asks. This is not like memorizing textbooks, which are relied upon so much in our seminaries and which so quickly disappear from the mind - this is the habit of constant lively conversations on these issues... Economic and social life of the Brotherhood. Economically, the Brotherhood is secure in land. The founder of the Exaltation of the Cross Brotherhood gave him as a gift, with full ownership rights, the Vozdvizhenskoe estate, consisting of 16,435 des. land, with all the forests, buildings and factories located on this land. Currently, 5,313 acres have been transferred to the actual use of the Brotherhood, and the rest of the land remains in the lifetime use of the donor, his mother and two sisters. The Brotherhood undertook to maintain two agricultural schools, a church and a hospital and assumed the debt that lay on the estate, which requires the Brotherhood to pay about 28,000 rubles annually. Members of the Brotherhood are divided into two categories in terms of property. Members who own personal property outside the Brotherhood live on their own support and do not participate in the income of the Brotherhood. Full members of the Brotherhood live fully supported by the Brotherhood, participate in the income of the Brotherhood, do not have the right to own property on the side, are obliged to live in the Brotherhood, take part in its works and obey the orders accepted in the Brotherhood. Upon admission to the number of full members of the Brotherhood, persons who own property transfer it to the Brotherhood, according to the assessment, reserving the right to receive equivalent property upon leaving the Brotherhood. Full members of the Brotherhood are the owners of fraternal property. The net profit received by the Brotherhood is distributed as follows: 20% is allocated to the general capital of the Brotherhood - main and reserve, and 80% goes to the disposal of the members of the Brotherhood, which freely disposes of these interests, allocating some of them to the personal property of the brothers. Members of the Brotherhood can freely dispose of amounts in their personal accounts upon leaving the Brotherhood and according to a spiritual will. In addition to full members of the Brotherhood, there may be adopted brother-members who enter the Brotherhood from the outside. They submit to the entire structure of fraternal life, live on the support of the Brotherhood and participate in its income on an equal basis with full members, but do not have a decisive participation in the management of fraternal life, which belongs only to full members. Adoptive brothers are, however, given the right of an advisory vote. The first year after entering the Brotherhood, individuals are called admitted to probation and do not take any part in the management of fraternal life. Full, adopted and admitted members on January 1, 1905, there were 69 brothers, 82 sisters and 44 children, for a total of 195. Full brothers and sisters constitute the Fraternal Duma, which resolves all issues of fraternal life. The admission of new members of the Brotherhood depends on it. It is freely replenished from among the adopted brothers, and the principle is observed that the leadership of fraternal life belongs not to the majority of all members of the Brotherhood, but to a tried and trusted minority. The Duma itself selects a lifelong guardian from among itself. To manage the actual working life of the Brotherhood, the Fraternal Duma elects an economic council and board from all members. Then all members of the Brotherhood are divided into fraternal families. A fraternal family is a close team of brothers engaged in similar work. Currently there are nine such fraternal families. They bear the names of saints - the family of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, St. John the Evangelist, St. Princess Olga, etc. One family - teachers (St. Nicholas the Wonderworker), another family of members occupying various administrative positions at the Vozdvizhensky estate (St. John the Evangelist), a third family of cheese makers, a fourth - laundresses, etc. Now I will not be able to list all the fraternal families in this regard, but in the reports of the Brotherhood itself they are listed under the names of saints; but I can say that all fraternal families at the present time, with a small number of members of the Brotherhood and with the enormity of the possessions and complexity of the tasks of the Brotherhood, either occupy an administrative and intellectual, generally privileged position in the system of fraternal life, or they serve only the existing members of the Brotherhood - they sew, wash for it, etc. Let's dwell on the life of a brotherly family. A fraternal family is a union of several, married and celibate, members who have common work, a common house and table. For now, all families are housed in houses that previously had different purposes on the estate and are therefore not fully adapted for the new purpose. But new fraternal hostels are already being built. The family of St. lives in the new house. John the Theologian. It is planned to build fraternal dormitories similar to this house in the future. This is a large stone two-story house. Intended for 12 family members of the Brotherhood. It has twelve private rooms for families and common rooms - a dining room, three rooms for children, a small laundry room for washing children's clothes and a kitchen. Family members have their own separate room, and single members are accommodated several in a bedroom. The private quarters are not large - for two adults and three children at most. General type. In addition to beds, there are wardrobes and linen closets, a desk for writing and similar activities; in the front corner is a shrine, bordered by a white curtain, with a lamp. The decoration of the rooms is very monotonous. Monotonous clothes - a black blouse and black trousers for the brothers and dark blue dresses for the sisters. For morning and evening prayers, all members of the fraternal family gather in the dining room. For lunch and dinner, borscht with meat and porridge with lard, butter or milk are usually served; for breakfast or soup in families engaged in manual labor, or tea in other families. The maintenance (board and clothing) of each member of the Brotherhood costs from 105 to 125 rubles per year. Common children's rooms serve: two bedrooms for older boys and girls, and one for general children's games. I must say two words about fraternal children. It is easy to imagine that the entire population of the Brotherhood is bound by the bonds of a close community, which is noticeably visible on the outside: everyone knows each other, calls each other by affectionate names, members of the same fraternal family have a common table and house. Children are considered members of the Brotherhood and are maintained at the general expense of the Brotherhood, regardless of their number in the marriage family. All this has a highly beneficial effect on children. They are all affectionate, trusting, and friendly. Sometimes you pass by one or another fraternal house, around which a group of children aged 4 to 7 years is swarming. The kids see you and run up. “Hello, uncle! What is your name? Where have you been? Where are you going? Look at our toys.”... Or we pass, while inspecting the fraternal premises, through a room in which a baby who has just woken up is sitting in a rocking chair, and rarely does anyone not say a gentle greeting to him, touch him by the hand - and there were about 25 of us - and he looks at everyone with his bright eyes, smiles... And these healthy, cheerful and friendly children give the whole village a good, cordial appearance... The oldest of the fraternal children are currently reaching, I think he was seven years old. And the Brotherhood faces a new task - to create a preparatory school for their children. The life of each fraternal family is common. It is headed by a foreman appointed by the Fraternal Duma. Work is assigned to everyone, either common or covering different aspects of the needs of the fraternal family. Eg. younger children are entrusted to one sister, the other is with children from 4–7 years old; one is in the kitchen. The work manager acts in agreement with all members of the fraternal family. General issues of the fraternal family are resolved at meetings of all its members. Each fraternal family keeps a record, which is read and discussed at these meetings 8 . Different fraternal families, regardless of the type of work, have equal rights among themselves: intellectual and administrative occupations are not preferred to physical labor. I have already said that in the Vozdvizhensk economy, the members of the Brotherhood actually constitute only the administration of the estate, and among them are cattlemen and cowsheds for dairy cattle, and all other field and economic work is carried out by hired workers. But there is one family in the Brotherhood that constitutes the actual agricultural labor artel. She lives in the Christmas Farm. The brothers themselves work there, however, with the help of hired workers. When we were at this farm, we found the brothers harvesting fodder grass... In the house we were treated to good kvass: it was a hot day... We examined the orphanage. In some respects, Rozhdestvensky Farm is the most interesting corner of the Vozdvizhensky Brotherhood. Most of all, apparently, it is interesting to know how the work is going on this farm, what the results are here. Of course, we could not observe this during our short stay at the farm. But here is the information that can be obtained from the reports of the Brotherhood. The Rozhdestvensky farm was founded in 1892 on the outskirts of the fields of the Vozdvizhensk economy, at a distance of 3 miles from Vozdvizhensk; it was built specifically for the settlement of the Bratsk Workers' Artel. A house for a fraternal hostel and cattle yards were built on the farm; the new farm was equipped with the necessary household equipment - living and dead; the cost of equipment, as well as the costs of winter crops, were charged to the account of the new Fraternal Artel, formed mostly from the graduates of Vozdvizhenskaya S.-kh. school in 1892. For the land transferred to the use of the artel in the amount of 233 dessiatines, an annual rent of 1,339 rubles was required. 90 kopecks Subsequently, the rent was replaced by an obligation for the artel to maintain an orphanage established on this farm. The founders of the Brotherhood looked at the Rozhdestvensky Farm as a practical school, where young people entered straight from school and where they could demonstrate their practical abilities. Of the persons who showed these abilities, fraternal families were arranged in various economies of the founder of the Brotherhood, where they were placed in more or less responsible positions in managing the economy. This was done with the sole purpose of preparing the members of the Brotherhood for independent economic activity in the future, after the transfer of the estate to the Brotherhood, which was meant from the time the Brotherhood arose. The young people leaving the Rozhdestvensk farm in this way were replaced by students of the Vozdvizhensk Agricultural School, less experienced people, joining the Brotherhood. All this, of course, could not but reflect badly on the results of the young farm of the Rozhdestvensky Farm, but they put up with it, deliberately sacrificing the interests of this small farm to the main goal. Also having a bad effect on the economy of the Brotherhood were the quite frequent departures of its members from the Brotherhood at that time. Currently, Rozhdestvensky Farm is economically connected with the Vozdvizhensky estate, although it continues to operate a separate farm with separate crop rotation and household equipment. The farm now consists of 115 dessiatinas. arable land and 48 des. meadows; Previously, there was much more arable land, but since it was scattered in separate pieces between the bushes and on the outskirts of the property, behind the meadows, and was infertile soil and extremely inconvenient for cultivation, it was decided to plant it with pine. All work in the fields and around the yard is performed by members of the Brotherhood; There are very few hired people, and they are replaced by members of the Brotherhood at the first opportunity. The fact that in the Rozhdestvensky farm, with such a small amount of cultivated land, one still has to resort to hired labor, is explained by the fact that, in addition to field farming, cattle breeding and pig breeding are carried out there on a fairly large scale; meat is supplied from there for the entire Vozdvizhensky estate; people are needed to care for the garden and nurseries established in the amount of 8 acres... Much of this information remains unclear. Fraternal families are in constant communication. They are united, in addition to the usual fraternal interests, by holiday meetings and special fraternal celebrations, for example. admission of new members. Attention is drawn to “beauty and solemnity.” On major holidays everyone dresses in white. The reception of new brothers and sisters is accompanied by a religious procession, a prayer service... There is a Brotherhood sign - a cross. On Sundays and holidays, the Brotherhood gathers during the day for business fraternal meetings or literary and musical meetings, and in the evenings in the gallery at the guardian’s house for a relaxed fraternal conversation... We were able to attend such a conversation... It remains to be said about how the Labor Brotherhood views its future - and we will complete the outline of its system and views. The Orthodox Cross Exaltation of Labor Brotherhood - we read in the Brief Information about the Brotherhood, published in 1905 - is intended to be central, as if the cradle of all future branches and independent labor brotherhoods that will emerge from them, both within our fatherland and beyond its borders. The Central Brotherhood will be recognized as complete when, by the number of its fellow members, it is able to be content with its own forces, without resorting to the help of hired workers, when throughout the entire extent of the fraternal dominions there is not a single permanent resident who is not a member of the Brotherhood. Then young people leaving fraternal schools and persons re-entering the Brotherhood from the outside will continue to be accepted into the central Brotherhood, and full-fledged brothers experienced in fraternal affairs will receive from the fixed capital or income from that part of the estate that will be allocated after the death of the last surviving Neplyuev family, a loan for the establishment of a new branch of the Brotherhood under an agreement concluded between the founders of this branch and the Duma of the central Brotherhood. A department can also become an independent Brotherhood, but never, however, interrupt the moral connection with the central Brotherhood. Such brotherhoods can be established not only in villages, but also in cities, choosing as their specialty industrial and commercial work and even all kinds of liberal professions, i.e. brotherhoods of doctors, lawyers, scientists, artists, etc. About 25 of us were on an excursion in Vozdvizhensk - the majority were students of our academy. We stayed in Vozdvizhensk for three full and two half days. N.N. Neplyuev was not at home, and we enjoyed the hospitality of his mother Alexandra Nikolaevna, who bears the responsibilities of Trustee of Preobrazhenskaya agricultural sector. school, and sisters - Maria Nikolaevna (Umanets), who supervises the education of girls, and Olga Nikolaevna, who heads the Yanpol children's hostel. From the side of the Brotherhood, we were received by Fyodor Evfimovich, the manager of the Vozdvizhensk school, and Vasily Mikhailovich, who was the personal secretary of N.N. Neplyuev and represented him in his house in which we lived. We were greeted extremely cordially. The comforts with which our stay was furnished and the cordial kindness of the hostesses left us with the most pleasant memories. Every precaution was taken to enable us to use the time at our disposal for a thorough acquaintance with fraternal life. Of course, we cannot say about ourselves that we have studied fraternal life in its entirety on the spot; but what could be seen and learned in three days, we saw and learned. What we previously knew from books now appeared before us as a living reality; words, formulas, numbers took on flesh and blood for us; we saw a picture of fraternal life and felt its atmosphere. It was necessary to see how the brotherly children, at the first opportunity, unceremoniously climbed onto Alexandra Nikolaevna’s knees to understand the simplicity of cordial relationships that reigned here. We saw schoolchildren at work in the workshops and marveled at their strength and dexterity; we talked with members of the senior Brotherhood circle and were no less amazed at the self-confidence with which they answered in definite words on all questions of Christian life - obviously, all doubts were removed from them before they could arise. We wanted to talk to some of the students who were not enrolled in fraternal circles, but we were unable to do so. One of the elders was named to us as someone who stubbornly refused to join the fraternal circle; but when we met with him, it turned out that he had already announced his desire to enroll in the junior fraternal circle. We already knew from the descriptions of the Vozdvizhensk Brotherhood that Vozdvizhensk, replete with forests and parks, lacks running water, but we had to personally visit Vozdvizhensk to see a strange circumstance: all the women and girls of the Exaltation of the Cross Brotherhood are not blooming, and all of them bear some kind of stamp of sadness. I call this circumstance strange because the women in the Brotherhood are not exhausted by work and are in favorable physical conditions. I talked about this with members of the Brotherhood and they answered me: “We know that. The Brotherhood has already drawn attention to this sad circumstance, but the reasons for it are not known.” Perhaps this stamp of sadness and this shadow of asceticism are an integral sign of Christianity? On the eve of our departure from Vozdvizhensk, on Sunday evening, the entire Brotherhood gathered in the house of N.N. Neplyuev, in which we lived, and our conversation on the veranda of this house lasted until a late hour. At the request of my students, I gave a short speech to the Brotherhood. I cannot now literally reproduce what poured out in me then under the vivid impression of everything I saw and heard... I said that our excursionists are here - and it seems the first - representatives of theological science, that in essence there is a close connection between the tasks of the Brotherhood and the tasks of the theological school and there should be live communication between us. Here they strive to put into practice what we study in theory, and the work of the Brotherhood is full of interest for us as one of the experiences without relation to which our theological science is abstract and scholastic. We theologians must carefully study what is being done here. But representatives of the Brotherhood must also be attentive to our theological science if they want to be alien to sectarian exclusivity and party one-sidedness. Gone are the days when theological science was a dead study of dead material; Now we look directly and boldly into the eyes of life itself, do not shy away from its demands and accept the most frank formulation of the religious question. If the Brotherhood has the advantage of living experience, then on our side we have the advantage of a wide historical horizon and objective impartiality, not narrowed by the fence of just a courtyard, no matter how spacious. We set ourselves the task of tracing the entire historical distance of Christian experience and becoming familiar with all its phenomena in modern life, which we can compare... And these days we traveled almost all of Russia from the cold north to the hot south... And we can testify that we have never encountered such a unique corner. These cordial relations of brothers and sisters, these high Christian tasks uniting everyone, this cordial hospitality that we found here will make for us forever memorable the days spent here... Thanking the Brotherhood for its hospitality and for the convenience in which we became acquainted with its life, I asked to forgive us if we looked too intrusively into every corner, into their souls, if in our conversations, especially with students, we asked tempting questions: this stemmed solely from our curiosity, from our desire to find out everything, to see and hear everything, but not from our distrust of their cause. We just wanted to find out and even refrain from criticism, so we don’t want to weaken the living impressions. However, at this moment, close to parting, we consider it probable that the members of the Brotherhood want to know our opinion about their cause. But the opinion of each of us is a personal opinion, which cannot be constrained by anything, but cannot have any binding significance. If you wish, I can express my opinion, at the risk of being misunderstood, since it comes from a certain worldview, certainly unknown to the Brotherhood, but reserving the right to subsequently express myself more fully and clearly. From a Christian point of view, I value faces, not forms. And in all the work of the Brotherhood, I see and appreciate the work of one person - its founder. All members of the Brotherhood for me are not yet doers, but benefactors, and the form of their life interests me solely as a form of beneficence towards them, but not as an original beginning of a new life, on which they place great hopes... Of course, every student, having improved, may be like a teacher and even higher than him. But this is a matter for the future. And we sincerely wish that each of the members of the Brotherhood would not rest on what they have received, but would become a living imitator of their teacher... We said our heartfelt goodbyes to the Brotherhood... The Exaltation of the Cross Labor Brotherhood has many friends with whom it is in active and varied, mainly written, relations, and many ill-wishers, from whom it diligently unsubscribes. Among the latter, Yves is especially famous. Abramov, who wrote a brochure in the cultural monastery (among the non-Plyuevites), was branded among the members of the Brotherhood with the name of a renegade. This brochure points out the voyeurism, hypocrisy and hypocrisy that are generated by the education system adopted in the Vozdvizhensk schools, the hypnotizing and suppressive influence of Mr. Neplyuev’s personality on students, the lordly theatricality of the techniques that frame his attitude towards school and the Brotherhood, his love for beautiful phrases, the sentimental and suffocating atmosphere of constant kisses, speeches, addresses, on the parasitic life of the brothers and on the poor economic and sanitary situation of workers in the economy of the city of Neplyuev. For my part, I recommend Abramov’s brochure (and the articles named in it from other reviews about the Brotherhood) to the attention of everyone who is interested specifically in the practical side of fraternal life, who, for example. I would like, if possible, to apply the same system of education to some school. In principle, I am not against this kind of criticism, which is used in Abramov’s brochure, that is, consideration of behind-the-scenes details that can cast a shadow of irony and suspicion on a high-profile case. And in any case, representatives of the Fraternal system must take into account the voice of those whom they benefit, whom they educate: if from this side there is a protest against iron discipline and espionage, then this cannot be indifferent to them. Let, finally, these are only failed, renegades, but they were also in this system, they can be called its victims. If only one such sacrifice were laid at the basis of fraternal life, then this too would make us think twice. In principle, I am not against such behind-the-scenes criticism, but personally I am far from it. I admit to my ignorance of this side of fraternal life - therefore I cannot verify this review, I do not speak out either for it or against it. I am not going to organize schools, I am not taking upon myself to draw up statutes - my attention is absorbed in the ideological side of the matter. I tend to understand people and explain their actions in a better way. Of course, bad motives can be mixed with good ones, a good thing in general can have funny details, but this is important only for those who look at the form itself, and not for those who look at the essence of the matter. If it is true that in this case the funny is joined to the good and the petty to the great, then it is not difficult to imagine that in another case this connection might not have existed. Essentially, the case must be judged on the basis of the facts, not the incidental ones. I set the task of my essay to depict the foundation and life of the Brotherhood in such a way as both are presented to the eyes of the founders and members of the Brotherhood themselves. And I think that in this regard, the leaders of Vozdvizhensk can hardly complain about me. I can rather be reproached for the opposite, that in my description I adhered too closely to the letter of the fraternal statutes and did not add enough details. But I also wanted to outline the main side of fraternal life, that is, the best possible fraternal organization, without suspecting anyone of insincerity. And now I want to make a few remarks from this same essential point of view - in fulfillment of my promise to the Brotherhood. The most important drawback in the religious worldview of N.N. Neplyuev is that it does not ensure the freedom of an autonomous rational person. Not only in general is everyone religious in his own way, but in particular the Christian religion is assimilated by everyone, if only assimilated in the light of the individual - assimilated Christianity is not a general formula, but personal creativity. This is according to the meaning of the gospel. Therefore, the insistence of the founder of the Brotherhood that the members of the Brotherhood think with his thoughts and speak with his words cannot have the prospect of longevity. In this case, even the lack of literary talent, which is quite understandable in a practical figure, the lack of literary graceful roundness of the system and aphoristic formulas that stimulate independent thought and create sectarian isolation, can play an unfavorable role, despite the tedious repetition of the same thoughts and words. Only a system that is designed for the free creativity of future generations is durable. The same should be said regarding practical forms of life. If forms do not lay claim to sacramental significance, if they do not fall under the category of dead and heavy duty, then their perpetuation will, at best, cause protest, and at worst, create hypocrisy. N. Gorbov’s preface to S. A. Rachinsky’s “Rural School” tells the following. “...After dinner, my assistant and friend, Roman Stepanovich Krylov, also a former student of Rachinsky (now a deacon), usually prayed alone in an empty classroom. I didn't go in there so as not to disturb him. Meanwhile, I began to notice that often in the bedroom (which is also the dining room), where the students stayed after dinner, several boys, mainly the older ones, were missing. I looked into the classroom once and saw: Roman was praying in front of the icon, and at a distance a bunch of guys were kneeling, and they began to come slowly, trying to be unnoticed, into the classroom - and they were also praying.” Isn't it a wonderful picture? Christ was with these who slowly came to pray. But listen further. “Then they asked Roman to read all the prayers out loud. Thus, by itself, at the request of the children themselves, the evening prayer has expanded, and now all the prayers for those who are coming to bed are read on it, to maintain vigor, interrupted by singing. How will people not understand that the transition from a voluntary matter, resulting in a free form, to an obligatory form is the most decisive, that it is the greatest sin to desecrate the holy freedom of religious creativity with nomistic shackles. In A. Lyutetsky’s brochure “Original Education” it is conveyed that the organization of fraternal circles at the Vozdvizhensk school arose freely. This is wonderful. But it must continue freely. If they look askance at those outside the circle, then the angel of freedom has long since flown to heaven, and in its place dead discipline has taken possession. There is nothing more to be avoided than hypocrisy. Christ asked his disciples from time to time: “Would you like to depart from Me?” And mere mortal teachers need to repeat such questions to their students every day. Of the three students of the senior Brotherhood Circle, to my question: “on whose side do you have tempting benefits, which of you are the heroes - those who join the circles or those who remain outside the circle?” - two answered: “of course, we are heroes of the kingdom of God,” and the third said: “well, what are you? To avoid joining a circle; you need to be a hero”... Within the school, education can be based on suggestion and discipline, but the idea that in this way it is possible to create the leaders of life and recreate life itself must be called a utopia. Artificial isolation cannot be considered a serious measure. First of all, in relation to the internal limits of the colony itself - on what are hopes for the longevity of the educational value of the established system based? The governing rules of the fraternity and its schools are replete with the words “must,” “shall,” “should,” repeated hundreds of times. “Pupils must understand... must remember... must be aware. There should be a Saturday circle”... And so on. Is this a prophecy based on newly discovered powers and laws, or an indisputable legislation in the hope of new powers instilled in humanity? If neither one nor the other, then these are empty words. And their powerlessness will soon be revealed. Based only on the lived history of Christianity, it is easy to foresee the disintegration of the colony. The point is this. Children are growing up in the Brotherhood. Who can guarantee that all of them will be freely educated in the spirit of Brotherhood, that half of them will not demand the freedom of their younger sons—the freedom (I’m not saying to live dissolutely) to think in their own way, to pray in their own way? Dostoevsky called the most terrible evil of penal servitude that the unfortunate person is deprived of the opportunity to remain alone. Being alone with yourself from time to time is such a sacred need. Religion is primarily the work of a solitary individual. To pray to your God, to your Heavenly Father, is just as necessary at other times and for other natures as at other times and for other natures to unite in prayer. For others, the most valuable thing is to think, in their own words, to create their own worldview system, to try their own paths... Nowadays, members of the Labor Brotherhood are leaving their father and mother; the time will come when they will become at odds with their children. It is not difficult to leave your father and mother, but it is more difficult to leave your children. And the Brotherhood of Labor will face a dilemma: either throw out their parents along with the failed children, or expand the free conditions of stay in the Brotherhood. Many beautiful words have been said about the fact that children of the clergy should devote themselves to the same service; however, this order made mere mercenaries out of the clergy. On a larger scale, all of Christianity experienced a similar decline in moral level, as soon as all the children of Christians began to be considered Christians. How can the Vozdvizhensk Brotherhood avoid the same fate? Much more important is the question of the Brotherhood’s attitude to the outside world. The Labor Brotherhood constantly hears the following objection: “The Brotherhood becomes isolated, lives its own isolated life and does not bring any benefit to the surrounding society.” In response to such an objection, the founder of the Brotherhood compiled a brochure “The vital importance of labor brotherhoods, church, state and public - a conversation for friends and enemies.” Here the founder of the Brotherhood writes: “If we do not take upon ourselves to judge those who do not begin to organize life on the principles of faith, love and peace, not considering ourselves the right to insult them with public reprimands for this, justice demands that we not be subjected to the insults of public reprimands for the good deed that we unselfishly and selflessly create for the common good... Accuse us of being too isolated from the outside. persons extraneous to our cause are unfair, cruel and insulting to us as a judgment on our conscience”... To this we should answer that it is possible not to judge persons and judge the principles of their activities. If the members of the Brotherhood of Labor simply lived as they wanted, then their lives would not have fundamental significance, and they would have the right to demand that they be left alone, but they claim to implement Christian principles in their lives, and therefore outsiders can judge the principles of their speeches and deeds, especially since the basis of their idea is a sharp criticism of the entire existing system of life and the idea that the form of the Brotherhood is the only form of implementation of Christianity. This is, as you will, a bold challenge to all outsiders to speak out about their cause. Everyone who takes the Christian question and the social question to heart must decide: 1) is the idea of ​​Christianity realized in the form of the Brotherhood of Labor and 2) does the form of the Brotherhood provide a solution to the social question? The author of the brochure writes: “What we are doing is not new, but old, like Christianity. This is exactly what has been preached from church pulpits in all ages, what was commanded to us by the Savior of the world. Only our attitude to faith is new. What is new is that we have moved from words to deeds, from preaching in word to preaching in deed. What is new is the degree of realization of truth that we demand from ourselves, that degree of practical implementation of faith and ideals, the possibility of which we prove in practice.”... No, what is new in the history of Christianity is such a consciously and directly expressed idea about the isolation of the Christian community from the surrounding world in the matter of charity. The enemy of ancient Christianity and the defender of paganism testified: “the Jews do not have beggars among themselves, the wicked Galileans (Christians) feed ours along with theirs”... Tertullian told the pagans: “our charity gives more in the streets than your piety in the temples... If all people have love for their friends, then the peculiarity of Christians is that they love even those who hate them.”... The church has always seen the unlimited nature of its benefactions as a sign of its universality and at the same time a means for victory over the whole world. The Brotherhood of Labor deliberately betrays this eternal Christian principle, thus separating the Christian community cause from the social cause. A communal cause is not the same as a social cause, and Christianity is about expanding the benefit of the community to the limits of the public. Unity within the community may not yet overcome dangerous solitude. Here is a page from the works of N.N. Neplyuev himself that relates to this. “Solitude,” he writes, can be solitary, it can be family, it can be in circles. A person who has chosen from all humanity a loving and submissive wife and, besides her and submissive children, completely dependent on him, who does not want to know anyone or anything - is this not a representative of the coarsest family egoism, an expanded “I", secluded from the rest of the world? Such a person can have extensive business and social connections, but this will only be external contact with the crowd, the communication of the stock exchange and the reception, and not the Christian communication of tender brotherly love. He and his family are a separate, closed world, secluded from everyone, not wanting intimate, fraternal unity with anyone... It is possible from a whole circle of people, from an entire party, even from an entire people, from an entire church, to make for yourself one big fictitious family, united by some material interests, fanaticism, national or confessional pride, and all this will not be Christian fraternal communion, but the same egoistic isolation of an even more expanded “I”, secluded from the rest of the world. alien to the Brotherhood of Labor, that it exists on a completely different principle. “From a Christian point of view, true fraternal communication is only where people are united by a living faith in a common Heavenly Father.”... He believes that only faith in a common Father gives true communication within the Brotherhood itself and that only the Brotherhood has such internal unity. But it is a mistake to think that in general strong and tender love is possible only in a Christian society. No, even the pagans can be united by strong love. and publicans can be gentle towards each other. The difference between true Christian love and pagan love, from family and circle love, is not that only it is strong and sincere love, but that family and circle love is limited to the boundaries of the family and circle, while Christian love goes beyond the boundaries of the Christian community. “Love your enemies. For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Don't publicans do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what special thing are you doing? Don’t the pagans do the same?” The Labor Brotherhood wants to protect itself from this logic of Christian love. Its founder reasons as follows: “The accusation of the Labor Brotherhood of isolation and isolation comes down to the demand from us that we have fraternal relations not only among ourselves, but to the same extent towards everyone without distinction. We have not accepted and will not accept such obligations; I completely reject the right of the society around us to make such demands on us. The very concept of “brotherhood” contains the requirement of reciprocity. There is fraternal logic and there is anti-brotherly logic.” Those. one must live with brothers as brothers, and with others as they are themselves. Brotherly relations with everyone would seem to be a false relationship. “We do not give away the products of our labor to the world around us for nothing and generally do not provide it with fraternal benefits until it wants to take on the fraternal feat. That is why we do not agree to deceive the people and flirt with them on the basis of fraternal relations,” that is, to improve the financial situation of hired workers and do good to the surrounding population. So, with the good in a good way and with the evil in an evil way. The principle is striking in its simplicity. But this is the Old Testament principle: love your neighbors and hate your enemies. Christianity revealed to the world a completely different principle. You need to love not only your neighbors, but also your enemies - moreover, not only the good, but also the evil. This precisely means loving with perfect love the Heavenly Father, Who commands His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unjust. The only condition (conditio sine qua non) for a community to acquire a Christian character is if the community does good not only to its own, but also to strangers, not only to the good, but also to the evil, not only to the righteous, but also to the unrighteous. Only in this single case does natural love degenerate into religious, Christian love. Otherwise, there will be a circle of love between people united by material interests and the mutual pursuit of ideas - a working association... No one says that the surrounding society has the right to make any demands on the Brotherhood. That's not the point at all. It's about the Brotherhood itself. If, I repeat once again, its members lived this way simply because they wanted to, then there would be no talk of any rights of the surrounding society. But the Brotherhood claims to be the exponent of the Christian idea, with a harsh judgment addressed to all who live differently. This is a different matter. This provides grounds for applying to the Brotherhood a certain criterion for judging its affairs. “By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Everyone is judged according to their own principles. Each person in his conscience and in his confession carries the measure of his own judgment. Claiming to be the only bearer of the Christian idea in modern life, the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross is obliged to stand at the height of this idea, must be judged by this idea. But it does not stand at this height; it lowers the Christian ideal. Behind the reasoning that only in this way does Christianity acquire vital significance and believers receive a certain program, we recognize a certain force. Well, in this case, let them say directly and openly that Christianity in its evangelical heights is not applicable to life, cannot create communities, is a pure utopia, this will at least be a frank and sincere thought. As sincere, it will have its price. But we resolutely refuse to understand why the Brotherhood can accumulate its prosperity, while for the individual Christian this is impossible, since he is surrounded by crying need, importunately extorting his sympathy and pity. So, can the Brotherhood buy itself the expensive luxury of isolation from the surrounding need and suffering?! At what cost? Go away, poor people and need - we help each other!.. It’s whatever you want, but it’s not Christianity... This is some kind of evolution in the relationship of the “Russian landowner” to the “Russian peasant”, the evolution of the labor question, but not the evolution of Christianity. Let us now look at the social significance of the Brotherhood. In the above-mentioned brochure we read: “The Labor Brotherhood represents a useful experience for the Church and the State in the harmonious organization and unity of a parish, the experience of healing and revitalizing the social cell of the church and state organism, which is so necessary for the health of the living organism of the Church and the State, organisms whose health cannot but be affected by the destructively painful state of the living cells that compose them. For the Church and the State, a closely united and harmoniously organized Labor Brotherhood is the best guarantee of unwavering loyalty to them and the practical implementation in life of their ideals of the peaceful prosperity of the country and peaceful progress.” Those. The Labor Brotherhood is part of the state and the church. The more comfortable and prosperous a part is, the better the whole. This is the social significance of the Labor Brotherhood. It's hard to argue against this. But group or family selfishness can also have such social significance. In the family, the harmony of personal egoism with the interests of the whole is especially indicated. “The more selfish a family is, the more it is said to be closed in on itself, the more cut off from the world: and the more warmth it accumulates, the main living condition for children, future fellow citizens of the fatherland. The more selfish a husband is, the more demanding he is of his wife: the more strictly he guards her fidelity, like a wife, and her devotion to children, like a mother. Again, from the husband’s selfishness, the interest of society, of which such a wife and mother is an excellent member, benefits. The wife is selfish - she holds her husband: then - the economy, the surplus, all parts of the nation's property grow. Thus, here, the more someone demands for himself, the more he gives to everyone.” What about family? The same can be said about individual selfishness and prosperity. The better I am, the better the state, since I am part of the state. This is exactly what the famous proponent of economic individualism, Bastiat, argues, arguing that personal egoism is in natural harmony with the general interest and everyone, taking care of themselves, thereby serves society. All this is true, of course. But this is only a mediocre service to society, this is only a natural (and not moral) coincidence of selfishness with public benefit, since selfishness, within certain limits, coincides with the public good. However, the state is not only the sum of individuals and separate unions. State and social orders have an objective existence and influence the lives of individuals and individual unions. State and public needs require citizens' immediate attention. In Minin’s position, serving society meant sacrificing his wife and children, and not maintaining family egoism. In the position of a landowner in a slave-owning country, there is a pitiful minimum of morality to maintain one’s family or class well-being. Under certain circumstances, selfishness and public benefit collide; some pressing social needs require direct attention from individuals and circles and even sacrifice of individual, family and circle interests. The routine only maintains social life. Every progress of society, every rise to a higher level is accomplished by the conscious efforts of free agents. There is a difference between some polypnyak or tubular plant and human society. In the tubular plant (siphonophores), some members serve as nutritious organs, others as swimming organs, etc. Each serves the whole, performing its own special functions and only in this way. But human society progresses only because its members consciously relate to the common cause, to public issues, and serve public needs. With a lack of attention to public affairs, frozen orders begin to adversely affect the condition of circles, families and individuals. Undoubtedly, in a slave-owning country or in a country oppressed by a bureaucratic regime, there may be some individuals, or classes, or circles that are especially prosperous, but these are precisely parasitic members, for whom prosperity itself can only be purely physiological and is inevitably accompanied by spiritual decline. The very indifference to the victims of the social system is evidence of their moral decay. There can be no choice here - it is necessary to emerge from the shell of individual, family or circle egoism into a broader arena of social activity. Representatives of the Exaltation of the Cross Labor Brotherhood think that it also has direct social significance. “Separating ourselves from the society around us to the extent of the demands of our conscience, we, say the members of the Brotherhood, nevertheless have an incomparably greater degree of communication, not only between us, but also with the society around us, than we could have outside the Brotherhood. Many do not understand this, for many it is not obvious only because this communication is more systematic and in different forms than those to which we are accustomed in the routine of life around us.” Such introductory words increase the reader's attention to the following lines. It turns out that there are systematic relations between the Brotherhood and society, only they are different from the stereotyped and routine ones, they are only not noticed due to their extreme originality. What are these forms of intercourse? “We look at our brotherhood as a living book, open for reading by everyone, from the learned to the ignorant, from the noble to the commoner, for everyone who wishes to read it, without considering themselves the right to write on its pages; whatever you like, a book more convincing and eloquent than anything we could say in defense and explanation of the vital truth of faith and the loftiest humanitarian ideals.” This means that the experience of fraternal life practiced in Vozdvizhensk is a saving example for everyone, a healing example for society, and, of course, it is not the fault of the Brotherhood if they do not understand this meaning of it and do not want to use it. “This is precisely our highest social merit, which is capable, with good will, of understanding us and taking advantage of our life experience, of becoming a true public benefit.”... And the Brotherhood not only silently sets a saving example, “the doors of our Brotherhood are wide open for everyone who wants to visit it and get acquainted with it on the spot, be it a representative of the highest strata of society or a simple peasant.” Of course, receiving guests, for which the Brotherhood allocates up to 800 rubles a year. This is not enough. “The theory of our work and its life-giving spirit are expounded in detail in four volumes of the complete collection of my works. It is in these forms, along with the education of the people’s soul for the discipline of faith and love, in the person of those children of the people whom we educate, ardently desiring to make them the property of God and our brothers in the heritage of God - the cause of the Brotherhood of Labor, that we believe in the broadest and most useful communication with the society around us.” These are the four main forms of communication between the Brotherhood and society. It is necessary to say especially about the last form. About 5,000 rubles of state funds are allocated for Vozdvizhensky schools, and the State sets the goal of this school to disseminate basic agricultural knowledge among the people. The Brotherhood, for its part, makes an effort to keep the students of the school within the Brotherhood, and this is precisely what is called the fourth form of social service of the Brotherhood. It seems that here we have an example of a complete perversion of concepts. The fact that the Brotherhood does not release school students to the people, but keeps them within itself, reveals the undoubted anti-social tendency of the Brotherhood. It's clear as day. Therefore, three forms of communication between the Brotherhood and society remain - an example of fraternal life, explained by hospitality and the printed word. These forms turn out to be invalid, which gives rise to the indignation of the founder of the Brotherhood. “It is not our fault,” he exclaims, if they do not want to enter into those forms of communication with us that logically follow from our very cause. It is not our fault if, living in close proximity to us, even within the Glukhovsky district, they treat me and the cause of the Labor Brotherhood with such contemptuous inattention that they do not read my works and do not study the work of the Labor Brotherhood on the spot.” More than one founder of the Exaltation of the Cross colony throws a similar reproach at humanity - this is the technique of all utopians, this is the fate of all self-deluded dreamers. Utopia is the hope of bringing a golden age to the world, based not on knowledge of the real forces operating in humanity, but on the project of the author of this or that utopia. This is the tragedy of every utopian: he is deeply convinced that only humanity needs to implement his project - well, for a test, well, for one day - and the happiness of humanity is guaranteed. However, humanity is not at all inclined to perform experiments on itself that please someone. Hence the indignation of the utopian... Only an objectivity of view could help here, to which one-sided infatuation is too far away. Let's take an example from afar. The famous Fourier hoped that the phalansteries he designed solely by the power of example and their attractiveness would change the social life of mankind. You can give examples closer to us. Our Tolstoy assures that it only takes one person to understand life the way Christianity teaches him to understand it, and to begin to live that way and for another, third, or hundredth to do the same for him, in order for that vicious circle of social life, from which there is apparently no way out, to collapse. “Let every person now in his life, to the best of his ability, profess the truth that he knows, or at least let him not defend the untruth that he does, passing it off as the truth, and immediately this year such changes would take place towards the liberation of people and the establishment of truth on earth, which we do not dare to dream about even in centuries.” And next to these serious thinkers, how many vulgar people are also dreaming and indignant! Here is K. Merezhkovsky’s book “Earthly Paradise or a Winter’s Night’s Dream.” The most absurd smearing of sexual abominations - and this is a project to make humanity happy. A pitiful author, from whom talent is as far away as the sky from earth, yet he sincerely despises humanity, which, he has a presentiment, will not understand the beneficence of his project... But here is a bunch of equally pathetic poets who think that they have discovered a “religion unknown to the world”, that they are regenerating humanity. “Spontaneous forces erupt in Bryusov’s poetry like an earthquake”... As if?.. Rest assured, not a single glass will break from this earthquake... Of course, the dreams and words of noble utopians cannot be compared with these nonsense, but their indignation is just as funny. Isn’t that what makes all the official preachers of Christianity pathetic? After all, imagine, we have - let's say - 35,000 preachers. Each of them, many or a few times, will say a wonderful word about Christian love and brotherhood. If even one of them, even for one day, had listened to the Russian people, what an event fraught with consequences it would have been. Yes, the fact of the matter is that these words are powerless. Oh, these are beautiful words in content, but they have no real power! And that’s why the preacher’s indignation is funny. There are words and there is real power. Real power is that which actually manifests itself if it is not delayed by obstacles. Indignation in this case can only mean that it indicates the absence of social meaning of the word or example. They do not listen or read, therefore, words and speeches have no social meaning. If the question was about legal justification, then the defense would make sense: “I said or showed, and then it’s not my fault.” But legally they do not accuse anyone, but only talk about the actual absence of social significance... And besides, isn’t this too little: “he said his word and showed an example?”... It would not be possible in our time to listen to such pitiful words. Nowadays, for every thinking person there is no doubt that the well-being and even the moral goodness of the crowd (excluding a few progressive figures or moments of moral upsurge) depends on the socio-economic system. Change the socio-economic system, and then you have the right to expect moral and economic improvement of your personal and family. And in any case, if personal charity has limited and even insignificant results, then the transition from it to a communal structure, by virtue of simple logic, does not allow us to stop at this stage, but forces us to move on to the next one - to active social activity. Let me summarize what has been said. I give friendly advice to the Cross Exaltation of Labor Brotherhood: a) provide individuals - members of the Brotherhood with more subjective and religious space, normalizing only externally the communal relations of brothers, and b) open the widest possible charitable activities in relation to the surrounding population, without giving up active and direct participation in socio-economic issues. It would be extremely sad for me if these arguments of mine were understood as the result of my dislike for the Brotherhood - it would be so unfair! On the contrary, I say all this precisely because I take the work of the Brotherhood quite seriously and treat it with sincere respect, recognizing it as worthy of full attention and study. This is clear from every line of my description. Only I am not one of the people for whom everything in Christianity is so clear and all Christian-social problems are easily solvable problems with one unknown. I think that there are many unknowns in the Christian task and that we need to begin a scientific study of the modern attitude of Christianity to life, modern experiences of Christian work: we need to collect materials, compare, classify, draw conclusions. Therefore, the objective scientific view of an impartial observer has its value along with doing in one or another particular form. And it would be a genuine disrespect on my part for the cause of the Brotherhood and ingratitude to it for its hospitality if I limited myself to hymnological feelings and amateurish thoughts, if I only admired it. I consider it my duty to express those judgments that are suggested to me by my religious convictions and general point of view on all forms of Christian work. And my judgments not only do not relate to personalities, which are always sacred to me, - they only slightly touch on the matter itself - they relate mainly to the books of the founder of the Brotherhood, to the definition of the fraternal principle given by him, to its verbal expression. I would like the members of the Brotherhood to treat my judgments with that fraternal feeling that my words and thoughts instill in me, and with that reverence for the high Christian ideal, before which all existing human deeds are petty. Tolstoy's colonies, scattered here and there, always insignificant in the number of members, offer too little to the casual observer due to their extreme simplicity and uncomplicated structure, due to the absence of certain orders raised to a principle. What deserves attention and study in these colonies is not the composition and affairs of any of them, but the general religious and moral principles underlying them and creating their character, and their common destiny. The colonies we are talking about borrow their religious and moral principles from the moral and philosophical teachings of L. N. Tolstoy. And we would have to begin with a detailed exposition of this doctrine, if it were not generally known. Let us recall it in the most general terms. L. N. Tolstoy reduces the Gospel teaching to five negative commandments and one positive one. The five negative commandments are: a) not to be angry or angry, b) not to get divorced or fornicate, c) not to swear, d) not to resist evil, or not to go to court or fight, and e) not to make distinctions between people, not to consider people strangers just because they live in another land and speak a different language. The commandment of non-resistance to evil constantly appears in Tolstoy with a fundamental or central character. The commandment regarding marriage later turned into a decisive denial of marriage. He does not even stop at the possibility of ending the human race from this. Why live? If the goal of humanity is good, kindness, love; if the goal of humanity is what is said in the prophecies, that all people will be united into one by love, that they will forge spears into pruning hooks, then what is preventing the achievement of this goal? Passions get in the way. Of the passions, the strongest and most evil and persistent is sexual, carnal love, and therefore if passions are destroyed, and the last, strongest of them, carnal love, then the prophecy will be fulfilled, people will unite into one, the goal of humanity will be achieved and there will be nothing for it to live for. Tolstoy says about the five Gospel commandments that until now it is impossible to add to them or take away from them a single one, that they completely exhaust everything that turns a person away from the true path of life. These five commandments, as Tolstoy understands them, lead to the abolition and destruction of property, family, patriotism, church and state, and should return man to a state of natural innocence. The evil of our life comes from state and church laws, from the prejudices of nationalism and property - and it will cease by itself as soon as a person is freed from these laws, as soon as these cultural prejudices are destroyed. A culture that embraces the division of labor, the division of peoples and classes, courts, oaths, troops - not only is not a necessary path to human happiness and perfection, but is precisely the cause of his suffering and all the evil that fills his life. The teaching of the Gospel, in addition to its negative side, also has a positive side. On the positive side, the teaching of truth expressed by Christ is not found in commandments and laws, it is found in one thing - in the meaning given to life. The meaning of this teaching is one thing - that life and the good of life are not in personal happiness, as people think, but in serving God and people. And this position is not a prescription that must be fulfilled in order to receive a reward for fulfillment, it is not a mystical expression of something mysterious and incomprehensible, but it is a revelation of a previously hidden law of life, it is an indication that life can be good only with such an understanding of life. And therefore, the entire positive teaching of the truth of Christ is expressed in one thing: love God and your neighbor as yourself... Love can be false, worldly, it is an addiction; and there is true love. True love becomes possible only by renouncing the good of the animal personality. The possibility of true love begins only when a person understands that there is no good for him in his animal personality. Only then do all the juices of his life turn into one ennobled stalk of true love, growing with all the strength of the trunk of the wild animal personality. It is not as a result of love for a father, for a son, for a wife, for friends, for kind and sweet people, as is usually thought, that people renounce personality, but only as a result of the awareness of the futility of the existence of a personality that a person knows true love and can truly love his father, son, wife, children and friends. Love is the preference of other beings for oneself - one’s own animal personality. The beginning of love, its root, is not an impulse of feeling that darkens the mind, as is usually imagined, but is the most reasonable, bright and therefore calm state, characteristic of children and reasonable people. This state is a state of benevolence towards all people, which is inherent in children, but which in an adult arises only with renunciation and intensifies only as one renounces the good of the individual. The magnitude of love is the magnitude of the fraction, the numerator of which, my preferences, sympathies for others, is not in my power; the denominator, my love for myself, can be increased and decreased by me indefinitely, according to the importance that I attached to my animal personality. There is no other love than that which lays down one’s soul for one’s friends. Love is love only when it is a sacrifice of oneself. Only when a person gives to another not only his time, his strength, but when he spends his body for a loved object, when he gives his life to it - only this we recognize everything as love and only in such love do we all find good, the reward of love... Such love is itself, life. Not an unreasonable, suffering and perishing life, but a blissful and endless life. Love is not a conclusion of reason, is not a consequence of a certain activity; and this is the very joyful activity of life, which surrounds us on all sides. Who does not know that blissful feeling of tenderness in which you want to love everyone: loved ones, father, mother, brothers, evil people, enemies, a dog, a horse, and grass; I want one thing - for everyone to feel good, for everyone to be happy, and even more I want to make sure that everyone feels good, to give myself, my whole life, so that everyone always feels good and happy. This is what it is, and this alone is the love in which a person’s life is. To love in general means to do good. To love with false partial love means to take away from others the goods that one’s own may need, to give up love (for strangers) in the present for the sake of love (for one’s own) in the future. To love with true love means to do good in the present, to give good to the first who asks for it, who needs it... From the law of love, explained by the five negative commandments, it follows, as a negative conclusion, the simplification of life and, as a positive conclusion, the need for labor aimed at obtaining bread. Truly wonderful and beautiful are those numerous pages from the religious and moral works of L.N. Tolstoy, on which he reveals the inextricable connection between the idleness and luxury of some with the poverty and suffering of others, the idleness and luxury of city life with the poverty and suffering of the countryside. With the swift force of passionate indignation and unshakable conviction, with the irresistible persuasiveness of an artistically depicted truth, Tolstoy reveals to us those iron scenes that entail, behind the habit of idle people of smoking tobacco, the miserable death of those who prepare the smoke, behind the passion for dressing richly and noisily having fun, the suffering, poverty and death of those who perish in factories that produce luxury goods. Just as it is necessary to give up idleness and luxury out of love for people, so for the same love it is necessary for everyone to take up bread labor. Where do human disasters come from, if we exclude from the number of disasters those that people directly inflict on each other through murders, executions, prisons, fights and all sorts of cruelties in which they sin by not abstaining from violence? All human misfortunes, with the exception of direct violence, come from hunger, deprivation of all kinds, aggravation at work, and next to this from excess, idleness and the vices they cause. What could be the most sacred duty of man, if not to contribute to the destruction of this inequality, these scourges of need in some and scourges of temptation in others? And how can a person contribute to the elimination of these disasters, if not by participating in labor that covers the needs of people, and by removing from himself excesses and idleness that produce vices and temptations, that is, by not allowing everyone to feed on their own labors? But this is not only a duty, work is a joyful calling of a person. Tolstoy looks at the teachings of Christ as a call on people not to do stupid things that poison life, and to live a reasonable life, which is the only happy life. Sacrifice, of course, is inevitable, but worldly life also requires sacrifice from a person, and these sacrifices are heavier than those that await a person on the path of Christ. But worldly sacrifices do not give a person happiness, and renunciation in the name of Christ is the sure path to happiness. The teaching of Christ that life cannot be secured, but that one must always, at every moment, be ready to die, is undoubtedly better than the teaching of the world that one must secure one’s life; it is better in that the inevitability of death and the insecurity of life remains the same under the teaching of the world and under the teaching of Christ, but life itself, according to the teaching of Christ, is no longer completely absorbed by the idle occupation of imaginary provision of one’s life, but becomes free and can be given to a single goal inherent in it - the good of oneself and others. The disciple of Christ will be poor; yes, i.e. he will enjoy all the benefits that God has given him. Poor means: he will not be in the city, but in the countryside, he will not sit at home, but will work in the forest, in the field, will see the light of the sun, the earth, the sky, animals, etc. He will get sick, suffer, and die just like everyone else, but he will undoubtedly live happier. It is necessary to restore the idea, characteristic of all unspoiled people, that a necessary condition for human happiness is not idleness, but work; that a person cannot help but work, that it is boring, hard, difficult for him not to work, just as it is boring, difficult not to work for an ant, a horse and any animal... According to the teachings of Christ, every individual person, no matter what the world is like, will have the best life if he understands his calling - not to demand work from others, but to devote his whole life to work for others, to give his life as a ransom for many. In heartfelt and deeply convinced words, Tolstoy addresses the cultured, urban man, calling on him to take part in labor. Go down to the bottom, stand next to those who feed the hungry and clothe the cold; Don’t be afraid of anything: it won’t get worse, but it will be better in all respects. Stand in a row, take your inept, weak hands to that first task that feeds the hungry, clothes the cold - for bread labor, for the fight against nature, and you will feel for the first time that solid ground under your feet, you will feel that you are at home, that you are free, secure, have nowhere else to go, and you will experience those whole, unpoisoned joys that you will not find anywhere, behind any doors, behind any curtains. In Tolstoy's teachings it is especially easy to see the difference between the principles that lead only to the organization of personal and community life, and the principles of social activity. He resolutely speaks out against any idea of ​​the possibility of improving life through social reconstruction. The only evil in our life is that all sorts of laws fetter a person and prevent him from being good, as he is by nature, in himself; and any social reorganization will put other laws in place of some laws and therefore will not destroy evil. Socialists and communists consider the individualistic capitalist structure of society to be evil, anarchists consider the government itself to be evil, and all these parties have no other means than violence to unite people, i.e. the same means to which monarchists, conservatives and capitalists always resort. Whichever of these parties triumphs, to implement its rules, as well as to retain power, it must use not only all existing means and violence, but also invent new ones. Other people will be enslaved and people will be forced into other things, but there will be not only the same, but more brutal violence and enslavement, because as a result of the struggle, new means of enslavement will intensify and be developed. Any path of social reconstruction, according to Tolstoy, only increases the evil of life. This is how he thinks about socialism in particular. Now, for now, one area of ​​human activity has not been captured by government power - the area of ​​family, economic, area of ​​private life and work. But this area, thanks to the struggle of communists and socialists, is already gradually being taken over by governments, so that the work and rest, housing, clothing, food of people, little by little, if only the wishes of the reformers are fulfilled, will be determined and appointed by the governments. According to Tolstoy, liberation from evil is achieved not through social reconstruction, not through struggle, not through the destruction of existing forms of life, but only by changing the understanding of life. “True social improvement,” writes L.N. Tolstoy in his famous review of the social movement of recent days, can only be achieved by the religious and moral improvement of all individuals. Political agitation, by presenting individuals with the destructive illusion of social improvement by changing external forms, usually stops true progress.” Every person needs to start living according to the law of Christ, good people need to unite, and life will rearrange itself... Tolstoy's sermon is one of the most powerful calls of people to the Christian path in recent days. Many of the people of our time, who have forgotten Christianity or grew up in an environment in which Christianity was forgotten, again began to take a close look at it at the call of Tolstoy... And we have to especially regret that Tolstoy himself did not become a Christian in life, as he understands Christianity, and his sermon sounded like an empty, albeit powerful sound. He showed obvious efforts to become a Christian, but these efforts were expressed in such humorous forms that give the right to say that he “failed to become a Christian.” He sewed boots and plowed the land, having no need for shoes or bread, although, according to him, work makes sense only when it satisfies the need. He did not put himself in the position of a truly needy person. “So I am surrounded,” he admits, by all sorts of luxury, which I hate and from which I do not have the strength to get out.” Plowing the earth, wearing a work smock, all this turned out to be a kind of eccentricity, a lordly pastime, a special kind of sport. He also gave up his entire huge estate... in favor of his family, with whom he continues to live... He even tries to theoretically justify such individualistic quietism. At the conclusion of his apparently most radical work, “The Kingdom of God is Within You,” he writes: “I am not saying that if you are a landowner, you should immediately give your land to the poor, if you are a capitalist, you should now give your money, your factory to the workers, if you are a king, a minister, an employee, a judge, a general, then you should immediately give up your advantageous position; if you are a soldier, then despite all the dangers of refusal to obey, you would immediately give up your position. If you do this, you will do the best, but it may happen - and the most likely thing is that you will not be able to do this: you have connections, family, subordinates, bosses, you may be under such a strong influence of temptations that you will not be able to do this, but recognize the truth as the truth and not lie - you can always, and not only can, but also must, because in this alone, in freeing yourself from lies and confessing the truth, the only work of your life consists. And as soon as you do this, your position will inevitably change.” Very recently, a letter from L.N. Tolstoy was published (to the Doukhobor leader P.V. Verigin), which is very important for understanding his view of culture. Objecting to the addressee, who resolutely opposed the press as a means of communication, Tolstoy reproaches him for “sectarian exclusivity.” The unity of people is achieved “by trade, and conquest, and travel, and books, and railways, and telegraphs, and many other ways,” some of which, like conquests, should be rejected, but the rest should be recognized as “a convenient tool for serving God” 9. Of course, culture has shortcomings that must be corrected, but culture itself cannot be considered a mistake - it must be corrected, but not destroyed. What is wrong in our life is that the means, that is, culture, is set as the goal, and the goal, the good of the neighbor, is the means, that the good of the neighbor, and his very life, is sacrificed for the production of tools, no matter whether everyone needs them or not. “We need people to understand that no matter how useful and important book printing, the railroad, the plow, and scythes seem to us, we don’t need them, they will go to waste until we learn how to make them without ruining people’s happiness and lives.” This and only this is the evil of culture. There is no need to destroy a culture, it is impossible to destroy it, just as it is impossible to become a monkey again, you just need to know that material progress is inevitable growth, and not a goal, that there is only one goal - the good of one’s neighbor. “Crying that people cannot now live without tools, like forest animals, eating fruits, is the same as me, an old man, crying that I don’t have teeth and black hair, and the strength that I had in my youth. I don’t need to put in teeth and dye my hair and not do gymnastics, but try to live as an old man would, putting in the first place not worldly affairs, but the work of God - unity and love, allowing worldly affairs only to the extent that they do not interfere with the work of God. Humanity must do the same in its present stage of life. To say that railroads, gas, electricity, and printing are harmful because people’s lives are ruined because of them is the same as saying that plowing and sowing is harmful, just because I plowed the field at the wrong time, let it grow, and then sowed it without plowing it, that is, I did earlier what should have been done later.”... This is, indeed, the theory of non-resistance to evil - the theory of non-doing. I point out this not in order to throw a stone at the Yasnaya Polyana elder, but because Tolstoy, with his powerful figure, blocked Christianity from many and his weakness is to them the weakness of religion itself, because Tolstoy was sincerely hated by people who are looking for the truth and power of religion, and the shadow of this hatred fell on Christianity, with which Tolstoy identifies itself. Such a powerful in words and artistically lofty preaching of Christianity and such a decisive absence of Christian action! This is what one pilgrim who visited him in Yasnaya Polyana recently writes about Tolstoy. “Stopping for a second while walking, Lev Nikolaevich told me: “I feel good, terribly good, too good.” No despair, no melancholy and despondency. And one thing is a pity that I did not suffer, and in general that I suffered little... If I had suffered for my thoughts, they would have made a different impression... With these words, it seemed to me that some large, bright opening was opening up before me into Tolstoy’s very life, into his psychology. Tolstoy himself feels that he is first of all a judge, and not a prophet, and he would like, he would have to be a prophet, he would have to capture, sanctify within the limits of human understanding with the severity of his teaching, the severity of his personal life and suffering - his path, his criticism, his denial and his love... But “I feel good, too good,” he says and repeats. And now there is some kind of dissatisfaction, imbalance... A judge, not a prophet... And that is why Tolstoy himself is much more judged than followed. All the legends, the entire authoritative voice of the past, for asceticism to be preached by ascetics, for man to sanctify the severity of his personal life with the severity of his teaching, and not only we, not only the authoritative voice of the past, but also Tolstoy himself for this... And meanwhile, how much peace, tranquility, contentment is spilled throughout the Yasnaya Polyana order, in its buildings, in the faces of its inhabitants, how sincerely Tolstoy’s words sound: “to me good, too good,” and it is natural that his teaching, the path of which is so sorrowful and difficult, finds only an echo in the souls of others, and not recognition! But it’s not enough to say that there is no holiness, that they don’t follow Tolstoy. The terrible contradiction between Tolstoy's words and his deeds could have a fatal consequence for the cause of Christianity among all those who judge Christianity based on Tolstoyism. “Isn’t it really scary,” they say, “that this man, who so endlessly thirsted for the truth, so inexorably denounced himself and others like no one ever did, that he allowed such a blatant lie, such an ugly contradiction into his conscience?” And perhaps no one in the almost two-thousand-year history of the church has brought such harm to the cause of Christianity, to the cause of religious love, as Tolstoy, who for decades preached only about love. The scary thing is that, looking at Tolstoy, they started talking not only about the falsity or truth of Christianity, as they said before, but they started talking about the funny side of Christianity. They laughed at the Christianity of a proud aristocrat, a millionaire, who preaches patience to a people who have suffered so much, who with his preaching protects his possessions from hated socialism, who with this preaching gives his wife the opportunity to increase wealth. Has there ever been such a mockery of Christianity?.. What is especially noteworthy in Tolstoy’s personal history is the fact that he artistically created the theory of Christianity... The presence of figures of love, charity and mercy does not in itself solve the Christian question. The activity of love can be a simple result of natural pity, and in this case it is the same in a Christian environment and in a pagan environment. This is exactly what is characteristic of our days. And with greater attention we listen to the words of L. Tolstoy, who elevated Christian love into a system of harmonious worldview. Only love gives a person true life and complete happiness, only love solves all the contradictions of our life, only for love is a person called into this world - for love for all people. And with such a clear consciousness of the Christian good, with such a deep understanding of the essence of Christian love, Tolstoy remains a pagan, so that the preaching of Christianity is only an artistic decoration of his pagan life. And of course, in many people suspicion of this aesthetic love will creep into their souls; to many it will seem like an artificial flower of abstract thought, an artistically beautiful substitute for a simple living matter, an aesthetic need of artistic talent... In this case, “Christianity” is reduced to a simple psychological fact, which was already indicated in Notes from the Underground. “My streak of debauchery was ending,” the underground hero says of himself, and I felt terribly sick. Repentance set in... But I had a way out that reconciled everything, this was to escape into “everything beautiful and lofty,” of course, in dreams. I dreamed terribly... There was faith, hope, love. I boldly believed then that by some miracle, by some external circumstance, all this would suddenly move apart, expand; suddenly a horizon of corresponding activity will appear, beneficial, beautiful and, most importantly, completely ready, and then I will suddenly appear in the light of God, almost on a white horse and not in a laurel wreath... How much love, Lord, how much love I experienced in these dreams, even though it was a fantastic love, although it was not actually applied to anything human, but there was so much of it, this love, that later, in reality, the need for it was not even felt apply... These tides of “everything beautiful and lofty” came to me even when I was at the very bottom, but did not destroy debauchery with their appearance; on the contrary, it was as if they were livening it up with contrast, and they came just enough to make a good sauce. The sauce here consisted of contradiction and suffering, of painful internal analysis.” Tolstoy fulfilled this underground prophecy: his Christianity was only an artistic sauce for pagan life. And this is how it appeared and should have appeared because it was torn away from the Gospel eschatology, but did not fit into modern forms of social activity - it turned out to be a dead, artificial rule of life for everyone... But Tolstoy also found followers who want to live according to his teachings, and unite for this purpose in the Tolstoy colonies. These colonies appear here and there, always not crowded and not long lasting. In some respects it would be important to make known the number of these colonies, but from a religious-scientific point of view it is more important to monitor their fate. I have not been placed in such fortunate circumstances as would enable me to trace the fortunes of any colony; my observations in this respect are too insignificant to be of general interest, and I must borrow information from the hands of others. In the Smolensk Bulletin for 1891, the six-year history of one Tolstoy colony was conveyed, later retold in Russkoe Bogatstvo for 1893. The colony was founded on the picturesque bank of the Dnieper. Two brothers, quite wealthy, educated, seasoned - especially the eldest, who lived abroad for a long time and observed the life of American community members and sectarians, bought land, made the necessary buildings and acquired household equipment. In general, it should be noted that there are those who are willing to give land for the colony and ensure its initial existence - and usually these are disinterested donors, passionate only about the idea of ​​community life. Donors themselves do not always become community members, but in this case it was so. All buildings and all economic preparations were carried out thoroughly. In order to set up a household, which then had to be run by personal labor, we had to make compromises - turn to the help of a worker. Later they managed without this help in the work, but a shepherd had to be hired all the time, since none of the colonists wanted to perform these duties. Likewise, all the time the colony enjoyed an influx of money from outside, and this stamped the work of the colony as a sort of frivolous amusement. And such are all Tolstoy’s colonies that one reads and hears about. It turns out as if a person puts money in the bank, or gives it to his wife, and he himself begins the experience of working life, with the opportunity to always interrupt work. There is no decisive turn, no break with the past; there is a lack of faith that something serious and necessary is being done. In America, such communities flourish, but there life itself instills a serious view of work. With us, everything is somehow ideological and frivolous, a lot of words and little action. In appearance, the simplification in the colony was complete: simple clothes - an undershirt, a blue shirt, boots, a simple table - cabbage soup, lentils, peas, milk, simple relationships - “women,” as the women were jokingly called, washed and darned linen, baked bread and prepared for the table. But farming was difficult. Three acres of grain were sown in each field, meadows were harvested, thickets were cleared, but this cultivation of the land was carried out poorly and the farm could not feed, without outside help, bad workers, although it would have been enough for this in good hands. In addition, the colony was filled with idle guests who worked too much with their tongues and too little with their hands, admired everything, constantly rushed around with projects and lived the life of parasites. They heatedly discussed the topic that one must earn one’s food by the labor of one’s hands, that everyone who does not work sits on the shoulders of his neighbor, and at the same time, in reality, they ate someone else’s bread, but not their own... The economy proceeded without any order... They agreed to elect from among themselves a manager of the work and elected a man who understood agriculture and was hard-working. But they didn’t listen to him. His orders were called violence against the individual. For example, hay has been mown and you need to take advantage of good weather to remove it. The manager talks about this at breakfast. But the colonists don’t even listen: one goes to write a letter, another takes a book and goes to a shady place, the third sits in a meadow, gathers women in a heap and tells them in a quiet, smooth voice that their community is, strictly speaking, an absurdity, since a person’s life is in the spirit and the desire to go to the Father, and not in worries about food and procuring bread... The manager took a rake and went to collect the hay; Two more wandered after him, the rest remained; and in the evening a cloud came, burst into torrential rain and the hay spoiled... The household tools were handled extremely poorly, sloppily. The saddle breaks, the Tolstoyan, without thinking twice, cuts off the tug and corrects the problem. The rake during mowing left only one pitiful memory... The main members of the colony did not pay attention to these trifles and trifles, which was completely absorbed in the ideological side of life... They talked a lot, talked often. They talked about God, about the gospel; A favorite topic was the question of non-resistance to evil through violence. The conversations were amazingly fruitless, constantly returning to the same point, developing a passion for arguing and boring everyone. Sometimes life itself rudely intervened in this fruitless chatter and either demanded or provided direct and clear solutions. Thus, disputes about non-resistance to evil became known to the surrounding population; The peasants understood well that there was nothing to be afraid of these neighbors, because they had such faith: do whatever you want with them, they won’t go to court, they are meek, quiet people. This gave rise to curious incidents. For example, colonists walk into a field and see peasant calves walking through their oats; they rounded up once, rounded up again and asked the men not to let them in; they look, and the calves are back in the oats. They stopped and don’t know what to do. They argued. One says that driving is violence, and the other says that it will not be violence, but a good deed, because the oats will be saved. They stand and argue, and the calves trample and eat oats. Some woman came running and stole the calves, and they all stood and argued... Or else. Once the colonists took in a street boy, Petka, about 13 years old, to be raised in a neighboring city. The boy was impressionable, capable and brave. He took a closer look at the Tolstoyans and wanted to benefit from their teaching. He sees that his zip coat has begun to fall apart, but his undershirts are all healthy. I got up earlier than everyone else in the morning, chose a jacket that suited my height and put it on, but threw my zipunishka away. Everyone woke up. The owner of the coat sees what’s wrong and turns to the boy. - Why are you wearing my undershirt? - Because mine fell apart, but I liked yours - Well, well, tell me that it’s about growing beans. - Why am I going to fold? This is my undershirt. - Take it off, they tell you, otherwise I’ll take it off myself. - Well, try it! Why do you want to change your faith? It is said not to resist evil... The colony did not have the strength to resolve this conflict, and it felt shame for its hopeless situation... Tolstoy's colonies deliberately isolate themselves from the outside world, setting as their goal personal moral improvement and hoping in this way to recreate society. Our goal, say the Tolstoyans, is to create a community in which a person, with the assistance of his comrades, could move towards moral improvement. Our community should be such that every morally dejected, tired and exhausted person in the struggle can find shelter and rest in our midst, so that every young, not yet established person, seeking truth, love and goodness, can strengthen with us in his ideals, acquire the necessary moral foundations on his life path. But this moral improvement is easily reduced to empty verbiage, which soon begins to become boring. For many, life in the community turns into a naive idyll. And to improve morally, turning a blind eye to the needs of the surrounding life, seems impossible. And so they came to the idea of ​​allowing communication with the outside world. In a neighboring village they helped an old man with his work; they started a boat on the Dnieper, on which they sometimes transported peasants; they were allowed to wash in their bathhouse on Saturdays; They set up a school for peasant children, but the government closed it. Of course, such a parody of charity could not distract the attention of the colonists from the moral discord accumulating within the colony. The reason for this was found to be that the founder of the community remained the owner of the land and the remaining members suffered the humiliating position of farm laborers. Then he renounced the land in favor of the community, but none of the members wanted to transfer the land ownership to themselves, since this would be contrary to their beliefs. Meanwhile, the policeman went and demanded payment of salary slips, which everyone refused. A deed of gift was finally made in the name of the three colonists, but neither party wanted to pay the established duties... Moral discord increased. The reason for it, according to the author of the essay, lay in the absence of living activity, in the artificiality of life, in the fact that the human thought and soul were put in some kind of stone bag, wandered into some kind of nook, into some kind of enchanted circle. Tolstoyans, wrote one of the columnists in Nedelya, were sometimes unable to live the life they had chosen; they turned out to be weak. The torment of Tolstoy's life lay in the duality that existed between the height of his feelings and the baseness of his actions. But the colonists themselves were looking for an external reason for their failure. It seemed to them that their whole life was suppressed by the personality of the founder. He gave in and left the community. But life in the community did not improve. Boredom, inactivity, lack of purpose lay like a heavy stone on everyone and created mutual embitterment. More complications were added regarding the issue of marriage. Tolstoy's colonies are available for marriage and celibacy. In the first, growing children usually cause the disintegration of the colony. The colony we are talking about was based on celibacy. But this foundation soon shook. One of the most convinced Tolstoyans regarding celibacy decided to get married; another, who separated from his wife for the sake of the community, got back together with her and left the colony... There was a shortage of daily bread. But the colony received the final blow from neighboring peasants. As soon as they learned that the owner of the farm had left, would not return soon, and might even give up the land altogether, they flocked to the colony to ask for firewood, timber, old wheels, sleighs, money, and clothes. One woman asked for the funeral of her daughter, who had no intention of dying; others invented other needs. There was nothing to help, we had to give what was necessary. The colonists began to hide, avoided meeting with the peasants, and they tracked them down and hunted them like game. Finally, the peasants decided to inspect the premises of the colony themselves: they broke the locks, searched the library building and the abandoned manor house... It was impossible to live under such conditions, and the last colonists fled. The history of another colony is told in the book by E. A. Solovyov “In Thoughts” (1893), retold in the same Rus. God. for 1893 and was repeated once again in the recently published monograph by Andreevich (E. A. Solovyov) “L. N. Tolstoy.” Among Tolstoy's colonies, the founded book occupies a prominent place. Khilkov community of peasants in the village. Pavlovka. What is the significance of these colonies? That they do not have time, that they dream more about resolving religious and social issues than actually resolving them, this is beyond doubt. But this still does not give grounds to deny any of their significance. They provide an outcome for the soul seeking the truth of life; they remind the entire society of the imperfections of the social system and awaken its conscience. “I am perfectly aware,” says Tolstoyan, “of all the mistakes, all the blunders of these circles, I see how little-minded, how narrow-minded and how insignificant, with few exceptions, all these circle members are. But they still do not stand still, they worry, they thirst for reforms, they scream and make noise, it is true, often like stupid children, but still their scream and noise disturb the world and remind it of its imperfection and call it for the better; they are slackers and rebels, but without them people would be mired in the mire of everyday worries and ossified in self-satisfied insignificance. This is a “personal” point of view, this is an assessment of the “personal” energy of the Tolstoyans. But their colonies can be looked at from another point of friction - from the point of view of business. In this sense, their failure is significant and gives rise to many reflections. I will quote on this issue the words of a man who obviously thought a lot about Tolstoyism. “The modern freedom-loving and self-loving thought of a person either goes into complete loneliness, from where he treats his neighbors and humanity with disdain, not even wanting to be interested in the issues of their lives, or he agrees to enter into communication with others, but not under the condition of the most intimate merging of souls, that is, love, but only benefit and camaraderie. Tolstoy despises benefits. Partnership, which primarily requires a community of interests, equally does not enjoy his sympathy. And it is this inattention to the two greatest forces that help bring people closer together that allows us to say that his thought, in the evil expression of one of the critics, constitutes a guide to the kingdom of heaven, and not to the kingdom of the earth. We see around us what brings people together and unites: workers' unions, socialism, consumer partnerships, party calculations - in a word, all those currents of life on the banner of which it is written: "common interest." To Tolstoy this seems just as flat, insignificant and petty as concerns about material security or the future seem flat, petty and insignificant to him. He looks down on this and in a lordly manner, and, really, in this respect he resembles that duchess who advised the starving peasants to eat pies, since they had no bread. Common interest, common benefit and the partnership determined by them is our plane; love is Tolstoy's plane. How can we get by without mutual misunderstanding? How else can one explain the fact that for all his charm, Tolstoy has almost no followers and one of his most sincere followers, M. S. Novikov, said the words: “If Lev Nikolaevich had stayed at least three days in our peasant skin, otherwise he would have spoken.” With his abstract idea of ​​world love, Tolstoy remained lonely. Only his greatness, his genius saved him from misfortune and weakness. But his students experienced all the horror of too abstract principles. Their colonies crumbled amid squabbles, mutual discontent, and the struggle of petty egos. They left them irritated and disappointed, broken by the unbearable burden they had placed upon themselves. They strived for brotherhood and mutual love. It turned out to be beyond my reach. They neglected what really unites people - a simple feeling of camaraderie, a simple consciousness of common interest... Tolstoy in his attitude to modern life is like a man who, entering a dark dungeon, would count on the sun to bring him light, and therefore did not stock up on either a lantern or a torch. That is why his teaching could not create anything lasting. In order for world love to become a social and historical force, another land and other people are needed. But it does not at all follow from this that Tolstoy’s teaching is stupidity. It only follows that it is in a different plane. Its contradiction with our thoughts and aspirations is a contradiction between the temporal and the eternal, the world and the historical... However, is this contradiction already irreconcilable to such an extent as it seems to many that there can be no talk of any agreement or mutual understanding? Let me explain with an example. There is the sun, which gives life to the whole earth, the only source of all life. This sun is the eternal questions of the spirit, its desire for absolute truth and absolute perfection, which is the only thing that interests Tolstoy, which is the only thing significant and important for him. But next to the sun there are also coal and dozens of other combustible substances that give us both light and heat. At first glance, what do the sun and motionless, as if dead, coal have in common? However, every knowledgeable person will tell you that coal is the same solar energy accumulated over centuries, or, roughly speaking, compacted and petrified sun rays, heat and light in layers and stone, temporarily cold and dead, but always ready to resume their life, their combustion and give life to their surroundings. Not everyone understands that this is the same. Perhaps Tolstoy himself does not quite clearly understand or want to understand this. He sees only the sun in front of him and, blinded, enchanted by its brilliance, speaks only about it, sings hymns only to it. For him, living in the superstellar spheres, where he rose by the power of his genius, this is quite natural. And it is quite natural that he does not notice the transformed sun, its light and rays, condensed and petrified in coal and combustible substances. He tells us about the sun - world love, the unity of all living, about the eternal questions of life. We answer him about the same sun, but already transformed by the earth - about partnership, common and group interests, unions of people in the name of temporary historical goals, exact science, industrial technology. Different words create mutual misunderstanding. But science has proven that the light and heat of coal is only the sun transformed by the earth. The future will also destroy the apparent contradiction between the eternal and the temporal, the world and the historical, and it will become clear that partnerships, alliances, the common interests of people are nothing more than world love transformed by our nature, our body, our earth.” Speaking about religious Christian communities, we, in addition to the Exaltation of the Cross Labor Brotherhood and the Tolstoy colonies, would have to name our religious sects, either only dreaming of communism, or trying to actually realize these dreams in one way or another in their community life - such are the Doukhobor sect, Stundism, Adventism, Malevanism, etc. A detailed study of these sects would take us too far, but it is not We see this as a need for our purposes. It is enough for us to point out the quests that are expressed in these sects, without touching on the forms to which they lead. In these sects there is too much of the religious and spontaneous, which is an undoubted relic and does not have broad future prospects. Eg. this ordinary “Christianity”, faith in special carriers of the “prophetic spirit” who govern communities. In this aspect, the named sects are related to the mystical sects - Khlystyism, Skopchestvo, differing, however, from the latter in a strong ethical and social meaning, which makes them interesting not only religiously, but also morally. For a long time, sects have served as a refuge in our country, although not a safe one, for everyone who is not satisfied with the official structure of the official church, who are outraged by the soulless idolatrous symbolism, who seek the worship of God in spirit and truth and want to embody religious truth in living reality. Anyone who wants to eavesdrop on the soul of the Russian people and calculate their moral strength must inevitably turn to Russian sects. Even a superficial acquaintance with them reveals to us a deep dissatisfaction with a frozen religious tradition and an unjust police system - at the same time, it reveals deep deposits of powerful moral forces that can be safely taken into account in any considerations about our future. But, of course, these are dormant forces, still shrouded in mystical fog. This is a hero without eyes, groping his way. It is not for us to learn from them ideologically; they themselves are waiting for intelligent leaders, not so much in the religious sphere as in the ethical and social sphere. The people will give strength to every progressive movement, which must have enlightened leaders. From this side, the latest page from the Doukhobor history is deeply significant - Tolstoy’s influence on the Doukhobor movement... And Tolstoy is not the only one acting along this path. All the initiators of the newest movements, in one way or another, are in a hurry to rely on the people's moral strength - and the future belongs to the one who is able to master this force. This forces us to be especially attentive to the cultural experiences of Christian communal life and look here for indications of the seeds of the future... We cannot help but note that in the new struggle of mutually challenging influences on the people in their living elements, our church does not take any part. Since the distant past, she has not known any other attitude towards any seekers of a new truth and new paths, except for repulsive repression and fruitless school missionary work. Without police support, which keeps numerous carriers of hypocrisy within the church fence, the sad results of these techniques would soon become obvious. But even now these results, although not so obvious, are deeply significant. Everything living, seeking, striving is systematically thrown out beyond the church fence, and everything indifferent, hypocritical, and impersonal is stubbornly kept within it. And this path will lead and is already leading to the fact that modern scribes-Pharisees will be ahead of all sorts of tax collectors and fornicators on the path to the kingdom of religious life. And there is only one way not to humiliate the churches in front of Mohammedanism and Buddhism, in which free movements are now taking place; there is only one way to support Christian life within the church fence - to give here a place for freedom of religious thought and religious experience. It is necessary for the church to be not an enemy, but a friend of every bold theological thought, every new religious experience, every attempt to resolve religious and social issues. It is necessary to expand the church fence so that free religious quests are not cramped within it... In a book about the moral forces of modern Russia, we cannot fail to mention the days of high social upsurge we are experiencing, the days that will take a central place in our history, dividing it into an old period of lawlessness and a new period of “legal order”, which will introduce Russia into the family of cultural peoples as an equal member. Unlike a historian, entographer, political economist, a moralist, in the strict sense of the word, is not interested in the entire scope of our liberation movement. Everything that in the modern political-economic struggle must be relegated to the sphere of the laws of historical necessity and class relations, everything that is explained by personal interest and determined by force, every presentation of rights and defense of them, all this is not a moral field. The moralist's favorites are those heroic figures of political and economic progress who unselfishly perform social work and sacrifice themselves in this field in the name of the disadvantaged, for the sake of truth. The question about these heroes is primarily a question about whether Russia is alive as a national organism, or whether it is a clay colossus. These days gave a resounding answer. They put beyond doubt that there are figures among us whose hearts bleed at the sight of social untruths and social violence, regardless of their personal well-being. And Russia is not poor in such heroes - there are hundreds and thousands of them, and the future of our fatherland is in their hands. And in a specifically religious sense, the heroism of a public cause attracts our attention. We have seen that the feat of personal charity and community life, while creating truly living souls from the subjective side, leaves the religious-social task unsolved. The inevitability of this task was brilliantly revealed in our country by the late V.S. Solovyov, both in many of his works, and especially in “The Justification of Good.” Recognizing the subjective absoluteness of the Christian mood, he thoroughly proves that its objective discovery is determined by historical evolution, that the principle of absolute goodness can become a social force only with the help of social organization. Therefore, Christianity does not abolish the objective structure of human society, but uses it as a form and instrument for the embodiment of its unconditional moral content - it precisely demands that human society become organized morality... One could name a number of literary works from the very last days that explain these religious and social views of Solovyov as applied to the problems of our time... Modern heroism in social causes deserves attention. However, the following circumstance weakens and even nullifies the religious-Christian significance of this heroism. Among modern heroes of public affairs, we do not know a single figure who is clearly guided by a Christian-social ideal and determined by religious-Christian motives. Accordingly, among the forms that our social movement takes, there is not a single one that was created by Christianity, there is not even a single one that was adopted by the Church. On the contrary, the liberation movement, which produced so many selfless figures, not only does not put itself under the banner of Christianity, but also declares itself hostile to it. Therefore, observers of our social life point to “two separate channels that are not connected to each other: a pagan, non-religious channel, in which a powerful stream of almost all of our culture and politics in particular rushes, and a (officially) Christian channel,” completely alien to the social current... Be that as it may, in fact, the public serves as the limit of our Christianity: at this limit we interrupt our review of living souls. Churchliness as a principle of moral theology 10 “From a cultural-historical point of view, the church is more important than personal Christianity”... Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. III, p. 130. Mm. Gg. I am starting a course of readings in the coming academic year after the publication of the completed theological system “Fundamentals of Christianity” in 1908. Until that time, my energies were absorbed in this general theological work, which gradually grew around the topics of my master’s and doctoral dissertations, and the content of my lectures was also of a general theological nature - involuntarily dependent on personal office studies. Now, for the first time, I have the opportunity to devote my lectures to the more modest special tasks of my department, closely limited in the dismembered family of theological disciplines. And I consider it my duty to begin by considering the fundamental question of moral theology as a science. As we will now see, this is not an easy question. Morality simultaneously combines the features of universality, accessibility, and the features of the deepest intimacy. We are faced with a moral problem at the slightest attempt to enter into communication with people, at the first steps of communication with them - we come to the same problem in our most secret thoughts, at the distant heights of philosophical contemplation. Good reveals the last essence of the human will, gives indisputable evidence of his freedom, reveals the mysterious subsoil of his character; moral tragedy contains the highest beauty; moral experience introduces a person most deeply into the secrets of religion and gives the most burning interest to questions about the position of man in the world as a whole. In relation to people to each other, in the words of Luthard, “to consider objects from a moral point of view means to consider them from the highest, from the very last point of view, and to take, in relation to things and people, a moral position - this means to take a position that is most consistent with the moral dignity of a person. The highest and most final moment in the relations of people with each other, in the influence of one person on another, is that we turn to the moral nature of another. Moral influence is the highest influence. On the other hand, if we have exhausted all means, all convictions in our relationship with a person, then the last thing we undertake is an appeal to his conscience. By doing this, we touch the highest dignity of man and remind him of his inner sanctuary. By this we acknowledge that there is no higher discussion of things than the moral, and no more sacred obligations than those imposed by conscience.” In relation to the metaphysical, moral consciousness represents, by the very fact of its existence, the brightest light into the other world. Duty, according to Kant, is “precisely that great thing that elevates a person above himself (as part of the sensory world), that connects him with the order of things that reason can only think, and that at the same time has under it the entire sensory world, and with it the empirically determined existence of a person in time and the totality of all goals (which is possible only to such an unconditional practical law as the moral one). This is nothing more than a personality, i.e. freedom and independence from the mechanism of all nature, considered at the same time as the ability of a being that is subject to peculiar, namely its own, pure practical laws given in the mind; consequently, the person, as belonging to the sensory world, is here subject to his own personality, since at the same time he also belongs to the intelligible world; therefore we should not be surprised if man, as belonging to two worlds, should look upon his own being in relation to his second and higher purpose with respect, and should look upon its law with the greatest respect.” “Two things - in the words of the same Kant - always fill the soul with new surprise and awe, which rise the higher the more often and more persistently our reflection engages with them - this is the starry sky above us and the moral law in us. Both are not something shrouded in darkness or lying outside my horizon; I see them before me and directly connect them with the consciousness of my existence. The first begins from the place that I occupy in the external sensory world, and expands in immeasurable magnitude my unity among worlds above worlds and systems of systems, in the limitless time of their periodic movement, in their beginning and duration. The second begins with my invisible self, with my personality, and represents me in a world that is truly infinite, although its traces are visible only in the mind, and with which (and through this with all visible worlds) I recognize myself not only in an accidental, as there, but in complete and necessary unity. The first glance at this countless number of worlds seems to destroy my significance as an animal creature, which must again give to the planet (only a point in the cosmic whole) the matter from which it arose, after this matter had been endowed with vital force for a short time (in what manner is unknown). The second, on the contrary, endlessly elevates my significance as an intelligentsia through my personality, in which the moral law reveals to me a life independent of animality and even of the entire sensory world, since this can be seen from the purposeful purpose of my existence through this law, which is not limited by the conditions and limits of this life. The relationship between these worlds - the stellar, natural one, in which a person disappears as an imperceptible point, as a fleeting phenomenon, and the inner, moral world of my personality - creates the most essential content of the religious problem: moral consciousness, according to Kant’s philosophy, postulates the existence of God, the moral world order and the immortality of the soul. If this is the meaning of moral consciousness, then it is not surprising that ethics crowns every significant philosophical system. The point is not that the moral problem is one of the problems included in the field of philosophy, but that ethics is the most favorite part of a more or less deep philosophical system: a moral worldview is usually the last dream of a philosopher, secretly guiding him in solving all other philosophical problems and clearly completing his system. What a visit to Mecca is for a Muslim, a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for a Christian, the solution of a moral question is for a philosopher - that is the limit when he, with a lighter chest, can say to the Divine Logos: “Now you release your servant.” As an example, I can point to the “System of Synthetic Philosophy” by G. Spencer. According to his plan, the “System” ends with the “Fundamentals of Morality.” The first volume of this work was published in 1892. But already in 1879, when the second and third volumes of “Foundations of Sociology” had not yet appeared, the author hurries to print “the first section of his final work,” which “could seem untimely and inappropriate.” And this is what he writes in the preface to this issue: “This departure from the order I originally adopted was caused by the fear that persistent adherence to this order might lead to the fact that this final work, which completes the series of studies I had conceived, might remain unfulfilled. Numerous hints, repeated more often and more clearly in recent years, showed me that I could easily lose completely, if not my life, then my health, before I managed to achieve the last part of the task I had set for myself. Meanwhile, I believe that all the previous parts should be considered only as auxiliary means for the accomplishment of this last part of my task. In my first essay, which appeared back in 1842. and consisting of a series of letters on the "True Sphere of Government"—I have already indicated in general terms what in my opinion some of the fundamental principles of good and bad conduct in the political field consist; and from then until now, my ultimate goal, which lay behind all my immediate goals, has always been the desire to find a scientific basis for the principles of good and bad behavior in general, i.e. in all areas of activity, whatever it may be. It is clear that I cannot look with indifference at the possibility of leaving this task undone after I have made such extensive preparations for its accomplishment; and therefore I try to avert this possibility, if not completely, then at least partially.” Spencer would have considered the task of his “synthetic philosophy” unfulfilled if he had not completed it with ethics. The same can be said about almost all philosophical systems. For each of them, the solution of ethical problems forms the final conclusion, the ultimate touchstone. And how often do we see the collapse of philosophical systems under this test, revealing the fragility of their starting points and the falsity of their methods! Ethics, constituting the natural crown and final conclusion of philosophical systems, irresistibly attracts the attention of scientists of all kinds. Chemists 11, biologists 12, mathematicians 13, historians 14 - sooner or later, more or less decisively, speak out on moral issues. Each with his own methods, most often unsuitable for the peculiar area of ​​the most intimate aspirations, cherished ideals, with his own clumsy, slurred language, either overly timid or overly bold, like a battle-hardened warrior who for the first time picked up a naughty pen - each wants in his own way to substantiate or illuminate the eternal ethical question. Without specific defined principles, simplifying the moral problem to the extreme, like laymen, they give naive answers to philosophical questions that have a long history. And who isn’t interested in moral issues? Moreover, who does not have a definite answer to any of these questions, a strong predisposition towards one or another ethical direction? The moralist, as a professor and as a writer, has in his listeners and readers strict connoisseurs who pronounce judgment on his first word, on his first line. His audience is a meeting of judges, before whom he appears as an accused and even obviously guilty. And in this respect, the department of moral philosophy differs sharply from all other scientific disciplines. In all other cases, the professor enters the classroom loaded with knowledge accumulated over centuries, which the students do not have and which gives him solid authority in their eyes. Over time, they will master this knowledge, and each of them can become equal to the teacher, but in the classroom they are given information that they do not have. Not so in the field of our science. Here the lecturer operates on facts that are accessible to everyone, on experiences that are considered from a generally understandable point of view - and he deals with listeners who carry in their souls their convictions on every particular issue of moral philosophy. Whether it is a preconceived belief, or whether it is given in the form of unnatural predispositions and is formed at the moment when the question is posed and decided from the pulpit or in an open book, it is all the same - resistance is inevitable, just as every body at rest inevitably resists the force that sets it in motion, and every moving body resists the force that changes its direction or its speed. Moreover, just as self-preservation is characteristic of every being, so it is also characteristic of every idea, every belief, which, given the presence of theoretical interest in everything new, necessarily protects itself from the influx of new ideas, fights against them, and defends its position. This is inevitable and, to some extent, desirable. Otherwise, we would have indifferent listeners who would ignore our words, or at least not our hearts - indifferent readers who would not open our book. However, the matter is not limited to these desirable limits. Here we are faced with a psychological phenomenon that needs to be assessed. Each moral worldview grows, as from its root, from the moral personality of the philosopher himself. This connection of the moral system with the living personality of the author constitutes a prerequisite for the vitality of moral philosophy and its aesthetic value. The moralist brings his trembling heart to the audience, he writes with blood and nerves, he bares his chest to listeners and readers, he, like a poet, always preaches, addresses everyone with intimate speech, seeks and craves friendly attention. But at the same time, each science, precisely as a science, is expressed in logical concepts, and not in artistic images. A moral science is also being created. The moralist-philosopher is not an orator who awakens passions; he first of all turns to the mind, and if in the end he wants to act on the heart, then it is only through the mind: like a scientist, he proposes logical concepts. These concepts are nourished by his heart, imbued with his blood, enlivened by his soul; but despite all this, it is an intimate connection. There is no obvious relationship between the philosopher’s heart and the logical concepts of his moral philosophy: firstly, it is completely impossible to grasp the threads connecting the theses of moral philosophy with the heart, and secondly, there is no direct adequacy between the impulses of the heart and the logical content of the concepts. Every significant moral philosophy must be explained in the light of the author's biography, but the reader does not have the opportunity to infer from the principles of philosophy to the biography and this would not correspond to the intentions of the philosopher. If you first become acquainted with the biography of Spinoza, with his heroic will, with his tender heart, it will throw abundant light on his Ethics Expounded by the Geometrical Method. But if you first study his ethics and want to use them to reconstruct his biography, you will create a false image of Spinoza and his actual biography will be a surprise to you. And the philosopher's intention is to act on your mind. The speaker, the poet, establishes a mysterious relationship between his personality and the audience, he acts on the hearts of the listeners; the learned moralist appeals to the mind. Even if his system grows from his heart, this can only be reflected in the whole structure of his philosophy, in its style, tone, temperament, in its ideals, but not in its logical theses, not in each of its logical positions. There is only one point through which his soul flows into his system, but this point has no logical dimension; it is applied everywhere, but its movement does not form lines or figures. In reality, perhaps, every moralist, the best moralist, cannot help but be partly a poet or orator, appealing not only to the minds of his listeners, but at the same time acting on their souls with his soul, influencing them with his personality; let it be so, but in the theses of his philosophy he appeals to one mind. His intention is to act on the mind, and perhaps his methodological ideal is to create only concepts. Therefore, it is most likely that the audience and public will feel the personality of the moral philosopher, but elementary justice requires that only his logical theses be assessed, that they be judged not from the point of view of merit or unworthiness, but exclusively from the point of view of logical soundness and consistency. Meanwhile - this is the psychological phenomenon that we are now talking about - the young audience and the average reading public are inclined to judge the first word of a moralist from the angle of the dignity or unworthiness of the individual, setting their personal conviction or the convictions of their environment as the criterion of judgment. Unwittingly, perhaps, sensing the personality of a moralist, thoroughly assuming the deepest root of the moral worldview in the personality of the author, they too hastily and too unreasonably hope to open an underground spring at the place where every drop of rain falls, in every meander of a babbling stream. The young audience approaches all moral and philosophical truths exclusively from the heights of the nobility of their youthful social impulses and political programs; the respectable average public looks at moral and philosophical works exclusively from the stronghold of established customs. Both of them, hostile to everything that wells up from the depths of the creative personality, brand every logical thesis of moral philosophy that deviates from fashionable programs and old customs with the name of low, ignoble, immoral. They do not want to understand that in science, in its logical side, there is no place for the category of nobility and ignominy, dignity or unworthiness - only one category of true or false, justified or unfounded, consistent or inconsistent is applicable here. They do not want to understand that the meaning of means changes depending on whether we set immediate or distant goals, temporary or eternal, that the connection between eternal goals and temporary means, between the personality of a philosopher and his logical theses can be both direct and reverse, that the paths along which an underground spring makes its way to the surface of the earth are hidden from the eyes of superficial, outside observers. Doesn’t it happen more often than the other way around, for example, that cheerfulness is proclaimed by a philosopher who, either by the properties of his character or by the circumstances of his fate, leads an ascetic lifestyle? Of course, optimism is sometimes the evidence of rosy cheeks, and pessimism a broken leg, and this is more common among poets than among philosophers. It even happens that pessimism and optimism alternate periodically as the wallet is emptied or filled. It won't be a matter of arguments. But this straightforward dependence of logic on the liver results in vulgar philosophy. A deeper philosophy is the philosophy of tragedy, when the philosopher seeks in his creations to make up for what he lacks in life. The methodological ideal of philosophy is the logical objectivity of thought. And to evaluate philosophical systems from the angle of the dignity or unworthiness of thoughts also means taking a vulgar point of view. This opens wide doors for all sorts of charlatans who cleverly imitate the tastes of the audience and the public and achieve popularity through loud phrases “with noble pathos.” But this hinders the development of valuable philosophical thought. With such evaluation criteria, everything great and original is buried. Just as you cannot go to the market with large banknotes, risking losing the opportunity to buy a piece of bread, so the judgment of the crowd is directed against everything high, creative, original, against large signs in moral science. Books that explore moral issues most deeply are met with hatred and bitterness, and the moralist unwittingly becomes a prophet. It can be unmistakably stated that these quick circles of malice, spreading out into the sea of ​​​​the crowd from an essay on moral philosophy, serve as evidence - alas! the only evidence is the high value of the book. Is it possible to indicate a remedy against this mind-blinding tyranny of the senses? And what are the tasks of moral philosophy? The only remedy is scientific discipline of minds. Yes, never be deluded by the fervor of your conviction: on the scales of science it does not have the slightest significance. Science is disciplined thinking: it starts from a certain principle, which it consistently carries out in a methodological way. Moral philosophy is the same as science. A conviction on one or another of the issues included in its content, no matter how noble or practically important it may seem, has no scientific value until you reduce the solution to the issue to a certain principle and think through it in connection with a complete and harmonious system. This tyranny of the senses, which we spoke about, is the result of mental indiscipline - and moral philosophy, by itself, by disciplining minds, clears the ground around itself. It deals with generally known facts of moral consciousness and sociology, but it treats these facts methodologically, from the point of view of an established principle. This is its strength and significance. Its first and last task is to find the principle of moral consciousness. In other sciences, you can work on a particular issue, you can accumulate knowledge in a separate area. In moral science there are no separate questions; here from each point you can only go to the center, here this single central point is sought from all sides. In other sciences there may be masons who do not know the general idea of ​​the architect; here every worker must be an architect, everyone must know the whole idea of ​​construction. The history of other sciences is a gradual development of a path leading to a distant, perhaps unattainable goal, to which, however, it is practically useful to approach, at least at a snail’s pace; The history of moral philosophy is the history of attempts to find a hidden underground spring in a waterless desert. Every moral system digs in this hope, and if the hope is disappointed, the digging is useless; it must be filled up so that the deceptive wells do not turn black. Undoubtedly, the method of thought remains useful; the history of these unsuccessful attempts also teaches us a lot - and this is a method of finding a single mysterious point on which the entire harmonious edifice of moral consciousness is established. And even if the only result of methodological methods of thinking was “the knowledge that we know nothing,” this would be an important result, like freedom from prejudices and misconceptions. And it makes no difference whether this point is found methodologically, or whether, experimentally comprehended, it is only methodologically justified: all the same - without methodology there is no moral philosophy, and the starting point of methodological moral-philosophical thinking is in a certain principle. Let us now approach moral theology from this side, in the proper sense of the word, and see what it really is and what it should be. In Christianity, morality occupies a primary place. In the fullness of its historical phenomenon, Christianity is multifaceted: it has metaphysics, cult, law, administrative system, as in other religions. But in Christianity there is no place for detached metaphysics, abstract gnosis: “the teaching of Christ is the only one of all religious teachings because in it the metaphysical foundations have entirely moral significance.” There is no place in Christianity for a magical cult, detached from moral principles, self-sufficient discipline and a strictly legal system. On the other hand, every religion provides moral standards. However, with the presence of such norms, each religion seeks to unite a person with God in other ways - through mysteries, family shrines, folk history, and only Christianity through morality itself raises to God, raises goodness itself to religious heights, calls love the only way to unite with God. Christianity is in the religious absoluteness of good, in the absolute value of the individual. It is not a religion of beauty, not a religion of nature, not a religion of family and nation, not a state religion, it is a religion of goodness. If so, then among theological disciplines moral theology, which, apparently, introduces to the very essence of Christianity, should enjoy special honor and attention. Is this really true? Forty to thirty years ago, professors of theological academies, discussing the issue of moral theology on various occasions, stated the absence of moral theology as a science in our country. “Strictly speaking, we do not yet have a science of morality as a science.” This is what Prof. wrote. M. A. Olesnitsky in 1879 15. “Whoever is familiar with the state of our ethics,” he writes further, and who, on the other hand, knows the conditions for the construction of science and the possibility of a strictly scientific presentation of the doctrine of morality, will, without the slightest hesitation, assert that ethics is currently in a very unsatisfactory state in our country, that it is not built in our country on strictly scientific principles, on which it should be built as a science - it is built in the form of science even less, and significantly less than other theological sciences, to the field to whom it belongs, as theological ethics, and in which there is also a lack of scientific construction in the modern sense of the word." 16 The same was testified in the Chronology of the Reading of 1868 X. (archim., after bishop, Chrysanthus), in the Legal Sobes. 1872–1875, Prof. A.I. Grenkov 17. Now we can safely repeat the same review. Moral theology, as a science with its own specific content, methodologically united in a certain principle, does not exist in our country to this day. It is only what is sought. Its content is an unknown X, which has hitherto been approached and is still being approached by touch. This is not difficult to verify if we familiarize ourselves with academic reading programs on moral theology and consider existing textbooks on this subject. One cannot help but reflect on the fact that the programs in which moral theology is taught in the four academies are quite decisively inconsistent. Let us turn to the 1907–1908 academic year, the latest for which we have printed information in academic reports. At the St. Petersburg Academy, readings on moral theology were divided into three parts: part one - the essence of morality, considered from a natural point of view, and its assessment on the basis of a revealed one (about free will, moral law and conscience); part two - the essence of morality, considered specifically from a Christian point of view (about the fall of our ancestors and about the salvation of man from the objective and subjective side); part three is about the most common discoveries of Christian morality in the Christian’s relationship to God, himself and his neighbors 18. At the Moscow Academy, the subject of readings was - for the first half of the year - faith and life according to the gospel: the Old Testament basis of the gospel, the Heavenly Father, spiritual righteousness, eternal life, the Savior, the kingdom of God, - for the second half of the year - an apology for Christian morality: presentation and criticism of the ethical systems of eudaimonism, evolutionism, positivism and socialism. At the Kazan Academy in the same academic year, a historical-critical introduction to science and the doctrine of the moral ideal in general and the superiority of the Christian ideal of morality over the ideals of natural morality was read (and the professor of psychology read about moral motive and conscience in his lectures). The report of the Kyiv Academy, unfortunately, does not provide the necessary information; but there is no reason to think that the program of readings on moral theology in it coincides with readings in other academies 19 . This fact is impossible in the field of other sciences. And although the impression he makes must be weakened, firstly, by the consideration that in all academies, under different plans, one and the same Christian teaching about practical life is read in essence, in the dogmatic sense and in the sense of biblical and patristic sources, and, on the other hand, as “in the West, where dozens of systems of moral theology have been written, there are not two of them compiled according to the same plan”; However, we will not eliminate the conclusion that “moral theology is not yet an established science, as dogmatics, for example, has already been established,” that “a plan has not yet been found that could be called more or less generally accepted,” that disagreements indicate how “difficult it is to draw up a plan for moral theology.” And we have already seen that the scientific nature of a moral system concerns primarily the methodological aspect, and it is also easy to see that the difference in plan is associated with a difference in the subtleties of understanding the Christian question. Let's move on to our textbooks on moral theology. They are drawn up according to the same plan. But how did this plan come about? It was developed mechanically, clerically, without the slightest thought about the essence of science. Our first experiments in moral theology were, as is quite natural, of a compilative nature, copied from Western - Catholic (mainly) and Protestant models. Based on one of these compilative experiments, the official program of Orthodox moral theology was compiled 20. Easy and simple! What do these systems, drawn up according to the official plan, according to which our spiritual youth are brought up, represent in their content? Without any restrictions, we can say that they make a repulsive impression on readers with the lack of content of the material, the stupidity of the plan and the general lack of ideas. We pronounce this review not as a reproach to each of the compilers, but to characterize the state of science. And this review does not have the meaning in which one can talk about all sorts of poorly compiled textbooks, but one that calls into question the very existence of science. The reader asks: if this is the content of moral theology, then does this science have the right to exist? Who needs and is interested in knowing this and why? These questions involuntarily arise in view of the extreme poverty of content, the glaring randomness in the selection and connection of material, and the complete lack of fundamental illumination of it. The compilers of systems of moral theology, as well as other theological and practical sciences (homiletics, pastoral theology, canon law), can be blamed for their lack of general theological breadth of vision. And it turns out that while Christianity, as a religion of spiritual life, poses fascinating questions, is discussed in hundreds of works, lively and interesting, while wide circles are now interested in practical Christianity, moral theology barely moves its tongue, speaks as if in a dream. This is because the compiler of moral theology uses only highly specialized articles and books as his teaching aids. The following anecdote circulates among learned moralists. One student was asked in an exam how the inhabitants of the Hebrides lived. He replied: they earn a meager livelihood by washing each other's clothes. This anecdote is most applicable to representatives of moral science. If all residents are poor, then, obviously, they cannot profit from each other: external sources of enrichment are necessary. It is impossible to create a new meaningful system from dozens of meaningless articles and books on moral theology. It is necessary to open the windows and let in fresh air from the surrounding space. For a theologian-moralist, a broad awareness of moral philosophy, all anthropological sciences, and fiction is necessary, but most of all and certainly a broad general theological education is necessary - not just within the limits of school training, but in the entire breadth and thoroughness of independent research. Moral theology, as a narrow specialty, like mathematics, medicine, or, closer to us, church history, liturgics, is not even conceivable: its isolation in general theology is quite conditional, caused only by the division of teaching labor; its basis must be broad, general theological. And this, of course, is one of the reasons for the low level of moral theology. On the other hand, something can be pointed out in apology for our compilers of moral and theological systems. As we have already seen and how easy it is to understand without deliberate instructions, both moral philosophy in general and moral theology in particular and in particular cannot be built without a personal subsoil. Here success is determined by the vividness of the author’s personal Christian experiences. And not forgetting that moral philosophy consists in the development of logical concepts accessible to objective judgment, and not in the development of artistic images and not in personal outpourings; adding here that moral theology presupposes biblical and patristic authority, we must never forget the major role of the personal factor in building a system of moral theology. After all, general theology breaks down into dogmatics - this system of purely objective concepts, and moral theology, where, according to the very general philosophical concept of morality, theology is interpreted from the side addressed to man, and where, therefore, that pure objectivity that is appropriate in dogmatics is certainly impossible. Meanwhile, the unfavorable attitude towards the personal basis of the moral system on the part of the audience and the reading public, which has already been noted, is complicated in the special moral and theological area by the disapproving attitude towards it on the part of the official zealots of the church tradition, who look at any presence of a subjective element in a theological treatise dogmatically and negatively and allow only a dry-scholastic discussion of the subject. But noting these circumstances, which can be blamed on the compilers of moral-theological systems or weaken their guilt, we make the methodological side of theological-ethical systems the real object of our discussion. We see that neither the variety of academic reading programs, nor the mechanically compiled and scientific-killing official program of our textbooks testifies to the brilliant state of our science. And we need to take up the question of the basic principle of moral theology and its plan - not in order to add another possible plan to the many others; but we must consider this issue critically, draw up a critically grounded plan for the science of moral theology 21 . We will begin with the outskirts of the system of moral theology and gradually approach its main content. It is quite indisputable to indicate how moral theology should begin and where it should end. It must begin with the history of Christian moral teaching. This is far from the same thing as the history of science, which occupies the first pages in the system of every science: after all, the history of that science that did not deserve the right to exist could also be insignificant. The history of Christian moral teaching is not of accidental importance, of irrelevance, and this task is not fulfilled by any other theological discipline. While church history with its favorite interest dwells (except for the external fate of Christianity) on the history of dogmas and the history of the church system, and “sets out only such events that do not take place in the Bible” 22, moral theology must dwell with full attention on the history of biblical and patristic moral teaching. It should show what Christianity is, as an inseparable doctrine of faith and morals, in its evangelical essence, then - what problems arose for practical Christianity in subsequent history and how they were solved by apostolic and patristic authority. Moral theology, like dogmatics, must systematize biblical and patristic teaching, but the history of Christian moral teaching is more important for it than for dogmatics the history of dogmas. Dogmatics proceeds from conciliar definitions of faith, from precise dogmatic formulas, and the history of dogmas serves only to clarify these creedal formulas. Not so in moral theology, since moral Christian truths were not formulated at councils, but were given for our science as a whole by biblical and patristic teaching. And first of all, the gospel teaching, in its essence, is included in the content not of dogmatic theology, but of moral theology: the gospel teaching about the Heavenly Father, spiritual righteousness, eternal life and the kingdom of God is not changed in any way, even in terms of formulation, in the apostolic-patristic teaching and is fully included in moral theology. Then, from the point of view of moral teaching, the apostolic-patristic teaching is important not because it accurately formulates the teaching of the Gospel (as it is in dogmatic terms), but because over the course of church history Christian life has become more complicated and the Christian teaching of St. apostles and saints church fathers illuminated from new angles. And this complication of Christian life, accompanied by a new illumination of Christian teaching, must be considered in a historical perspective, which is a necessary condition for understanding the historical tasks of Christianity, to which the apostolic and patristic teaching is confined. In this case, moral theology will have to especially use the services of patristics, which reproduces the teaching of each church father as a whole and in connection with personal character and historical conditions, which is necessary for understanding the moral theses of each church father. However, the history of Christian moral teaching will not merge with patristics, since the former has the Gospel teaching as its starting point and considers historical eras and different types of church-historical moral teaching. Be that as it may, all this work on the history of moral teaching is necessary for the scientific systematization of biblical and patristic teaching, otherwise it will be a mechanical systematization, the distribution of diverse material into artificial headings. However, the question still remains of what specific types and problems the patristic moral teaching needs to be systematized, and we will try to answer this question below, although it already follows from what has been said that the system of Christian moral teaching in its main direction or spirit must have a biblical character. Moral theology must begin with the history of Christian moral teaching. It is equally indisputable to indicate how moral theology should end: its final part should be an apology for Christian morality 23 . Our time is a time of decisive struggle between the world and Christ. The struggle of our days differs from all previous times in that it is focused not on the peripheries of Christianity, but on its central point - on the moral essence of Christianity. The attacks of modern enemies of Christianity are directed at the moral teaching of the gospel. Nowadays they not only criticize Christian dogma from the point of view of reason, not only point out the self-destruction of Christianity in its history, but now they do not find it possible to be satisfied with Christian morality, they point out significant shortcomings in Gospel morality. According to B. Bach, it would be useless to deny the fact that at the present time the highest moral feeling is offended by Christian teaching more than at one time the conscience of the first Christians was offended by the Saturnalia in the cult of Proserpina. One can name dozens of new ethical works that are hostile to Christianity. Kroneberg, the author of the book "Ethische Praludien", tries throughout the entire work to prove that traditional Christianity not only cannot be understood by our reason, but it is also immoral and serves as an obstacle to the development of human character. Another author, G. Seailles, in his work “Les affirmations de la conscience moderne”, pursues the idea that Christianity has ceased to influence our lives not so much as a result of the collapse of its doctrine, but as a result of moral incapacity - and the dogmas themselves, according to him, have lost their vitality, mainly because they serve only as a shell of a moral worldview, which is outdated for us... Hence, a serious task arises for Christian moral theology - to stand up for Christian morality, to protect it from all attacks of the unbelieving mind and to show its superiority over ethical systems hostile to it, which contain in their own depths the beginning of decay... In the very last days, the fight against Christianity came to the squares and streets. A bizarre swarm of small brochures and all kinds of leaflets has appeared, which can be conveniently read on a tram, at a station, over a cup of tea. This is, of course, the most widespread and most dangerous literature for the church. Bitter sayings, party slogans, victorious cries filling the air have an almost irresistible effect on the crowd. But a more or less sound criticism of this light, swarming and buzzing argumentation is impossible without first examining certain premises. The main directives of the anti-Christian literary struggle are given by armchair scholarship. In the most noisy street newspapers we can easily notice the motives of scientific philosophical thought. And it is necessary to get rid of these philosophical foundations 24. 25 So, it is undoubtedly possible to indicate those important tasks with the solution of which moral theology should begin and end, but it is equally indisputable that these are rather tasks that lie ahead of the academic department of moral theology, given the modern distribution of academic disciplines, than parts of the system of moral theology in the strict sense. This is, on the one hand, an introductory part, the volume of which can be significantly reduced by the establishment of the department of biblical theology - an introductory paragraph on the sources of moral theology and, on the other hand, an application to moral theology, both of which can be developed independently, in any case, regardless of the question of the principle of moral theology as a system. Let us now come closer to this central point of the moral-theological system. In the old days, the entire content of theology was divided into two sections: doctrina christiana de credendis (dogmatic theology) and doctrina christiana de agendis (moral theology). This division, which is still almost maintained, should be called unsuccessful, too crude, mechanical. After all, with a deeper understanding of the subject, faith, in its entirety, is included in the concept of the Christian cause. In other words, in Christianity there is no place for either detached gnosis or external legal affairs. And the gospel does not teach separately faith and life 26 . But we can distinguish two points of view on the entire volume of Christian theology: objective and subjective. It is possible to present the entire content of theology from the angle of an objective view of it, and this is precisely what constitutes dogmatic theology, and it is also possible to present the entire content of Christian theology from the angle of a subjective view of it. The first is a theological point of view, the second is an anthropological point of view. The latter embraces the entire content of Christian teaching, but not from the objective side - from the side of the existence of God, His deeds and commands, including the creation of man, his historical and afterlife destiny guided by Providence, but from the side of man’s personal experience, his personal experiences. For, the existence of God, and the face of Christ, and the action of the Holy Spirit, and the whole fate of humanity, as a matter of Providence - all this can be the content of human experience, personal experience 27. This kind of theology is unusual among us. I made my first attempt at such a (systematic) presentation of Christian theology in my "Fundamentals of Christianity." This presentation could be called moral theology 28 . We have already loudly and authoritatively declared the necessity and enormous importance of theological instructions on the moral significance of dogmas. “The most worthy task of Christian wisdom will be to study exactly what moral idea is contained in each dogma. This is not what is meant by the moral application of dogmas in our theological courses: in the latter we are primarily talking about strengthening the will to fulfill already given and clearly defined commandments in the sense of the rules of Christian activity; when they talk about the moral idea of ​​a dogma, they mean a moral truth that, by its very essence, is contained in one or another dogma and without it would lose its significance 29 . From here we should take another small step forward, and we will see that this task will be most successfully completed if the moral idea is indicated not of each dogma separately, but of the entire system of Christian theology, and if not the moral idea of ​​the dogmas is indicated, but the anthropological side of Christian dogma, its subjective basis. To consider the entire content of Christian teaching from the perspective of human personal experience means to indicate the moral significance of dogma. If such a presentation of Christian teaching is called moral theology, then it would be one of the possible types of moral theology. But it is not difficult to discover the reasons that prevent us from identifying this presentation of Christian teaching with moral theology. Such an exposition, developed into a whole system, is too extensive for moral theology as an academic subject. This is the first thing. Secondly, the principle of such a presentation of Christian teaching is the subjective principle, on the basis of which it is possible to create a philosophy of Christianity, and not scientific theology, not the science of moral theology. And this presentation of Christian teaching should be considered as the philosophy of Christianity, which is of great importance for the science of moral theology, but does not constitute this science. The significance of the philosophy of Christianity for moral theology is that it reveals the moral importance of dogmas and serves as a transition from dogmatics to moral theology. But, with the change from a philosophical principle to a scientific moral-theological one, the essential content of Christian philosophy will be reduced to a paragraph or section on the dogmatic basis of Christian morality. One could say that just as the philosophy of Christianity, systematically developed, includes, as an integral part, the own content of moral theology (scientifically constructed morality), so in moral theology the Christian-philosophical element forms a part - the first part about personal Christian morality, which should be followed by the second part about church-public morality. But it is better to dwell on the section on the dogmatic basis of Christian morality, which will naturally follow the first section on the sources (biblical and patristic) of moral theology, and not to raise speech about the first part of moral theology, as the doctrine of personal Christian morality, since in moral theology the doctrine of personal Christian morality should be combined with the rest of the content of moral and theological teaching under the main moral and theological principle. Next we will give a critical justification for the latter. The ordinary plan of our systems of moral theology is formed under the triple influence of Catholicism, Protestantism and philosophy. The latter influences our theology not directly, but through Protestantism, in which moral theology has two directions: strictly theological and philosophical. Philosophy, since classical antiquity, has established three principles of moral teaching: the principle of moral law (the principle of duty), the principle of virtue and the (mainly philosophical) principle of the highest good. Catholicism adopted the principle of law (left to Christianity as a legacy by Judaism), and Protestantism adopted the principle of a virtuous character and a believing mood. Generally speaking, Christian systems of moral teaching, both foreign and, following them, Russian ones, develop either one of these principles or embrace two of them, or even all three. The philosophical principle of the highest good must be recognized as untenable and, in any case, not applicable to Christian moral teaching. The Christian worldview could, of course, only adhere to the idealistic direction of philosophy, and the principle of the highest good is actually an idealistic principle: the idealistic principle of morality is based in the idea of ​​the highest good, in the intelligible ideal. Many significant objections can be made against the idealistic construction from the most philosophical point of view, but we will limit ourselves to assessing it on Christian soil. Despite all the apparent closeness between idealism and Christianity, which has always served as a temptation for theologians, a deep gulf is established between them, and theology’s enthusiasm for philosophical idealism has always brought more harm in essence than benefit in a formal sense. Philosophical idealism is an intellectualistic construction, while the Christian religion is rooted in actual spiritual life, and Christian teaching grows out of spiritual experience. Philosophical gnosis is not the same as religious experiential knowledge; the philosophical immortality of the soul is not the same as the Christian resurrection, and the philosophical-moral principle of the highest good is not the same as the religious principle of Christian morality. Christian moral life begins not with an idea, but with the real fact of internal rebirth, with the actual possession of a religious good - eternal life. “The blessings of love, faith, communion with God, knowledge of God, freedom - all these blessings are embraced in the concept of eternal life. Eternal life gives people indestructible bliss and inexhaustible joy. This is bliss from the completeness of satisfaction, from the overflowing content of inner life, from the comprehensive meaningfulness of existence. The water of eternal life, received by the believer, quenches his thirst forever and becomes in him an inexhaustible spring of creative productivity. The heavenly bread of spiritual good satisfies the soul completely. The good news of Christian freedom leads man into the unfading pasture of abundant life. This abundant life is absolute, limitless spiritual life. He who lives such a life ceases to be a simple man, he becomes a man from heaven, a man of God. The prospect of boundless perfection opens before him, not running away from him as a distant ideal, but being realized in the boundless love that inspires him, which never stops, covers everything, believes everything, hopes everything, endures everything. Together with selfless love, divine absoluteness settles into the very human heart and fills it with a blissful feeling of freedom and religious anthropocentrism... The freedom of the boundless expanse of eternal life is not the same as boundless emptiness, and its bliss does not blur into the negative good of undisturbed peace. Eternal life has a positive content, and it gives the positive benefit of knowledge of God, communion with God, and heavenly joy. Evangelical knowledge of God is the knowledge that God is the Father. If we take a look at the entire pre-Christian history of religion, as a history of the gradual liberation of people from religious fear, then we will see that only the gospel in the image of the Heavenly Father gives man the highest degree of freedom from the horror of the world's mystery, not the negative freedom of unbelief, but the freedom of love, which has no fear. Freedom of unbelief leads to loneliness and complacency; she must experience a crash. On the contrary, the freedom of faith in the paternal love of God raises the fallen, raises up the oppressed, restores the humiliated, gives strength to the insignificant and vigor to the weak. This is knowledge hidden from the wise and revealed to babes; this is a consolation for the humiliated and burdened; this is rest for the meek and lowly in heart; this is a good yoke and a light burden. The Gospel is joyful news to publicans and sinners, the poor and outcast, to all that is lost, despised, and lost. Christian bliss is based on the consciousness that in heaven there is joy for one repentant sinner, that everyone who repents is accepted by the Heavenly Father with pity, kisses and joy, that all the small and insignificant have their angels standing and interceding for them before the throne of the Most High, and that it is not the will of the Heavenly Father that even one of these little ones should perish. This joy of heaven, this heavenly joy fills the human heart in love for all the persecuted and oppressed, in the love of all-forgiveness, in selfless love for enemies, haters and persecutors. Christian joy does not isolate a person, but connects him with inextricable bonds with the whole world, touches his soul before every creature, makes both the grass of the field and the playful bird dear to him. In such love, which knows neither the limits of insignificance nor the boundaries of sin, heavenly joy takes root in the human heart: he loves and rejoices in heavenly ways. Through one’s own joy of love, knowledge of God becomes for man the sight of God, and here the joy of the Gospel reaches the highest degree of bliss. His soul becomes the abode of the continuous presence of God, becomes dear to Him, and from the consciousness of this his joy reaches fullness and perfection. The bliss of eternal life, the bliss of the kingdom of God, is eternal bliss, standing above the boundaries of time, accessible “now, in this time,” real bliss. There is no word hope in the whole gospel. The whole preaching of Christ is filled with joy, it is the real gospel, good joyful news." 30 ... While in philosophy the highest good is combined with the human soul intellectually, through an idea, which is the only driving force from a philosophical-idealistic point of view, in religion, in the Christian religion, the driving force is the most real embryo of spiritual life, the seed of spiritual existence growing with its own energy, requiring only favorable conditions for its natural growth 31 . Not only is the philosophical construction of Christian moral teaching on the principle of the highest good impossible in general, but it is difficult to justify the presence in the moral-theological system of a special philosophical department, such as the doctrine of morality from a natural point of view, and namely the doctrine of free will and conscience. The mere fact that metaphysics and psychology are taught in the academy makes it unnecessary to repeat in moral theology the metaphysical doctrine of free will and the psychological doctrine of conscience. Along with the coherent teaching about free will in the system of metaphysics and with the systematic teaching of psychology about conscience, the positive teaching about these subjects in moral theology can only be naive babble. All that moral theology can say of value on these issues will fit comfortably into the apologetic part, in the form of indicating those morally harmful conclusions that follow from positive determinism and a naturalistic view of conscience. Data from Christian moral teaching, i.e. the facts of Christian experience expose important negative instances against the positive-naturalistic worldview. But this does not mean that the philosophical doctrine of free will and conscience serves as a presupposition of moral theology. From the perspective of moral theology, these excursions into the field of philosophy will always, and rightly, seem to be a game of philosophy. One must have at least some familiarity with modern philosophical systems to understand how difficult it is to adapt philosophical teaching on these issues to the “needs” of moral theology. But those philosophical systems, which themselves are nothing more than an echo of Christianity, essentially cannot be successful. Even about the majestic philosophy of Kant, who “tried to preserve practical conclusions from the dogmas of Revelation, detaching them from their objective basis, and to find a basis for them in the nature of the human mind,” even about this philosophy it can be said that it suffered a decisive failure, and “what is especially remarkable about the failure of this attempt is the fact that the rules of ethics, detached from dogmas, turned out to be in Kant not only not scientifically justified, but also mutually contradictory” 32 . But this is not the most important thing yet. If already some philosophical systems of morality, which can rely only on the natural forces of man, consider it possible to do without the assumption of free will, 33 then why would one think that moral theology should begin with a philosophical justification of free will? Here we are faced with an example of scientific superstitions, which persist the more tenaciously the less one thinks about them. At first glance, it seems indisputable that the Christian truth of the resurrection of the dead is the easier to substantiate, the more firmly the philosophical truth of the immortality of the soul stands. Meanwhile, one has only to think through this Christian teaching 34 to see that it has nothing in common with the philosophical immortality of the soul, that it is unthinkable to accept these two teachings at the same time, that philosophical teaching is only a surrogate of the Christian faith. Christian teaching applies similarly to the philosophical doctrine of free will. Christianity teaches that the knowledge of Christian truth makes a person free, that the Son of God truly liberates people 35 - it gives a person the consciousness and experience of liberating sonship with God, and this does not at all imply natural freedom. On the contrary, it is Christianity that makes a person free. In any case, moral theology must bear in mind only this fact of Christian freedom, which stands the same whether a person is free by nature or unfree. Questions about whether the Christian boundaries of freedom do not remove responsibility from pagans and sinners must be considered decidedly casuistic. When the gospel speaks of the resurrection of those who believe in Christ, it simply means only those who believed, simply leaving out of its sight those who did not believe; Likewise, Christianity deals only with those who have received freedom in Christ, or those who have rejected this freedom, but does not consider man in pure naturalness outside of relation to Christianity. At the same time, a purely legal point of view is completely alien to the gospel 36, and it posits all the good in the very possession of Christian freedom, eternal life, and all the evil in the very alienation from it 37. We will no longer refer to the teaching of St. ap. Pavel and Bl. Augustine about predestination, and in general we do not want to say that Christianity presupposes natural determinism - that would be the other extreme. We only state that Christian freedom is affirmed in itself, that it is a primary fact for Christian theology, a completely unique, religious fact, and that it, therefore, does not need an outside Christian, natural-philosophical justification. Before Christian freedom, natural freedom is not true freedom. And, finally, if the necessary postulate of moral theology were natural freedom, as a philosophical truth, then moral theology would still be completely helpless, since it could attribute freedom to man only before his fall (which is an abstract - dogmatic, and not empirical - moral truth) and would be forced to reckon with the fact that everyone who commits a sin is a slave of sin 38, and this is all outside of Christianity. Similarly, it is customary in the interests of Christian morality, and, consequently, in the interests of moral theology, to consider “conscience the voice of God, coming from God through the moral feeling implanted in our nature,” and, however, moral theology states that “in general, the judgment of conscience is more often wrong than correct” 39: what is the difference between the moral and theological view of conscience and the naturalistic-evolutionary one? Why is it considered impossible to implant Christianity in a soul that naturally “evolves to moral consciousness?” Isn’t it better for moral theology to speak only about Christian freedom, only about Christian conscience? Isn't it better to start with the facts of Christian consciousness? It would be a different matter if moral theology spoke about those aspects of natural life that even in Christianity preserve the fullness and freedom of natural development, such as family, social and state forms of life that have undoubted moral significance 40 . But no, moral theology wants to give place to the natural-philosophical teaching about such an intimate side of the human soul, which is completely captured by Christianity, “reborn”: from this side there can be no place for the natural teaching about morality in moral theology. And in any case, we must not forget the fact that the Gospel teaching does not know the concepts of conscience, natural freedom and natural moral law. To preface Christian moral teaching with a philosophical teaching about these subjects is the same as prefacing the Gospel teaching about spiritual life with scientific biology, and the Christian teaching about baptism and communion with general skin hygiene and nutritional physiology 41 . Next, we will talk about the moral law as a moral and theological principle. Legalism, the legal assessment of moral action, is an old legacy of Judaism, resurrected in Catholicism. The main feature of Catholicism is its political view of the essence of the church, from which a legal understanding of morality naturally follows, a view of Christianity as a new moral law. Despite the fact that under the influence of Catholic systems of moral teaching, and in Russian systems of moral theology, the legalistic point of view finds the widest application, in our theological-critical literature nothing else is so thoroughly rejected as the legal understanding of Christianity - whether in the dogmatic field, in the question of atonement, or in the field of moral teaching. In the latter respect, the articles by Prof. A.I. Grenkov, which we will pass on here. Beginning with Prokopovich, who reduced all Christian moral teaching to a decalogue, moral theology suffered more than other sciences from the pressure of scholasticism, since it was built according to the scheme of Catholic moral theology, which originated from the famous Thomas Aquinas. Catholic theology looks at the entire gospel primarily from a legal-legislative perspective; for a Catholic, the teaching of the Lord is, first of all, lekh nova evangelica, to which the Christian’s attitude should be one - in the form of obedience: you must, you are obliged - this was the formula of the Old Testament moral teaching and, according to the Catholic idea, the New Testament moral teaching did not go further than it. Hence the entire system of moral theology of the Roman Church is usually thought of as a system of duties, which were and are usually presented in three categories - to God, to one's neighbors and to oneself. The starting point for such a construction was usually a logical idea of ​​the law, and a treatise on the moral law usually preceded a special statement of duties. In particular, the parallel between the law of Moses and the gospel occupied a prominent place here, with the aim of proving the superiority of the latter over the former, although the greatest difference between Moses and Christ, as moral teachers, was precisely that the law was given to the former, and grace and truth to the latter. Meanwhile, this idea of ​​legislation is important for the Roman theologian; for him, Christ is, first of all, the lawmaker, who said all the rules of Christian behavior: all the activities of a Christian are a series of actions that agree or disagree with this rule; only according to this logic should opera superero gatoria have appeared, and an exchange relationship with this capital, which can be credited at the will of the pope, has been formed; Only on this business basis could casuistry emerge with its doubts and dialectical collisio officiorum, which the greatest casuists and theological jurists of the Roman Church - the Jesuits - elevated to a high degree of practical artistry - to make a deal with their conscience. The greatest organic process of living moral growth, the royal path of the formation of God’s new creation in Christ Jesus, is abandoned here and replaced by a process of crystallization, layering, and the Christian returns to ancient life, when the will of man was surrounded by the laws and prohibitions of Jehovah. Catholic moral theologies have left the stamp of dryness, doctrinaire, and abstraction on evangelical moral teaching; this is a collection of edifications, rules, maxims; the living truth expressed by Christ is torn off from its historical fact, transferred to abstraction, elevated to a rational thesis, and the great lesson of the Lord, which introduced a completely new spirit into the whole system of moral life of the ancient world, turned into a dry maxim, into a skeleton. Love your neighbor, love your enemies, be humble, merciful, peaceful, pray unceasingly - is the gospel moral teaching in these fragmentary aphorisms? Christian moral teaching is least of all a doctrine, a code of moral maxims; it is idea, spirit, power and life; split it into categories, put it under rational headings - you will not recognize the gospel spirit. Christian morality is not a correct, uniform movement, repeating norms set from outside and fulfilling certain commandments; this is a continuous creative process carried out by a Christian, as a member of the Church of Christ, where the Holy Spirit lives, who - according to the promise of Christ - must teach Christians everything. The Pharisee, with his legal point of view, the teaching of the commandment, which must be mechanically fulfilled, provoked the most formidable reproof of the Lord; indeed, he turned morality into some kind of soulless mechanism that must move as the tablets of the law command. Christ does not give us the law in the sense of a categorical command; His only commandment is the commandment of love, but it does not concern a single action, like, for example, the ancient “thou shalt not kill”; it is not a separate rule standing next to other equal rules; this is the universal stimulus for all possible actions of a Christian, the general feeling of the whole Christian mood; love is not commanded, but only indicated - it is not fulfilled, but cultivated. This educational principle contains the entire structure and character of Christian moral teaching; The Christian moral ideal is not an aggregate of rules and commandments, not an exact complete instruction that determines every step and technique, it is only the principle of our life, the spiritual force that moves us towards salvation. The Gospel lifted the curtain of the heavenly world, the world of the highest good, before us, and said: strive there. How? This question confronts a Christian in all its greatness. He demands the freedom of a Christian, work on himself, demands that service to the cause of salvation be carried out wisely 42... Even Greek philosophy taught about the so-called philosophical virtues, and (in the person of the Stoics) created the ideal of the sage as the embodiment of all virtues. Christian teachers early adopted this philosophical formula, constructing Christian moral teaching according to the scheme of four philosophical virtues, to which three theological virtues were then added. This moralizing formula was especially adopted and developed by Protestantism - in contrast to the legal morality of Catholicism. “For a Protestant, Christ is not a lawgiver, but first of all a beloved Savior, God is the sanctifier of his shattered being, in gratitude to Whom a person can make the only acceptable sacrifice - complete love, as a feeling, as a movement of the heart; a Protestant rejects the importance of good deeds for salvation, that is, he does not allow legal, business morality. Instead of the idea of ​​law, objectively understood, for him the initial principle of Christian morality is the mystical feeling of unity with God, which he hopes to achieve through faith. Instead of clarifying the general norm of Christian activity, instead of a detailed calculation of the particular rules and regulations of Christian moral teaching, the Protestant moralist examines the psychological basis of morality, the person himself, as a moral figure who is saved through faith. For the Catholic, everything in the gospel is determined, prescribed and established; For a Protestant, the gospel is far from being a reference book of the statute, where you need to look every time and find out what should be done in a given case. In the gospel, says the Protestant, only some facts are set forth, and only in their totality can one find the main idea entwined in them. For a Protestant, Christian moral teaching is a science, a subject of research and study, while for a Catholic it is a charter drawn up for unconditional execution. The latter unquestioningly obeys him, while the former begins to analyze it and looks for another way to apply the found moral principle to the individual will of a person. Thus Schleiermacher, whom we can look at as a typical representative of Protestant theology, in the field of moral teaching is almost an antinomian; he does not allow the possibility of thinking about Christian duties, does not give a place to the very concept of duty in the system of Christian moral teaching; for him, moral life is a fact, the empirical state of the believer. Palmer, in the preface to his Die Moral des Christenthums, expressly states that the task of the Christian moralist is to depict the Christian life as it is accomplished in and through Christ, to indicate the sum of spiritual forces and actions which the source sees in the whole constitution of the new life, which - as the work of Christ and His atonement - he calls Christianity. “I must,” says the author, observe the vital pulse in a Christian, notice his unity among diversity, indicate the motive under the influence of which a Christian acts in one way and not another. To achieve this goal, I should not clarify the norm of moral goodness as a prescription, but must describe the very process of such Christianization, Christian life itself.” In the same spirit, more and more new experiments in the theological moral teaching of Protestantism are being compiled. These are the experiments of Wutke, Wendt, Schmidt, Martensen and others” 43. The principle of virtue does not correspond to the main content of the Christian religion. This is not as obvious as in the question of Catholic morality, but it is just as certain. The moral principle of virtue presupposes, as the highest goal of human life, natural perfection, which is realized in virtues, giving them ethical value. Meanwhile, the idea of ​​natural perfection does not find a place in the system of the Christian worldview 44. The good that Christianity bestows on a person is also called spiritual perfection, but this good is bestowed on a person in Christianity, and does not constitute the fruit of his natural development. Spiritual life is divine life, but divine life was revealed to us in Christ and is given in Christianity not as limitless perfection, not in visible glory, not in the predicates of external omnipotence, omniscience, visible splendor, but as an internal, invisible good. Spiritual life is perfection, but not that perfection that seems to stand at the end of natural development, which consists in the wealth of knowledge and flexibility of the mind, in the strength of the will, in the external splendor of nature; but it is perfection in the sense of the very reality of divine life. Since love is the primary manifestation of divine life, it is also the totality of Christian perfection. There may be a difference in the degree to which a person assimilates it, a person’s growth in Christian perfection: a Christian can be a baby or an adult. The fullness of Christian stature in the word of God is also called perfection. But never in St. In Scripture, Christian perfection does not mean adult or cultural perfection 45 . The main content of Protestant ethics is more consistent with Christianity, as a description of “Christian life itself.” It almost coincides with the direction of Eastern Orthodox asceticism. In our systems of moral theology it finds the widest application. In “Christian Moral Teaching”, Bishop. Innocent of Penza we read: “Active theology is an active divine science that teaches to restore the image of God in man, or to raise the hidden heart of man into a perfect man, according to the measure of the age of Christ... The essential subject of active theology is to show how the hidden man of the heart must be born and come to the age of a perfect man (2 Tim. III, 17)” 46. N. P. Arkhangelsky, who made abundant extracts from systems of moral theology, starting with the system of Innocent of Penza, summarizes his research as follows: “our best Russian Orthodox theologians, moralists, completely agree on the subject, task and goal of the system of Christian moral teaching, as an image of the process of salvation - an image of how the hidden person of the heart is born and comes to the age of a perfect husband, or, what is the same, how he truly arises and grows moral Christian life and through which individual concrete actual forms it passes in its quest for the ideal” 47. I think this is a completely erroneous view of the tasks and content of moral theology. I will begin the substantiation of my opinion with one particular point. Setting as their task to describe the birth and growth of the hidden Christian life, our systems of moral theology naturally begin with the sinful state of man and from there move on to the processes of Christian birth and growth. The only exception is Bishop. Feofan, which was noted and not at all appreciated by the same Mr. Arkhangelsky. “All systems,” writes the latter 48... begin with the depiction of the kingdom of sin, which was a consequence of the damage to the moral nature of man in the fall, then revealing the depth of this damage... Then all the above systems, in the same natural way, move on to the depiction of the process of repentance and conversion. The bishop follows exactly the same method in “The Path to Salvation.” Feofana... The only difference is that the depiction of the sinful state here is preceded by the teaching about receiving the firstfruits of Christian life in baptism, which in previous systems is considered together with the rebirth of a person in the sacrament of repentance.” The only one who understands the matter is the bishop. Feofan. To begin with the creation of the world and man, the Fall and then move on to salvation means standing on an abstract, logical-dogmatic point of view, which is quite appropriate in dogmatics and inappropriate in the morally living concept of Christianity. “The Gospel teaching about sin forms part of the teaching about eternal life, that is, the Gospel judges this subject from the point of view of eternal life” 49 . In the gospel sense, the concept of the negative power of sin and the disastrous state of sinfulness is given from the height of the positive good of eternal life. And moral theology must begin with the fact of “Christians receiving the firstfruits of Christian life in baptism,” in general - with the positive fact of the benefits of Christian life. This is precisely natural for moral theology, but the opposite is artificial, logically abstract 50 . But even apart from this particularity, in general, the image of how the hidden person of the heart is born and comes to the age of a perfect man cannot constitute the subject of the science of moral theology: this subject for the practical science of moral theology is too subjective. By subjectivity, firstly, we mean the psychological interiority of a fact, internal experience, which, however, fully admits a pattern corresponding to the physiological (physical) and sociological (historical) pattern. This pattern makes the science of psychology possible. From the point of view of this pattern, a secondary concept of subjectivity (subjectivism) arises as a psychological abnormality and accident, that is, individual differences and characteristics that owe their origin to transitory circumstances. But besides this last subjectivity, in internal experiences there is inevitably an element that eludes any regularity, is not accessible to objective knowledge (subjectivity from an epistemological point of view), an irrational element, certainly not repeated, intimate, making each individuality valuable in itself, an end in itself, a beautiful whole: this is what we call personality in the ethical sense. There can be no talk of absolute unknowability, since the most intimate experiences of a person can be expressed in logical concepts and in artistic images, but knowledge of another in these ways will always be knowledge by analogy, in its deepest essence subjective, that is, there is no place for absolute knowability even in the sense of exhaustive knowledge. You can comprehend the whole mathematical thought of another, but you will never comprehend the whole soul of another; human individuality is never repeated. Therefore, there is no scientific knowledge of the human personality, but it is the initial beginning of both poetic creativity, since it is expressed in artistic creations, and philosophy, since it is expressed in critically substantiated logical concepts. This is philosophy as critical poetry, or - better said - as critical mysticism. In particular, philosophical ethics has the same character: since the last beginning of morality is a person who has mystical depths, then, with this in mind, they say that there can be a science of morality (its philosophical construction), but there cannot be a scientific morality 51 . The Christian birth and growth of a person relates to the depths of personal life and therefore cannot be the subject of the practical science of moral theology: there can be a science about the Christian personality (Christian philosophy), but there cannot be a scientific Christian life. This subject is too intimate; it does not give room for regularity and objective knowledge. We will be convinced of this if we turn to the appropriate sources. The writings of Bishop are especially instructive in this regard. Theophan, who was both a scientifically educated person and a Christian mystic (he was neither a half-educated “seminarian” nor an abstract thinker), who gave the science of Christian life and showed that there can be no scientific Christian life. First we must remember, as the main basis, the Gospel teaching on this issue - the Gospel teaching about the “spirit” that breathes where it wants, and you hear its voice, but you don’t know where it comes from and where it goes - about a seed thrown into the ground, while the earth itself produces greenery, ears and grain, and a person does not know how the seed grows 52. It is on this basis that the bishop’s thoughts unfold. Feofan. Let's open his “Path to Salvation.” “A change for the better, an appeal to God, as if it should be instantaneous or momentary, as it happens. But, preparatoryly, it goes through several turns, meaning the combination of freedom with grace, where grace takes possession of freedom, and freedom submits to grace - turns necessary for everyone. Some go through them quickly, while for others it lasts for years. Who can investigate everything that happens here, especially when the ways in which the grace acts on us are very diverse, and the states of people on whom it begins to act are countless? It should, however, be expected that, despite all the diversity, there is one general order of change here, which no one can avoid. Everyone who repents is living in sin, and every one of them is transformed by grace. Therefore, based on the concept of the state of the sinner in general, and the relationship of freedom to grace, this order can now be depicted and defined by rules” 54 . In these words, Bp. Theophanes expresses the first thought about the unsearchability of spiritual life, and now he limits this thought. We must never forget these limits, but we cannot help but notice how unstable these limits are. “There is one general order of change.” To put it differently, there is a general scheme that nevertheless embraces living life - there is a common channel in which, however, free people move. Perhaps we can talk about the laws of spiritual life, but do these laws have any practical value 55? Everyone who is saved is first a sinner, then he is converted—and, having been converted, he is first a child, then he grows. This is an “indisputable truth,” not worth a “penny.” Based on the general concept of the condition of the sinner and the relation of freedom to grace, the general order of salvation can be depicted and defined by rules, but these are rules that are created with the clear consciousness that there are innumerable cases of their possible and proper violation. Thus, the thought that limits the main thesis about the unsearchability of spiritual life is itself limited and even more decisively, so that a formula is obtained: although there is a certain scheme of salvation and it is possible to indicate the rules relating to this, the main thing remains the unsearchability of spiritual life, the variety of paths of salvation - the last remains the thought of the intimacy of salvation, the loneliness of spiritual life. This is the plan according to which “The Path to Salvation” was written. The entire second issue of “The Path to Salvation” is filled with a list of various ways of converting a sinner. “The merciful Lord reveals in various ways before the consciousness of the convert his divine world, in which our spirit is determined to live. Often for this purpose He Himself appears, apparently under some image, during a person’s waking state, or in a dream. Thus He appeared to the Apostle Paul on his way to Damascus, Constantine the Great, Eustathius Placis, Neanias, who was going to torment Christians, Patermuthia and many others. Sometimes he deigns to send different persons from that world... Thus, the Great Martyr Catherine was converted by the appearance of the Mother of God to her... (etc.). Whoever is bound by carnal knowledge (saving divine grace) plunges him into illness, and, weakening the flesh, gives the spirit freedom and strength to come to his senses and sober up. He who is seduced by his beauty and strength is deprived of his beauty” 56... (etc.). Hence, the “rules” primarily take the form of advice - to try various paths in order to meet your path. “The grace of God is accustomed to choose certain means to influence us, as indicated in the description of the extraordinary actions of grace. So, apply these means to yourself, and walk under their shadow and influence. Will not a ray of grace fall on you from somewhere, as it fell on other sinners like you? God's grace chose God's churches and church rites for its action. Go to church too... Grace worked through the word of God. And take it for yourself and read it. Maybe you will come across a place that will amaze you, just as Augustine was struck by the place on which his eyes fell... The hearts of some sinners were softened by conversations with pious people. Come and talk. Word for word in a conversation - won’t something fall out that will lead to the separation of your soul and spirit? The prayer of the poor was powerful. Go and increase your alms. Will not the prayerful cry of a beggar bring a guiding angel to you, as to Cornelius the centurion” 57? In view of this variety of paths of Christian life, the second issue of “The Path to Salvation” ends like this: “Here is the whole order of conversion! Everything that has been said happens to everyone who turns; but how and to what extent depends on the personalities and circumstances of each person” 58 . This idea is revealed even more decisively in the third issue. Here the author, having made several general comments about “feats and exercises,” continues: “Every ascetic must undergo all such feats and exercises, in a special form applied to him. Therefore, in themselves, they are still, as it were, materials and a framework for rules 59. Rules are built from them, through their application to time, place, person, circumstances, etc. This must be done by each ascetic, either himself, or under the guidance of his leader and spiritual father - done over every exercise, and then from the entirety of them one comprehensive order of spiritual exercises or exploits is built, where there is a place and time for everything, greater and lesser. This order, as well as the rules, cannot be sufficiently indicated in a written manual, unless only in the beginning” 60. “The law is this: one must leave behind everything that is dangerous for a new life, that inflames passion, causes vanity and extinguishes the spirit; and in all this there is so much variety! ... Let the measure of this be the own heart of everyone who sincerely seeks salvation" 61 ... “In general, about the rules of warfare, it should be noted that in their essence they are nothing more than the application of all weapons to particular cases, and that therefore they cannot all be depicted. The matter of internal warfare is both incomprehensible and hidden; cases for it are extremely varied; the faces of the combatants are too different; What is a temptation for one means nothing to another; What strikes one person is completely indifferent to another. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to establish one thing for everyone. The best inventor of the rules of swearing is every person for himself. Experience will teach you everything. You just need to have a zealous desire to conquer yourself. The first ascetics did not learn from books, and yet they represent examples of winners. Moreover, one should not rely too much on these rules: they represent only the external outline. Everyone learns what constitutes the essence of the matter only from experience, when he begins to fight in action. And in this matter, his only guides are his own prudence and devotion to God. The inner course of Christian life in each person brings to mind ancient underground passages, extremely intricate and hidden. Entering them, the subject receives several instructions in general terms to do this here, there that, here according to such and such a sign, and here according to such and such, and then he is left alone in the darkness, sometimes with the weak light of a lamp. His whole business depends on presence of mind, prudence and prudence, and on invisible guidance. There is a similar intimacy in the inner Christian life. Here everyone walks alone, even if surrounded by many rules. Only the feelings of the heart, trained and especially the inspiration of grace, are for him the everlasting, undeceiving and inseparable guides in the battle with oneself; everything else leaves him... Everyone learns on his own and from his own experiences, for man does not come against man, so that, that is, what is alien will be suitable for us" 62... Bishop's words Feofana does not need any comments. And what consequences for moral theology should be drawn from the thesis about the incomprehensibility of Christian life, we will outline this in the words of Innocent, Archbishop. Khersonsky 63. “Rebirth, the appearance of a new person in the place of the old, union with Christ, revival by the Spirit of God - this internal significant change in the soul cannot be subject to understanding: the seat of this is in the heart, in feeling. The essence of active Christianity is some inexpressible mystery. We cannot know how a person is reborn by the Spirit, when and how something new is conceived within him, opposite to his previous desires and actions. And if it is generally impossible to understand the moral change; then, looking at it from a higher point of view, it is all the more impossible to comprehend it. Only he can know this who has experienced it personally and felt this change of spirit within himself. Life and light are inseparable here, and not so much from light is life as from life is light. True understanding is only experienced... “Our science has two more related sciences: mysticism and asceticism. And all Christian activity can be called mysticism and asceticism, for there is a lot of both in it. But Christian morality must be represented as an average between them. Mysticism delves into the inner actions of the Spirit of God on the human spirit and in the relationship of the human spirit to God: it hovers in the depths of the spirit. It cannot be reduced to a strict science, but consists of observations and spiritual experiences. Christian activity cannot exist without mysticism; for its essence is in the depths of the spirit. Asceticism stands on the opposite side, because it deals with the body, and the body is in opposition to the spirit, in its roughness, inertness, tangibility, materiality. The spirit requires revitalization, enlightenment; and the body - killing, curbing, fighting. This struggle is necessary for a Christian. Practical Christianity must borrow from mysticism and asceticism what is more common to them. Mysticism has a more general subject - spiritual experiences, while the subject of asceticism is more specific. It should be noted that asceticism and mysticism in their pure form are sciences of high dignity; but when they cross the line, they are subject to censure, especially the mystic. Crossing the line, it becomes spiritual poetry; mystics fall into spiritual dreams; looking at everything through the magnifying glass of imagination, they set up for themselves a whole world of ideals, often ugly. Many mystic writers suffer from this disease. Asceticism is also subject to many abuses. Asceticism, of course, is necessary, because the body opposes the spirit; but the main source of life is the spirit, the heart. Many sects forget this and expect everything from curbing the body, and therefore extend various strictures towards it too far, for example. fasts that often end in death. Mysticism has as its subject the more active side, and asceticism has the passive side. The beginning of Christian life is in God, and in the restoration and strengthening of its strength, man acts on his own, with the assistance, of course, of the power of God. At the highest degree of development of spiritual life, the most actions are divine, and the least human; although the person then acts on his own, he feels that he has little activity of his own. Ascetics are engaged in material exploits, and therefore make life boring and bitter. Here a person acts more independently, and his activity is passive-productive.” This is a wonderful page in Innocent’s “moral theology”: here, in a concise presentation, the wealth and depth of thoughts are given, of which we will note the most important. 1) First of all, the notes made by the archbishop are worthy. Innocent distinguishes between mysticism, as the very depth of Christian activity, revelation in the spirit of divine spirituality, and asceticism, as a technique of human initiative, which relates to mysticism in approximately the same way as material technology relates to creativity in art. From this follows the secondary, auxiliary significance of asceticism in Christian life, 64 and asceticism, in the form of monotonous regulations, is completely incomprehensible from the essence of mysticism. We usually confuse mysticism and asceticism - especially those that defend the extremes of ascetic life 65 . Even those who understand the essence of the matter confuse the terminology: “The path to salvation” by Bishop. Theophanes should be called a brief sketch not of asceticism, but of mysticism. 2) Archbishop. Innocent distinguishes critical mysticism, which we call the philosophy of Christianity, from uncritical, pathological mysticism. 3) He talks about the important theological, especially moral and theological significance of mysticism and Christian philosophy. “Christian activity cannot exist without mysticism.” Christian philosophy forms the most important condition for the scientific construction of moral theology. You can say this - we do not have a scientific moral theology, because critical Christian mysticism has not been processed. The importance of Christian philosophy is evident from the fact that only in the form of critical mysticism, in the form of philosophical processing of personal Christianity, is a coherent Christian worldview possible, uniting all aspects of Christianity and the fullness of life. Whatever they say, in its deepest essence, which embraces both the entire length of Christian life, starting with the mystery of spiritual birth and ending with the mystery of the afterlife communion with God, and all the diversity of worldly life, in its essence “the inner Christian life is hidden: here everyone walks alone, no matter what he is surrounded by.” 4) Christian mysticism cannot be brought into a strict science, or more precisely, into the practical science of moral theology. Christian mysticism and asceticism must enter into the latter from the side of what is more common to them - from the side of the general question of the purpose and meaning of life, where the very concept of Christian mysticism, the concept of the Christian personality with its freedom must be clarified. Here the whole variety of ascetic forms can find a place, since they do not claim the exclusive significance of the highest forms of Christianity: the personal work of salvation must be given freedom. Not only critical mysticism is important for moral theology, but all “ascetic” literature, no matter how simple it may be, will forever retain not only its edifying significance, which no moral theology can replace, but also its significance as material for moral theology. However, all this is not the science of moral theology, 66 which has its own specific weight, which, in turn, cannot be replaced by any edifying writing. We enter the field of practical science of moral theology where we leave subjectivity (subjectivism) not only in the sense of religious-psychological abnormality and randomness, but also in the essential sense of Christian mysticism, and move on to objective churchliness. This is the real subject of the practical science of moral theology - churchliness. Here lies the difference between edifying Orthodox literature, “ascetic” writing, and between Protestant, abstract rationalistic science, no matter how they sometimes seem to coincide. Orthodox mysticism gives place to churchliness, and Protestantism, limiting the science of moral theology to personal mysticism, testifies to both its churchlessness and its rationalism. His rationalism hopes to “bring Christian mysticism into strict science,” but he is forced to do this by the absence of churchliness as a true subject of the practical science of moral theology. I will write down a few very instructive lines from the book of protopr. I. L. Yanysheva. “Presuming to talk about morality in general and in particular about Christian Orthodox morality, we, coming only from self-awareness and introspection, will be forced to talk only about personal, subjective morality in each of us. There is no way out for us from this subjectivity; but he is not needed. Christian truth is as broad, deep and unsearchable as the depths of the mind of God, the author of this truth, are unsearchable. Each of us assimilates this truth to the extent that he receives from God the gift of the Holy Spirit, which in turn is consistent with the individual characteristics of each. To more and more assimilate this truth with feeling and will and to understand it with reason is the task of both every Christian, unlearned or learned, and the whole church, as a society of believers. The Universal Church, always possessing the whole truth, cannot, however, say that it has already managed to understand and define it for the consciousness of believers comprehensively and forever. Study the Scriptures - this constitutes the task of each individual and all those called together to faith in Christ, which is completely solvable only with the resolution of the entire task of the existence of Christianity on earth. Subjectivism, and Christian subjectivism at that, is not only inevitable, but also obligatory for our science. But so that this obligatory subjectivism is not perverted into personal arbitrariness, capable of seeing the revelation of divine truth in its internal movements of will and feeling, which may not depend at all on the spirit of Christ, or, on the contrary, attributing what is in it from the Spirit of God to its own nature - for this, our science must confirm the reliability of every fact of self-consciousness and self-observation or every philosophical moral truth with an objective authority given to us by the Church itself, namely: the evidence of positive revelation contained both in sacred Scripture and in sacred Tradition” 67. One can quite agree with these thoughts - both with the idea of ​​Christian subjectivism being inevitable and obligatory for our science and with the idea of ​​the need to limit it to objective Scripture and tradition. Christian mysticism is the experience by every Christian of the spiritual life of Christ - the founder of Christian life. Otherwise, without this connection with Christ, we would be dealing not with Christian mysticism, not with the religious philosophy of Christianity, but with secular philosophy or pagan mysticism. If, moreover, Christian mysticism did not move in the direction outlined by canonical scripture and Orthodox tradition, within the framework outlined by Church Orthodox dogma, then our Christian philosophy would not be Orthodox. This is the first assumption of Christian mysticism, as necessarily implied as the Russian language with its riches and its borders serves as the first assumption of the Russian writer. However, this first limitation of Christian subjectivism is not the last. And within these boundaries, Christian subjectivism is fully preserved, since any formula resolutely preserved by a Christian mystic leaves room for subjective understanding, since it concerns personal experiences, personal experience. The indicated dogmatic boundary does not, therefore, provide the objectivity that is necessary for the practical science of moral theology: this objectivity, as we said, is given by churchliness. The principle of Christian mysticism is the principle of Christian philosophy; the principle of churchliness is the principle of the science of moral theology. “We have always had many pious people, but there was no pious society, a pious common life” 68. To create a pious Christian society - on the basis of the real forces of Christianity - is the task of moral theology, a task sufficiently definite and original and important enough to be the object of a special theological science. “Personal Christian absoluteness, freely combined with every type of natural humiliation and with every form of historical development, is neither a natural nor a historical force. On the contrary, in the form of the church, Christianity acquires natural and historical significance and becomes a cultural force. Personal Christianity and the church come into contact in the religious and ethical foundation of the church and diverge in the cultural and historical area. From a cultural-historical point of view, the church is more important than personal Christianity; from an essentially religious point of view, it’s the opposite.” “The Church is the moral union of Christians: such is the modern vocation of the Church, such are the modern requests addressed to the Church by Christians. They want to see in it the kingdom of the Spirit, in which Christians would be mutually warmed, a moral organization in which heavenly ideals could be strengthened by their roots. That Christianity is inner spirituality is the first absolute, which cannot be violated: a Christian can never turn into a simple arithmetic unit, into a simple number in the registry book. But Christians, with all the inviolability of their internal absoluteness, need to unite among themselves into one organization, gather in the name of Christ, so that Christianity is not a subjective dream, but an objective historical force. Letourneau, in his book L'evolution de la morale, characterizing the different phases in the historical development of morality - animal morality, savage morality, barbarian morality and (modern) mercantile morality, says that he did not take into account individuals who rise morally above the level of their time and their people: these individuals are anomalies, similar to random deviations in the animal kingdom, they are a weak minority who can neglect. So, in order for Christianity not to be such an undeserving value, it must be an organized force with which the makers of history would have to reckon” 69 . No one will argue with the idea of ​​the importance of the church as a moral organization, as a pious society; It is also indisputable that none of the theological disciplines takes churchliness as its object, while this is a subject that can be discussed scientifically. And by pointing out the principle of moral theology in church life, we are for the first time laying the foundation for the science of Orthodox moral theology. If we look at that part of our systems of moral theology that treats the Christian principles of social life, then we will easily notice that this part especially suffers from extreme vacuity and absolute aimlessness, and therefore from ultimate meaninglessness. Here we can read 70: “The Christian state is obliged to clarify to its members the general requirements of social life, developing from morality and determined by the historical relations of the people.” “Legislation must be consistent with the spirit of Christianity; it must take its content from Christianity.” Is there any meaning to these musts and musts? When the state says to its citizens: “must,” then behind these instructions is the police force of the state. When citizens say to the state: “must,” then they are declaring their rights, which they will defend either by legal parliamentary means or by revolution. When Kant prescribes: “act according to a rule that could be a universal law,” he proceeds from the irresistible logical power of practical reason, that is, he elevates into a rule only that which is inseparable from the very essence of personal reason. Fouillet builds ethics on ideas-forces. Comte, Marx, Engels, Kautsky derive morality from historical and sociological laws. Stirner, Nietzsche rely on knowledge of human nature... But what is the point in the fact that some g.g. The Pyatnitskys, Pokrovskys, Khalkolivans, Favorovs teach seminarians: “the state must.” Isn’t this the extreme limit of absurdity? Doesn’t human senselessness reach terrifying limits here? All sorts of textbooks can be bad - history, zoology, and mathematics, because they do not stand up to the heights of modern science. But in the science of moral theology we encounter fundamental nonsense, which cannot be blamed on Mr. Pyatnitsky, Pokrovsky, Khalkolivanov, Favorov, but which follows from the very essence of the program, from the very impossibility of a scientific and theological discussion of the subjects that are indicated to it. This part of the moral and theological textbooks is structured according to the scheme of the Christian Orthodox moral teaching about the public, or the teaching about the Christian Orthodox public - about the family, the state (and the church). But precisely such a teaching is unthinkable. Christianity acts on nature and the world primarily through grace. How significant this aspect of religious action on nature and the world is for the Christian worldview, we will not talk about this in this place only because it is too well known from dogmatics, and because I have spoken sufficiently about this in my system 71 . We must only remember that this action of grace is invisible, that it will only appear at the end of time, that it does not affect the laws of natural-historical life 72 . The tasks of moral theology lie apart from this action of grace. Then, a Christian, in the essence of his spiritual life, inevitably enters into natural-historical life without the moral dirt that sticks to it outside of Christianity: the natural life of a Christian can only be chaste, wild debauchery, unrestrained throwing of lustful glances at every passing woman is absolutely irreconcilable with the evangelical spirit, 73 before the idea of an absolute heaven, the earth is only the kingdom of chaste nature, before the abyss the human sky is only morally human 74. This gives rise to a sphere of personal asceticism 75 and provides a wide opportunity for preaching influence on life, the possibility of eloquent instructions to spouses, parents, children, masters, servants, rulers, judges... We will find examples of such instructions already among the apostles. In the fight against personally conscious immorality, Christianity is an indispensable educational force. But the area of ​​this pedagogical and preaching action on life is not the area of ​​the science of moral theology. Between the hidden metaphysically-gracious sphere and the personally-conscious sphere of moral purification, personal asceticism, lies the third sphere of life - natural-historical laws, natural-social forms: this sphere of life does not change in its appearance by metaphysically-gracious action and is not affected in its essence by personal asceticism. The moral and theological teaching about the public, about the family and the state would only be possible if Christianity had its own idea for this sphere and created its own way of life for it, if moral theology proceeded from the specifically Christian idea of ​​family and state and strived to create a Christian family-state way of life. But there is no Christian idea of ​​family and state, and Christian family-state life is impossible. In this matter, we must most of all avoid idle talk, rhetorical and unctuous phrases: accuracy and certainty are needed. Focusing in particular on marriage, we ask: is there a Christian idea (formula, definition) of marriage? It turns out that in the gospel there is no law of marriage 76, and the church legal consciousness has adopted the natural-cultural formula compiled by the pagan lawyer Modestine - adopted as the best formula that fully meets the needs of the Christian conscience 77. For anyone who wants to talk about Christian marriage, this fact turns out to be an insurmountable difficulty. The Christian idea of ​​marriage, apart from the natural-cultural one, does not exist 78. Without its own idea of ​​marriage, Christianity does not produce its own marriage life. It is applied to marriage from its ascetic side, from the side of restrictions and prohibitions, but not from the positive side of commands and encouragements. Is there anything in Christianity similar to the Old Testament commandment that a newlywed should “pleasure the wife he has taken,” the Old Testament law that “a brother-in-law must go to his brother’s childless widow, take her as his wife and live with her,” that a slave “should not be deprived of food, clothing, and marital cohabitation,” and especially the law on the Sabbath? Nothing like that, nothing but restrictions and prohibitions. But life will not work out of restrictions and restrictions. Since there is no Christian idea of ​​marriage and there cannot be a Christian marital life, the science of moral theology cannot have marriage and marital life as its object. In addition to the unscientific presentation of preaching instructions, she can only clumsily repeat what is omnipotently preached by nature and what fits into the pagan formula of marriage. “Christian spouses are united by ardent and devoted love for each other”: what about pagans? “A Christian husband treats his wife with complete respect”: what about a pagan? These are truths that, scientifically, are “not worth a penny,” and for all that, this cheap morality will never penetrate to the essence of marriage relations, the law of which is embedded in nature itself. The same must be said about the state: there is no Christian idea of ​​the state and there cannot be a Christian state life. There is no Christian family-state community, and moral theology, taking such a community as its subject, hits empty air. And the even greater trouble is that, taking the point of view of the imaginary Christian principles of social life, moral theology in advance deprives itself of the opportunity to present the church in full light. In this case, the church is considered as one of the societies. “In addition to worldly societies, there is a spiritual society on earth - the church” 79. A completely Protestant point of view 80! This low assessment of churchliness corresponds to the insignificant size (5-6 pages) 81 and the insignificant content of the department of systems of moral theology about the church. Here we will find two words from the dogmatic teaching about the church, two words about the relationship of the church to the state, and several commandments that have no value: “a Christian must recognize himself as a member of the church,” “a Christian must participate in general worship” 82. Incredibly pathetic speeches 83! There is not a word about churchliness as a moral organization in any system. The church differs from all social unions in that Christianity has its own idea of ​​the church and can give rise to a unique church life. The idea of ​​the church as a society (of believers in Christ), firstly, absolutely universal, since sonship with God knows no natural and national boundaries, and, secondly, completely spiritual (diametrically opposed to the spirit of worldly kingdoms) both in internal relations and in external 84 - this is a specific idea of ​​Christianity, which neither Judaism nor paganism had. The necessity and importance of church life follows from the real principles of Christian experience, from the very essence of Christianity. “A Christian can truly live a spiritual life only in the society of Christians, just as he can live a human life only in human society. Christians form a kind of golden chain among themselves, each Christian is a special link in this chain, connecting with others through faith, good deeds and love. A Christian lives only by the life of Christ, but this communion with Christ is affirmed and becomes a real power for Christians only through their mutual communication, in the Church of Christ. According to the common comparison, Christ is the center, we are the radii. We cannot truly unite with each other without drawing closer to the center, nor unite with the center without drawing closer to each other. The Church, therefore, has a religious and ethical genesis; its germ is in the personal essence of Christianity, in the personal mystical depths" 85... Churchliness is not only a specific Christian idea, but in relation to it, Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism most of all diverge from each other. Looking at churchliness as the main subject of moral theology, we seem to come closest to Catholicism. Let us reveal the recently published and scientifically apologetically presented, as ein Wegweiser in den Grundfragen des sittlichen Lebens fur alle Gebildeten, the moral and theological system of V. Kathrein 86: here the central part is the section on the church. This must inevitably be so from a Catholic point of view. However, Catholic moral theology is too far from Orthodox. Here the point is in the very essence of Catholicism, in the very view of Catholicism on the church. Catholicism places power and the legal system at the basis of church life: this is from the internal side. Catholicism wants to take over the whole world, taking into its hands all aspects of natural life, and create Christian forms for it - a Christian state, Christian marriage 87. In Catholicism there is no place for free natural development and a free Christian personality - Catholicism, therefore, does not know Christian churchliness, as a union of regenerate persons, with absolute value and spiritual freedom. “The meaning of churchliness for disciples of the gospel follows from the real principles of evangelical experience, which determines the derivative value of church life. The true and inalienable good of the gospel belongs to the regenerate person; it cannot be realized without the free creativity of the spirit; for its absolute requirements the only and indispensable field of application is in free personal energy. Therefore, from the evangelical point of view, a spiritually born personality constitutes an incomparable, incomparable value. On the contrary, the absoluteness of the gospel life cannot be expressed in any institutions, in any external system, or in any social form, which is inevitably conditional and limited. Therefore, for bearers of the gospel life, churchliness does not have the meaning of an intrinsic social system. The question is, what comes first in the Christian church - the spiritual life of its members, forming a society, or the social system, as a producer of Christian souls. From an evangelical point of view, there can be only one answer to this question: in Christianity, the main reality and irreplaceable value belongs to the individual spirit, and the Christian church is a union of believers in a society, a flock of disciples of Christ. In relation to believers, the church has a meaning that is not productive, but derivative. The believers are not from the church, but the church is from the believers. In the ecclesiastical sphere, the elements are more valuable and more important than the social form that unites them. In the church, as in the kingdom of absolute individuals, there can be no sacrifice of the spiritual good of everyone and no restrictions on the spiritual freedom of individuals for the prosperity of the social system. Believers are not for the church, but the church is for believers” 88. This is the biblical view. Moral theology should not have the claim to be the first, the most important among the theological sciences - it has as its subject a derivative reality in Christianity. Moving from Christian mysticism to moral theology, we must first of all keep in mind the depth of Christian mysticism, first of all we must know that the Christian church embraces absolute individuals, that, by uniting them, it does not limit their absoluteness, but replenishes their life, that it arises from the real principles of personal Christianity. The significance of moral theology, as a science of churchliness, is based not on forgetting the truth of the Christian personality, but on the transition from the mystical to another point of view - cultural-historical, moral-social, moral-objective. This New Testament view is preserved in Orthodoxy, in the Orthodox Church, as a society with a conciliar internal structure and with purely spiritual external relations. Catholicism does not know true churchliness because it does not recognize the personal, spiritual, mystical beginning of the church. In Protestantism, personal Christian freedom is considered the cornerstone. However, there is no true churchliness in Protestantism either: it understands the Christian personality as a self-closed unit, understands spiritual and personal life in the sense of a mystical-passive, intellectualistic mood, from which there is no transition to active churchliness with purely spiritual external relations, but an inevitable bias towards intellectualistic abstraction, rationalism, sectarian mysticism and the state-nationalist structure of the church 89. Orthodoxy, not as Byzantine or our “Moscow”, “true Russian” Christianity, but as fidelity to the New Testament idea, Orthodoxy, despite all attempts to move it either to the Catholic absolutism of church power, extending both to Christian individuals and to social forms of life, or to the Protestant sectarian-closed mysticism of mood and church nationalism - Orthodoxy is the sphere of true churchliness, as a universal community of spiritually free individuals with a conciliar internal structure and spiritual external relations. We have the Christian idea of ​​the church. At the same time, Christianity has all the data to create church life. It exists, but only in the outline of the external framework, the backbone, in the form of a church-administrative system, social and liturgical charter, pastoral and parish orders, but it almost does not exist in the form of a “pious society, a pious common life” that would spiritualize this skeleton, bring life into this skeleton - in the form of a moral-social, moral-cultural organization. The primitive church existed in this form, and this church life must be restored. It is precisely in recent times that a whole series of issues related to this have been raised - about conciliarity in the administrative system, about the participation of the laity in divine services, about the revitalization of parish life, about living preaching, about church and public charity, about internal mission, about Christian unions, meetings and circles of all kinds. All this is included in the interests of the science of moral theology. However, here almost imperceptibly begins the field of church journalism with its fluid content, changing in the course of life, but the science of moral theology stands at the beginning, at the forefront - of this journalism: based on the Christian idea of ecclesiasticality, from the deepest religious principles, it scientifically develops that basic concept of church life, which should guide serious church journalism - it stands on the border between Christian mysticism and between the experiences of the living church community and the church journalism. Moral theology is in close contact with a number of church-practical disciplines, with divisions of practical theology - with homiletics, pastoral theology, canon law, liturgics: it is an inevitable link between dogmatics and all these theological-practical sciences, it is a necessary introduction to the latter, gives them basic thoughts, serves as a connecting source for them 90. The immeasurable practical significance of churchliness, as a subject of the science of moral theology, is determined by the fact that Christianity does not change the natural laws of life, family-state life, does not create family life and does not have its own politics, enters these areas not ecclesiastical, but personally religious, provides them with freedom of natural development according to their natural-historical laws - and at the same time Christianity can be reconciled with these areas of natural life under the condition of their moralization. Christianity enters the world, in addition to its influence of grace, as a great moral force, with high moral demands. This is exactly what every Christian is like in his attitude towards the world. But this moral attitude of Christians to the world, in order to be a socio-historical force, must be strengthened by a moral organization. And this is the only way for a practical Christian solution to all social issues. The Christian worldview and Christian philosophy are not determined by the successes of this practice, because for the latter, one possibility of an internal personal-religious attitude towards the entire social reality is sufficient - a possibility that nothing will ever change or cancel. But another matter is the practical Christian solution of social problems, which must be successful, and can be successful only under the condition of moral organization. In view of the unconditionality of the demands of personal Christian mysticism, the question here is to replace the historically proven failure of the church’s attitude to social issues in the sense of the church’s power over worldly life, the replacement of natural forms of life with imaginary specifically Christian ones, legal intervention in family life, and church policy - to replace the church as a moral organization with purely spiritual relations to the family and the state, to all natural forms of worldly life. The question is not to develop imaginary new religious forms of society, to make this natural-social reality Christian in its very forms, but to create a new social force, exclusively moral, a special church life. The expressions “Christian community” and “church attitude towards the world” can be completely rejected in one sense and accepted in another. We reject them in the sense of replacing natural forms of life with imaginary new religious ones, in the sense of a violent religious transformation of them, in the sense of the power of the church over them, as this was most clearly manifested in Catholicism, but we accept them in the sense of creating a special church community, as a Christian-moral organization that would enter history, crash into social reality - the only actual moral force. The question is to make Christian morality, through a specific church organization, a socio-historical force, to give the voice of Christian morality social significance in this way, and thus to make Christianity an influential social force. Family-state legislation should freely develop in its natural course, but it must also be possible to raise a family Christianly and moralize state-social life in the only indicated way. Churchliness must become a mediator between personal Christian mysticism, personal Christian freedom and between natural-historical necessity, the naturally free evolution of social forms. By pointing out churchliness as the main subject of moral theology, we become aligned with modern conditions of Christian life. The historical task of fighting paganism forced Christianity, in the first period of its history, to approach life, its very family-state forms, from a symbolic-ascetic perspective. Since all forms of worldly life were defiled by faith in pagan deities, immoral in its manifestations, the church, which had as its main task the victory over paganism, could allow its members to participate in forms of worldly life under the condition of their Christian sanctification, that is, the rejection of pagan beliefs associated with them; its historical goal was to replace the pagan state with a Christian one and the pagan family with a Christian one, and the highest ideal was considered complete abstinence from participation in forms of worldly life. But the real victory of Christianity over paganism, the complete illumination of all worldly life by the single light of Christianity and the complete removal of every shadow of paganism, changes the church-historical attitude towards the forms of worldly life: now there are no longer pagan forms of life, now there is a single kingdom of the Heavenly Father. In this single kingdom of the Heavenly Father, the forms of worldly life must be left to the divinely established natural and historical laws, and the claim to power over these forms separates Catholicism from Orthodoxy. However, this puts forward a new task for the Christian church - to make Christianity itself a social natural-historical force through moral organization. This is precisely the modern task of the church. It is easy to see why we take churchliness as a principle of moral theology, and not the idea of ​​the kingdom of God. The idea of ​​the kingdom of God, not to mention its New Testament instability, 91 is usually understood in the sense of the Christian transformation of society. And since a Christian solution to natural-historical problems turns out to be impossible, the application of the idea of ​​the kingdom of God in moral theology leads to filling it with general humanistic content 92 . This result can be declared inevitable, meanwhile, the idea of ​​churchliness introduces us to the very essence of religious and social morality. Moral theology, built on this idea, must retain its significance in the eyes of representatives of philosophical ethics, which, in cases of extreme leniency, looks at the humanistic counterfeit in the ethics of theologians, at their game of philosophy, as a useless exercise. Let's take a quick look at the entire range of modern systems of philosophical ethics. Let us divide them into two groups – idealistic systems and systems of scientific ethics. The later idealistic philosophy testifies to the reverse influence of Christianity on philosophy - and in essence represents the same sad game of philosophy with Christianity as the game of theologians with philosophy. Just as the best critic of philosophical theology can be a philosopher, so the weaknesses of later idealistic philosophy are best seen by a theologian. Better is a living religion than its pale shadow in philosophy; the experiential experience of divine life is higher than philosophical proof of the existence of God. Idealistic philosophy has great apologetic value, but for a religious thinker it is not of the slightest interest. For him, the scientific construction of ethics is more interesting. What do the latter systems provide? Spencer, who wrote the most perfect scientific ethics in all respects, approaches morality from a general evolutionary point of view and from particular points of view - physical, biological, psychological and the highest - sociological. All known systems of scientific ethics will fit into this scheme, if only we add that at the last stage scientific ethics is divided into two streams - sociological and individualistic ethics. All other points of view, even if some system of ethics finally settles on one or another of them, are preliminary, leading to a sociological construction. If we take into account the more or less indisputable fact that scientific-individualistic ethics - the ethics of Stirner and Nietzsche - has all the signs of a curiosity, 93 then sociological ethics (more specifically, socialist) is the most typical scientific ethics: the scientific construction of ethics and the sociological construction of ethics can be identified. This could easily be confirmed by listing many dozens of later ethical works. What should be said about sociological ethics in terms of the success of its results? All data authorizes us to state that sociological morality does not solve its problems. Whether it places its hopes on the state as a moral organization in its present form or in the future (socialist) system, whether it relies on the religion of humanity, whether it resorts to the cultural aspirations of society or to the national genius, it always suffers a tragic fate. Its inevitable tragedy is that, to the extent of its sociological aspirations, it loses the personal value of a person and rests on the utilitarian-social system, which is entirely explained by political and economic reasons and does not in the least rise above the petty-bourgeois interests of the current day, above the demands of a given social group 94. Sociological morality, scientifically constructed, sacrifices in favor of the collective whole the absolute value of the individual, which can be the only bearer of moral good, since outside the individual, all forms of collective coexistence are most conveniently explained by historical reasons. The gap between scientific ethics into collectivist and individualistic, with no transition from one to the other, is most characteristic of the scientific construction of ethics. This Gordian knot can be cut if this gap, which for scientific ethics remains an empirical struggle between the individual and society, is endlessly deepened, if, on the one hand, we reach extreme ethical subjectivism, mystical-personal morality, and, on the other hand, every empirically given collective community, all economic and legal forms, are explained and arranged without the participation and assumption of the transcendental, mystical (personal) religious and ethical) beginning. The failure of sociological morality comes from the fact that reality does not know a moral organization, that any real community of society is created by utilitarian motives, struggle and a combination of all sorts of egoisms. It is necessary to create a moral organization, a church society - and this is the task of moral theology. Obviously, moral theology claims a place that is not occupied by any of the systems of scientific morality. It occupies the empty space between philosophy as critical mysticism and the social sciences; there will be sufficient scope for him if the latter make room a little, that is, abandon all ethical claims. In conclusion, a few words about the last type of moral-theological program. We have outlined the following parts: I the history of Christian ethics, II mysticism (with the inclusion of asceticism), or the philosophy of Christianity, III moral theology itself, as the science of churchliness, and IV apology for Christian morality. It is difficult to outline a more coherent program of academic readings in view of the fact that each of the auxiliary parts can arbitrarily increase or decrease to any size. The history of Christian ethics, carefully focusing on the gospel and patristic mystical-ascetic writing, will capture almost the entire philosophy of Christianity. Equally, the philosophy of Christianity can absorb all the essential content (main points) of the history of Christian ethics, which in this case will be left with a dry indication of the chronological stages. An apology for Christian morality can also have different scopes. The idea of ​​churchliness can find a place and justification both in the history of Christian ethics and in mysticism and apologetics. As a result, different types of moral theology can be created that have an equal right to the academic department, although academic readings should be primarily historical and apologetic in nature. However, in a rigorous curriculum of moral theology, as in the science of churchliness, all parts must be proportionate. In this case, the history of Christian ethics will be reduced to a section on the sources of Christian moral teaching; mysticism will be a department about the religious (dogmatic) basis of Christian morality (Christianity from the point of view of the purpose and meaning of life, the meaning of the Christian personality, the basis of churchliness in the depths of Christian life), and the main part is about the structure of Christian churchliness... Sermon. Essay on Homiletics 95 What should a preacher be like? 1. Among all types of human speech, preaching occupies a completely exceptional position as the word of life. The preacher teaches his listeners true life, that is, he not only reveals to them what is true and right as opposed to false, but also shows them what real spiritual life consists of, in contrast to external, temporary, illusory life - and not only shows, but also teaches them to live this real life. But life, namely real inner life, cannot be taught by a word in its detachment from life; it can only be taught by life and only by a word that comes from life. The inseparable attitude towards the life of the preacher himself constitutes the first element of the preaching word. Here life comes first and then the word, as a living thing. In this respect, a sermon can be compared to oratory; but the essential difference between them is that in the orator the personality acts on the listeners through art, external appearance, in him the action of the personality is only the image, or form, or the external side of speech. And the moral demands of classical rhetoric did not go beyond the art of psychological action on the heart and were entirely limited to what the speaker should appear to listeners. On the contrary, in a Christian preacher, his inner real life, his inner feat, comes first. This is not art, but spiritual life itself. Therefore, to consider the sermon in isolation from the spiritual life of the preacher means to misunderstand the sermon. The first question of homiletics, its cornerstone, is the question of what kind of preacher should be. 2. In revealing the idea of ​​the dependence of the success of preaching on the moral qualities and personal life of the preacher, we must follow from the general to the specific and from the psychologically preceding to the later. We must begin with what a preacher must be like before he begins to preach the Word of God, which he must have in common with every true Christian. All Christians are commanded to glorify God with their lives and good deeds (Matthew 5:16). The preacher who performs the “ministry of the word” is not free from this duty. Christ Himself, our only teacher (Matthew 23:8), did not set out for the ministry of the gospel before defeating temptation (Matthew 4:17). And He not only taught, but did and taught (Acts 1:1). According to His instructions (Matthew 5:19), the apostles acted (1 Cor. 4:16; 1 Cor. 9:26–27; 1 Cor. 9:1; Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:7–10), commanding in turn their successors, the shepherds of the church, to do the same (1 Pet. 5:3); 1 Tim. 4, 12; In this regard, it is very instructive to dwell on the ways in which Christianity penetrated into the environment of paganism: it was preached not by one word of the evangelists of Christ, but by the life of all Christians. St. testifies to this. Justin the Philosopher in 1 Apol. Ch. 16. “The Lord Jesus Christ,” he writes, exhorted us with patience and meekness to lead everyone away from shameful deeds and addiction to evil. I can show this in many of our people who changed from being arrogant and fierce, having been defeated either because they had seen enough of the severity of the lives of their neighbors (Christians), or because they saw in their companions wonderful patience in enduring insults, or from experience they learned the morals of those people with whom they came into contact on business.” Church teachers left numerous instructions in the same direction. St. John Chrysostom, who expressed many wonderful remarks about preaching in the 4th and 5th words about the priesthood, in the first of them writes among other things: “the main goal of teaching is to lead those taught, both by deeds and words, to that blessed life that Christ prescribed - and each of these two parts (i.e., deeds and words) has a need for the other, so that the building is complete.” Also blessed. Augustine writes: “no matter how lofty our preaching may be, in actual victory over the listeners the life of the preacher always has more weight and power than his word” (Christian Science, book IV, LIX). St. gives many similar instructions. Gregory the Great in the Pastoral Rule, where we read: “every preacher should teach more by deeds than by words” (Part III, XLII), etc. In our well-known domestic book “On the duties of parish elders”, teaching in word and teaching in deed is separately treated. Only the word of a preacher who himself lives the way he teaches others to live can be sincere, and sincerity is a necessary condition for the action of the word on the will of the listeners. 3. A good life, in addition to serving as a good example for the listeners of the preaching word, has a special meaning for the preacher himself, which gives him spiritual experience. The teaching of Christ had an extraordinary effect on the people (John 7:46), because He Himself was a witness to His teaching (8:18). He lived the life of the Heavenly Father (10:30) and therefore the truth that He heard from the Father abided in Him (Eph. 4:21; John 14:6). He knew from experience, He saw and heard from the Father what He spoke about (John 3:11, 32). This exclusive attitude of Christ towards God the Father gave His preaching the peculiarity that He was precisely a witness of the truth. He did not deduce the truth from any data or premises, as philosophers do, He did not prove it with logical arguments - no, He only testified to what he saw and what he heard from the Father (John 3:11, 32). Also, the apostles were actually witnesses to the truth that they preached. And their position among the listeners was special: they were eyewitnesses of the life, deeds, suffering and resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:21, 22; 2 Pet. 1:16) and hearers of His words; they were authorized by Himself to testify about Him (John 15, 26, 27; Acts 1, 8). This was their great advantage. They appeared before the listeners as eyewitnesses of the divine life that appeared in Christ (1 John 1:1-3). And the successors of the apostles in the matter of Christian preaching must also be witnesses of the divine truth, which they received according to tradition from Christ and the apostles. It is precisely this witnessing of Christian truth that is the task of the preacher. The ability to bear witness to it, and not anything else, and in particular not scholarship, even theological, lies the basis of the preaching vocation (cf. Acts 1:21, 22). But how does this opportunity itself acquire for him? Obviously, not by the special historical conditions in which the apostles were placed, but by psychological conditions accessible to him - spiritual experience. Before acting as an evangelist of Christ, a Christian must himself experience the truth revealed by Christ and preached by the apostles, and be experimentally convinced that following Christ really brings the benefits promised by the Savior; he must, through actual experience, partake of that spiritual life that flows from Christ, become inwardly akin to Christ, and receive into himself from His Holy Spirit. This spiritual experience in the language of the Word of God is called anointing from the Holy Spirit and seems not to be an exclusive feature of the preacher, but characteristic of every true Christian (1 John 11:20.27). The preacher must possess it predominantly, otherwise he can impart to his listeners only knowledge of words, and not the truth itself. “Whoever talks about the spiritual without having tasted it himself, writes St. Macarius the Great (Philokalia, vol. 1, ed. 3, p. 220), he is likened to a man who, when the heat of the day sets in, walks through an empty field and, languishing with thirst, describes a spring flowing with water, depicting himself as drinking, while his lips and tongue are dry from their scorching thirst... So, if they are talking about perfection, about joy or about dispassion, those who did not feel in itself their effectiveness and certification; then in reality not everything happens as they say. It’s another thing to talk about bread and meals, and another thing to eat and take in the nutritional value of bread and be strengthened with all your limbs. It’s another thing to talk in words about the sweet drink itself, and another thing to go and draw from the source itself and be satisfied with tasting the sweet drink. So it is in the spiritual: it is another thing to explain to oneself what has been said with knowledge and mind alone, and another thing is to essentially, in fact, with certainty, have in the inner man and mind the treasure of grace, the inspiration and action of the Holy Spirit. Those who utter only words dream and become puffed up with their minds.” The spiritual experience of the preacher gives rise to trust in his word in his listeners: they feel that they are hearing a person they can rely on, who testifies to what he has “seen and heard.” No matter how great a person’s desire is to find authority in the field of truth, so decisive is the trust generated in the listeners by the spiritual experience of the preacher in the matter of persuasiveness of the preaching word. 4. The life of an evangelist of Christ should not only be adorned with good deeds and spiritual experience, but it is a life of complete sacrifice, complete self-denial. By saying this, we not only do not go beyond the limits of preaching activity, but we come to what is most essential in this activity. Indeed, what is the ultimate goal of Christian evangelism? The manifestation of life in the listeners (2 Tim. 1:10) - true, eternal, divine life. But only he who has life in himself can produce life in another; there cannot be in the effect what is not given in the cause. And this is not enough. Just as life in another can only be produced by one who has life in himself, so the work of life itself cannot be a purely verbal or literary action, but must be the living influence of one person on another, a life-deed. Christ by His word gave us eternal life (John 5:24). Why does His word become the beginning of true life in us? Because He from Whom this word comes has true life in Himself (John 5:26). Therefore, Christ was not only a teacher, but also a life-giver: He conveyed His life to people listening to His word - He gave us true food that endures to life, He Himself became for us the true heavenly bread. He gave Himself to us, His flesh and blood (John 6, 27. 33. 35. 51. 53–58). How did He convey His life to us? This was a matter of life on His part - it was a matter of self-denial, death. In order for people called by Christ from darkness to light to have life in themselves, He laid down His life for them (John 10, 10. 11); He gave His flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51). Here we enter the region of the deepest mystery of the transfer of life from one to another, the mystery of spiritual birth. We approach it through the image of natural birth. A grain thrown into the ground must first die in order to bear fruit. Death is the beginning of life - not just one life of the one who dies, but many lives that are born from the death of one (John 12:24). The suffering and death of one person who has spiritual life in himself - his suffering and death for others becomes a source of life for them: the death of one for others makes from his life a grain, or an embryo of the life of others. Spiritual birth is quite similar to physical birth through suffering: here, too, there are real pains of birth, not only in a metaphorical sense; but it differs from physical birth in that the main active force in it is love. It precisely expresses the fullness of life, transmitted to others; it underlies self-denial; she is the only cause that vivifies death; she is the very sprout breaking through to the light from the darkness of death. Without love in this case there is nothing, love is everything. And the death of Christ for us was the result of love - divine love (John 3:16), the love of Himself: there is no greater love than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). Just as the blood of Adam flows in our veins, so our spiritual life is the manifestation in us of the life of Christ: spiritually we live by Christ (John 6:57 and many others). And just as organic life can only be continuous; in the same way, only the one (Christian) is spiritually alive who, over the course of centuries, is united with Christ through the succession of His continuously continuing life. And spiritual life goes on continuously through centuries and is transmitted through as many spiritual births as there are spiritual children born in Christianity. From here it is clear what the calling is and how great the importance of Christian evangelists is: they serve the cause of the spiritual birth of the children of Christ, the cause of the continuous transmission of the life of Christ, His love. Such were the apostles. They were sent by Christ as witnesses of His teaching (John 15:27); but their service to the world was not only verbal, but was vital: just as they not only heard the teaching from Christ, but were loved by Him and through this became partakers of His eternal life (John 15, 16, 17), so they themselves had to serve the manifestation in the world of the love of Christ and His eternal life (2 Tim. 1, 10). That is why the gospel to which the apostles were called was necessarily combined for them with suffering, with the pangs of birth and even the death of fruitful grain (2 Tim. 11:9.10; 1 Thess. 11:8). The apostles call their disciples children because they are united with the listeners by the bonds of spiritual birth (Phil. 10). The Apostle Paul in unusually touching terms and repeatedly describes the suffering of spiritual childbirth (1 Cor. 4:9-15; 2 Cor. 4:5-12 cf. 4:3-10; 12:15; 13:9; Gal. 4:19). It is easy to understand that the apostles and their disciples were united by the deepest love. First of all, it was the love of Christ with which the apostles went out to preach, which formed the basis of their gospel (Phil. 1:8). But then the sufferings of the gospel, which they endured for the sake of the chosen and taught, made those for whom they suffered and died dear to them. In fact, just as for the grain that died and gave fruit, this fruit is everything, the life of the dead grain is in it, so for the apostles, who conveyed to their listeners the gospel of Christ along with their souls (1 Thess. 11:8), with their lives, everything precious was hidden in their spiritual children - in them was their joy, their life, their glory, their praise (3 John 1:4); 2 Cor. 3, 3; 7, 3. 4. 11. 12; 1 Thess. The apostles commanded the same path and the same nature of evangelistic activity to their successors in the work of evangelistic ministry (2 Tim. 1:8; 4:5). Indeed, the history and writings of famous Christian preachers provide numerous evidence of their selfless work, their deep love for their listeners. So - let's limit ourselves to just a few - St. John Chrysostom once, after a short break from his preaching work forced by illness, began his conversation (on the parable of the debtor with ten thousand talents, etc.) with these words: “It’s as if I had returned to you from a long journey - that’s how I feel today. For those who love, when they cannot be with their loved ones, there is no benefit from intimacy. That is why we, staying at home, felt no better than strangers, since we could not talk with you in the past. But forgive me: this silence was not from laziness, but from illness. Now you rejoice that we are freed from illness; and I rejoice that I again enjoy your love. For me, even when I was ill, what was more painful than the illness itself was that I could not participate in this kind meeting; and now, as I have recovered from illness, what I desire more than health itself is that I have the opportunity to enjoy your love,” etc. He, saying goodbye to the (Constantinople) flock when going into exile, said to his listeners like this: “You are my fathers, you are my life, you are my praise. If you succeed, I am glorified, so that my life and wealth are in your treasury,” etc. What sincere and deep love are imbued with these words of Christ’s evangelist. 5. We see that preaching is rooted in the very essence of Christian life. The essence of Christian life is love, and the essence of love is self-gifting, self-communication. The motives for saving others, as an expansion of the kingdom of spiritual life, are given by the hidden reality of spiritual life. Therefore, Christian evangelists, in the first rank of whom stand Christ Himself and His apostles, are the primary bearers and representatives of Christian life; evangelism is the ripest fruit of the fullness of the spiritual innermost life; The ministry of the word is the highest of all Christian ministries. But from these general foundations of Christian life we ​​must go further to more specific signs of preaching activity, which constitute the special calling of the preacher. By the calling of a preacher one should understand both “the word of God to him” (Luke 3:2) and one’s own inner attraction. The true evangelist of Christ is the one who is called to this ministry by God, who is sent from Him (Rom. 10:15). The Old Testament prophets each performed their ministry according to a special calling of God, moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). And Christ did not give Himself the glory (Heb. 5:5) to be the proclaimer of the will of God, but He was sent for this from God (Luke 4:43; John 3:34; 7:16; 8:28.29; 14:24). The apostles, as their very name shows, were messengers of Christ for the work of preaching, they were chosen by him to the gospel of God (Luke 9:2; 10:3; John 17:18; Rom. 1:1 and many others). The calling of God meets or gives rise in a true preacher an inner attraction to the “ministry of the word” of God (Jer. 20:7.9). Christ considered the work of evangelism to be as natural for Himself as everything that is put into our nature from birth is natural (John 18:37). He compared his inner calling to proclaim the will of God with the natural needs for food and drink and doing the will of the Father with nutrition (John 4:32.34). Also, the apostles preached the word of God not under compulsion, but willingly (1 Cor. 9:16.17 cf. 1 Peter 5:2). A calling is very important for a preacher and cannot be replaced by anything. It, firstly, surrounds the preacher with an aura of sacred dignity and gives him prophetic fearlessness. To be a messenger of God, to recognize oneself as a herald of the divine word - this means to have in oneself a strength that cannot be crushed by any obstacles, which overcomes ridicule, persecution, contempt, expulsion, insults, beatings, imprisonment, which does not fear either power, or learning, or the superstitions of the crowd (Ezek. 2, 3-6; 7-9; Matt. 10, 28; Acts 5, 41. 42; 6, 18–20). A calling in connection with spiritual experience gives the preacher energy, perseverance and vigilance in the ministry of the word. The uncalled preacher does not find the energy to express what he knows - he knows only from books; the exact opposite happens to a preacher who has experienced Christ’s truth and is called to the ministry of the word. He speaks freely, willingly, with enthusiasm (2 Tim. 4.2 cf. Acts 15:36; 1 Thess. 2:12; 4:1; 1Tim.16). Secondly, the preaching vocation makes universal Christian love a disposition and attention to certain persons placed in certain conditions of age, social status, degree of well-being, etc. It brings the preacher down from the height of his innermost equanimity and draws him into the interests of everyday hustle and bustle. St. Gregory the Dvoeslov, in explaining why the prophet Jeremiah shied away from the “position of a preacher,” writes: “Jeremiah, trying through the contemplative life to become more and more established in the love of God, wanted to evade this position; he feared that by accepting the position of preaching ministry he would lose the fruits of silent contemplation.” According to the meaning of these words, preaching activity introduces that feature into the personal spiritual life of the preacher that the latter is applied to the listeners, for their benefit. The personal spiritual life of the preacher must be open to his listeners and must act on them. The life of a preacher should be predominantly a good life, predominantly expressed in good deeds and specifically in relation to the listeners, to their needs. Christ combined His preaching with good works (Mark 7:37), so that all the people rejoiced over all His deeds (Luke 13:17). According to the commandment of Christ (Luke 9:12), the apostles also combined the gospel of the word with works of charity, which made them pleasant to the listeners (Acts 8:6.8; 13,12). Subsequent preachers of the word of Christ should do the same. The evangelist of Christ must be in the closest relationship with his listeners: he must take their needs and sufferings close to his heart, so that they become accustomed to seeing him compassionate wherever sorrow befalls any of them. In this case, the preacher’s voice will not be alien to them, but familiar; they will listen not only to his words, but they will see in front of them a living person close to them, he will speak to them with his heart, and they will listen to him with their hearts. St. talks well about this subject. Gregory Dvoeslov: “one cannot approve, he writes, of those pastors who devote their studies exclusively to spiritual subjects, so that the external needs of the flock do not seem to exist for them. The flock, not seeing in them sympathy for their needs, remain in turn indifferent to them, neglecting for the most part their pastoral instructions, although useful in their essence, but having little effect on their hearts, little prepared for this and not attracted by the satisfaction of urgent needs... The seed of the word of God easily penetrates into their hearts, grows and bears fruit only when the preacher irrigates and waters it with compassionate mercy towards them.” (Rev. past. 1, 7). The strongest motive for evangelistic activity should be the preacher’s love for his listeners, compassion for them. The evangelist tells about Christ: Jesus saw a multitude of people and had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and began to teach them a lot (Mark 5:34; Matt. 9:36). And if every preacher does not have in his heart the same pity for those who demand teaching, then he cannot be an evangelist of Christ. The general mood of love in the preacher should be combined (cf. 1 Cor. 13: 4-7) with meekness, condescension and selflessness - following the example (1 Thess. 2: 7. 9; 2 Thes. 2: 7-10; 1 Cor. 9, 1–22) and the instructions of the apostles (2 Tim. 2, 24. 25) and the fathers of the Church. So St. Ignatius writes to the Bishop of Smyrna Polycarp: “condescend to everyone, as the Lord does to you. Bear the infirmities of all. If you love only good disciples, you still have no grace for this: it is better to subdue the bad ones with meekness” (chapters 1 and 2). Also St. John Chrysostom in his conversation on 1 Tim. 2, 25 and many more. etc. Even a love of words, a penchant for conversation, cordial sociability and, as it were, spiritual extravagance, the ability to limit oneself to a small circle of religious activity - all this is part of the preaching calling. 6. The concept of preaching embraces quite a variety of activities and relationships. Missionary preaching also fits this concept—the teaching of non-believers that precedes baptism (μαθητεια), and the “learning to observe everything that the Lord has commanded” addressed to the believing community (διδασκαλια). It embraces the most intimate relationship of the “spiritual father” to those seeking Christian truth, and pastoral counseling, adapting to the most diverse and changing states and situations of the flock and each of its members, and the prophetic elucidation of the historical tasks of Christianity, and the educational instruction of children, and the church edification of adult simpletons. Even theological literature and (Christian) poetry can have prophetic and evangelistic significance. The ways in which spiritual life spreads and in which the grace of God operates are unlimited (1 Cor. 3:7-9). An intimate and mystical basis underpins the entire scope of preaching, the entirety of its types, connected among themselves by the invisible threads of Providence. However, this basis is not required with the same severity from each species separately, even to the possibility of preaching based on vanity (Phil. 1:15.18) and mercenary (Matthew 23:3). And if it is not the job of homiletical theory to remind such preachers of personal responsibility before the court of God, since they, preaching insincerely and not acting in accordance with their own teachings, condemn themselves (Luke 4:23; 19, 22; James 3:1; Rom. 2:1.5.21-23), then, in any case, it has the right to demand that Christian truth was not distorted or hushed up out of fear of the powers that be: prophetic fearlessness is an integral property of Christian teaching. 1. The degree of importance of the preaching word (Rom. 10:14) is not sufficiently explained by the concept of religion in general, but is based on some features of the religion of Christ. Unlike any other religion, Christianity is a religion of the word. Christ is called by the name of the Logos-Word (John 1:1-14). This name undoubtedly indicates that He is the light of the world (John 8:12). And according to His activities during winter life, He was and was primarily called a teacher. This is very significant and important for understanding Christianity. The religion founded by Christ requires from a person not blind, but reasonable faith; she does not suppress him with mystery, does not drive him away with words procul ite profani, but she turns to the light that a person has within himself; she meets him not with the darkness of mysteries, as it was and is in paganism, but with the light of teaching and calls his own conscience and mind as witnesses of her truth, saying to him: go and see (John 1:45), - search the scripture (5:39). According to St. Gregory the Theologian, “by understanding alone, God is truly accepted and preserved and grows in us" (1, 180). In Christianity, man himself is recognized first of all as the judge of his life: he knows what is good and what is evil, his conscience judges his deeds and thoughts, he understands the ways of life and death. Therefore, Christ gave His apostles, as his last testament, the commandment to preach the gospel to all creation (Mr. 16:15; Matt. 28:19). And the apostles looked so highly at the ministry of the word that without hesitation they preferred it even to the distribution of bread (Acts 6:2); St. Paul said about himself: Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17), he called the gospel of God a sacred act (Rom. 15:16). the ministry of the word and the successors of the apostles. St. Gregory the Theologian called the word the most fitting sacrifice to God, a gift that is holier than the sacrifice under the law, holier than the firstfruits, pleasing to God more than anything that the law held in the power of Israel, a precious pearl of the Gospel, and he called himself a servant of the word (1, 179. 180). 2. Considering preaching as a ministry of the word, we must first answer the question about the subject of the sermon. There is only one subject for preaching, and that is the teaching of Christ. In fact, let’s delve into the words: the subject of the sermon. Obviously, the subject of the sermon is what the listeners should learn through the sermon, what they should be instructed in, what they should be taught in the sermon. But the listeners must be taught by the preacher one thing - the teaching of Christ, they must be instructed in this alone, this alone must be taught in the sermon. The teaching of Christ, as the content of the sermon, is precisely what is “only necessary” and what is “sufficient” for the purposes of preaching. This is the basic idea of ​​Christian preaching, the disclosure of which constitutes the homiletical principle in deciding the question of the subject of the sermon. The main idea of ​​the sermon can be revealed from several points of view. First of all, we should point out the divine establishment of the sermon. Christian preaching differs from any other kind of speech in that it has historical origins. The preacher speaks not only because he wants to teach others, and not only because in preaching he sees the only means to achieve known goals, but most importantly because Christ commanded him to preach (John 17:18; Matt. 28:19.20). In the content of the sermon, uncertainty and arbitrariness are least possible; Preachers are commanded to teach all nations and teach only one thing - to observe everything that the Lord has commanded. If the Lord Himself had not taught people, if He had not left His teaching to the world and had not sent disciples to preach His Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), then there would have been no Christian preaching. The apostles and their successors were sent by Christ Himself to preach to the world nothing less than His Gospel, His teaching. There is no other source, or content, of the sermon: we have one Father, Who is in heaven, and we have one teacher and mentor, Christ (Matthew 23:8-10). The Christian preacher teaches what he himself was taught by the Lord Christ; he conveys to the world what is commanded by the Lord (Matthew 10:27). True, he must not only convey what the Lord has commanded, but also be a witness to Him (Acts 1:8); but this refers to the feat of life, and not to the content of the sermon. The unchanging and definite content of the sermon is given for the preacher in the teachings of Christ. In oratory and in any other kind of speech, the question of the invention (inventio) of matter is inevitable, and on this side the speaker and writer especially have to work; only the preacher does not need to invent and invent, because he speaks not from himself and not his own, but from the Lord what He commanded. We have one teacher, Christ, and He is the only teacher, incomparable with any other teachers: He revealed the truth to the world (John 1, 14. 17; 18, 37). The pagan world, despite all the impulses in this direction and all efforts, did not know the truth, and Pilate’s question to Christ: “What is the truth (John 18:38)?” expresses the despair of a pagan, who walked in his own ways, to comprehend it. Only Christ revealed the truth to the world: He gave man the answer to the eternal questions that trouble the human heart - questions about why we live and what we should do. His teaching is a whole and integral worldview, or worldview. Hence, Christian preaching is the teaching of this worldview, and this is its essential nature, completely distinguishing it from any other human speech. It is a religious teaching, but it differs from the teaching of any other religion, not excluding the Jewish one, in that it enlightens a person. Not to mention the pagan religions, and the Jewish religion represented many laws that were a purely external command for a person, accepted by him as a yoke, not freely and without understanding their inner meaning. The religion of Christ has a different character. He is the light that enlightens man; The truth communicated by Him, assimilated by man, gives people freedom (John 8:32). By accepting His teaching, a person perceives the light of life within himself (John 8:12). This is not like a “lamp burning and shining,” which gives light only to those who are near it; but Christ’s worldview is the light that a person carries within himself and takes with him everywhere. Having mastered it, a person can consciously and freely determine his personal life and resolve individual issues of Christian practice (1 John 2:20.27). Constituting a feature of the Christian religion, in contrast to any pagan and even Jewish religion, preaching is all the more different in its general content from secular oratory. A secular speaker does not have the opportunity to express his personal worldview to his listeners, just as the worldview of his listeners is not necessary and even indifferent for him; he speaks every time with the practical purpose of highlighting one or another private issue of personal or public life, and inducing listeners to a private decision. Such a practical goal can be achieved without the assistance of a general understanding of the world, only by selecting some information and arousing certain passions. On the contrary, the preacher has as his direct task to establish a common Christian worldview in the souls of his listeners, to lead them all to the unity of the Christian worldview, so that, having assimilated it, they can completely freely and consciously determine their attitude to each particular case of life. Here, the solution to a particular issue and the conviction to a particular action without a general Christian worldview and continuous mood are of too little importance; here every particular issue must be resolved on the basis of a general worldview, and every particular decision of the will must flow from the continuous mood of the heart. Finally, the purpose of the sermon also presupposes its specific content. The purpose of the sermon is to call listeners with the gospel to salvation (2 Thess. 2, 13. 14), to life and incorruption (2 Tim. 1, 1o). But such a goal can only be achieved through the gospel of Christ; only His word, His teaching has such life-producing power (John 5:24 cf. James 1:18, etc.). In the language of the apostles, the word of life (Phil. 2:16) is as definite as the word of truth (Eph. 1:13; 2 Tim. 2:15; James 1:18, etc.), points to the teaching of Christ: besides His teaching there is no other word of life and therefore there is no other subject of preaching. 3. The only subject of Christian preaching is the teaching of Christ. This says that the main source for the content of the sermon is the Holy Scripture. Of course, the sacred Scripture of the New Testament, since the Old Testament serves only as the historical basis of the New Testament. The content of the sermon should be biblical and New Testament in nature. The attitude of the preacher to church teaching is determined by the fact that in moral terms, church teaching does not differ in any way from the biblical one, that there is no moral church teaching, separate from the teaching of the word of God, even if only in form and presentation, in the normative sense: church teaching is strictly dogmatic teaching. Apparently, church moral teaching is given in the form of church commandments and church rituals. But the latter, as a church discipline, must be distinguished from the teachings of faith. The subject of preaching can only be an account of faith, which is of divine origin, but not discipline, which is the field of activity of the ecclesiastical authority, and not of the teacher. Church commandments are in the area of ​​church discipline, not church teaching. Thus, in the church commandments about fasting, the discipline of the church is expressed, and not its teaching: the church does not have a teaching about fasting that is different from the teaching of the word of God, even if only in terms of presentation. Likewise, the decrees of the church on the performance of the sacraments, on the relationship of the pastor to the flock, on the methods of accepting heretics into the community of believers, and other similar things relate to church discipline, and not to the teaching of the church. All church practice naturally educates believers and, in this sense, contributes to Christian preaching, but does not constitute its subject. True, we have the history of patristic moral teaching, but this is a teaching that is considered by moral theology from a historical perspective, and not a church-normative teaching. Church teaching is limited to what is called dogmatic teaching in the broad sense of the word. This includes mainly the conciliar definitions of faith and, above all, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. What is the significance of church teaching and how does it relate to the teaching of the word of God? Church teaching is a summary of the teaching of the word of God on the most important issues of faith 96 and has the meaning of the norm that a Christian should adhere to in understanding the teaching of Holy Scripture on these issues. It cannot be said that every Christian needs to actually know all the dogmas and without knowing them it is impossible to be saved 97 - for who among the laity knows the dogmas of the IV and VI Ecumenical Councils? But dogmas are obligatory for everyone as limits that a Christian’s thought should not exceed in the understanding of the truth of the Gospel. Therefore, they are obligatory for the preacher as just such limits. So, church teaching is a series of formulas for which the content is given by the word of God, and therefore it is unthinkable as a separate subject of church preaching from Holy Scripture, but it is a guide, with the character of unconditional authority, which the preacher must adhere to when presenting the teaching of Holy Scripture on issues of the Christian faith. The subject of the sermon is one - the teaching of Christ as set out in the New Testament; but when explaining Holy Scripture, the preacher must be guided by the authority of church understanding. This is how the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council decreed: “The heads of the churches must, all day long, especially on Sundays, teach the entire clergy and people the words of piety, choosing from the divine scripture the understanding and reasoning of the truth and without transgressing the already established limits and traditions of the God-bearing fathers; and if the word of God is examined, then let it not be explained in any other way than as the luminaries and teachers of the church have set forth in their writings” 98... The explained position, important in the system of homiletics, is especially important in practical application. Nowadays you can often hear such a sermon, which is a paragraph from dogmatic theology. This shouldn't happen. The sermon should not have a dogmatic character. An Orthodox preacher must be instructed in Orthodox dogma and not contradict it in anything; but not everything he learns in school should be carried out into the church pulpit. Dogmatics is a science; she is dry and abstract; preaching must be lively and effective, its subject is the word of life, the word of God. “No one denies the merits of the scientific presentation of Christian teaching, but the first place in our spiritual enlightenment does not belong to it, but to the direct word of God” 99. Modernity and nationality of sermons 1. The teaching of Christ is the truth, that is, an integral theoretical worldview, which is mandatory for every Christian and gives every person who has mastered it freedom in understanding and defining all particular cases of life. As a general understanding of the world, it is not designed to satisfy exclusively the private needs of man and society; being frank, it has a negative attitude towards every human opinion, not allowing any compromise, any concessions. But always remaining unchanged and true to itself, like a divine revelation, the gospel teaching was at the same time popular and modern. It was based on a historical and psychological basis. Christ revealed His teaching in connection with the spiritual state of the listeners, their beliefs, expectations, and spiritual needs. In the beliefs and expectations of the Jewish people, He found points of contact with His new teaching and presented it from the side from which it was more accessible to the understanding of the people. As was the preaching of Christ, so was the preaching of the apostles. And their preaching, first of all, had an unchanged general content, which was for them the teaching of Christ; and their preaching, in its general content, was alien to the worldly spirit (1 Cor. 2, 12.13). But at the same time, their preaching was not limited to the literal repetition of the words of Christ, but had something more in it. This greater thing is the nationality and modernity of their preaching. Christ addressed His word almost exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and not to the Gentiles, and therefore He presented His teaching in accordance only with the beliefs and expectations of the Jewish people; He addressed His word to listeners from whom a Christian society was barely emerging, and therefore He did not apply His instructions to those special relationships that became possible only later, in the established Christian society. The apostles, continuing the work of Christ, not as slaves, but as friends, under the living influence of the Holy Spirit. Spirit, made the teachings of Christ a living word not only for Jewish listeners, but also for pagans of all countries, made it a living word for the established Christian society. After the apostolic sermon, the patristic sermon was popular and modern. Thus, over time, preaching made Christian teaching a living word for scientifically educated people, served as an instrument for protecting Christian teaching from heresies and Christian society from schisms, and was either apologetic or morally accusatory. The patristic sermons of a moral and practical direction are distinguished by a particularly striking character of modernity, in which there are often descriptions and denunciations of contemporary preachers of the morals of Christian society; but also sermons of abstract dogmatic content, such as the theological and dogmatic-polemical words of St. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, satisfied the living demands of society and reveal the inclinations of the people of that time when, “starting with the emperors and descending to the last commoner, everyone began to reason, following the theologians by profession, about the Born and the Unborn, about the trinity of persons in the Divinity, about the two natures in God the Son.” The patristic way of teaching is entirely psychological, a way of adapting to the spiritual state of the listeners. This is what the saints did. fathers are not by accident, but deliberately. St. Gregory the Great devotes the entire and, moreover, most significant (third) part of his “Pastoral Rule” to the disclosure of various methods of church teaching in accordance with the different states of the listeners. In the preface to this part, St. the father expresses general thoughts on the question of the psychological basis of the sermon. “Every word of teachers,” he writes, must be adapted to the qualities and properties of the state of the listeners, so that each of them is offered his own, characteristic of him, and at the same time does not deviate from the general requirements of edification. For what are the tense minds of listeners if not strings, if I may say so, stretched on a musical instrument, which are touched in different ways by the hand of a skillful player, so that from various contacts one harmonious, harmonious, musical song is formed? And the strings produce melodic sounds precisely because they are set in motion by one instrument, but not by the same blows. Thus, every shepherd of the church, as a teacher and leader of his flock, in order to be suitable for each and everyone to create their salvation, must touch and edify the hearts of his listeners with one teaching, but not with the same tact or meter. Following the example of the teaching of Christ and His holy apostles and the example of the patristic preaching, later preaching should be popular and modern. Truth, that is, the presence of a Christian worldview, or the truth that the Lord Jesus Christ revealed to the world, on the one hand, and nationality, on the other hand, are the two principles from which the element of preaching is composed and by which it differs both from any type of (worldly) literature (by its truth) and from the word of God (by its modernity). Of these two principles, the first relates to the content of the sermon, the second to the manner in which the content is revealed. Preaching is the modern and popular form of the word of God; it is the same word of God, but addressed to the life of a given time, a specific people, known listeners. The preacher’s calling is to translate the word of God into a language understandable to a certain circle of listeners, to always find that side of Christian teaching from which it is most useful and accessible to a certain flock, to give it an expression in which it responds to the needs of living people of a given time and place. If Christ had not given us His divine teaching and had not given the apostles the commandment to preach the gospel to all creation, then there could be no Christian preaching, since it is the preaching of His teaching, in fulfillment of His commandment; if preaching could be unmodern and unpopular, then it would be unnecessary, superfluous; preachers could limit themselves to reading the word of God. Modernity and nationality are included in the very concept of preaching. This, from the verbal side, fully corresponds to the properties of the life-preaching calling. 2. The modernity and nationality of the sermon, more precisely and definitively speaking, are as follows. The sermon should be a presentation of the word of God that is understandable to known listeners. Here, first of all, it is a matter of language: the preacher must speak in a language that his listeners understand. Then, the comprehensibility of the sermon consists in the disclosure of the Gospel truth, accessible to the listeners, in adaptation to the degree of their spiritual development. The preacher should reveal the truths of the Gospel from the side from which they are understandable, close and dear to the listeners, should instill them in the existing inclinations of good in the hearts of the listeners, tie them to their good aspirations, no matter how insignificant the latter may be, hidden and intertwined with the bad desires of the heart. The preacher must carefully look into the life of his listeners and, like the Apostle Paul, who found in Athens, among the many churches of immoral gods, one, perhaps, abandoned altar with the inscription: to the unknown God, diligently search in their hearts for good goals, for the sake of which they, out of delusion, commit evil, and truly good aspirations, in order to tell them in the words of the apostle: this is the good that you, not knowing, are seeking, given by the faith of Christ, these good aspirations of yours can only find complete satisfaction in Christianity. In this way, the truths of the Gospel are truly grafted into the human heart and become fused with it. Having found access to the heart for the gospel or, what is also, access to the gospel for the heart, the preacher must then develop the gospel truths before the listeners with wise gradualness, moving from the spiritual to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly (cf. John 3:12), so that his speech does not exceed the understanding of the listeners. In this case, he must pay special attention to making clear to them the connection of all the Gospel truths with the one that first of all found access to their heart and has already become akin to it. In general, a preacher should be inspired not by the requirements of the system, not by the course of his own thoughts, but by the actual needs of his listeners. Each of his words should not have a subjective logical, but an altruistic origin and arise on the basis of his spiritual interaction with his listeners. Christ sent twelve disciples to preach out of the same feeling of pity for the people, according to which He fed the hungry with bread and healed the sick (Matthew 9, 36; 14, 14; 15, 32 and par.); so the preacher of Christ must open his mouth according to the feeling of the real need and needs of his listeners. Dead is his word, which arose in him at that moment when he did not remember about the listeners. A sermon should be a personal appeal from the preacher to the listeners, so that each of them feels that the preacher is speaking to him personally, sees his soul, and wishes him well. With the assistance of the sermon, each listener draws from the word of God what he needs and clarifies his own soul. The preacher stands close to life, he guards all its trends, he illuminates every change in it with the light of the Christian religion. The preacher must know not only the state of the actual religious life of his listeners, but also their worldly life, the interests of the working day, the nature of family life, the way of rest, habits, superstitions, and the whole course of their mental life. In short, the preacher must know his hearers in every way. Like a true shepherd, leaving ninety-nine sheep, he goes to look for one that was lost; Thus, the preacher of Christ does not neglect any phenomena in modern life, but, seeing behind each of them the human soul for which the blood of Christ was shed, he illuminates phenomena and events with the light of the Gospel, makes them instructive and directs the public mood towards Christianity. The preacher lives a double life - his personal life and the life of his listeners, and therefore the truth in his mouth, while remaining unchanged in content, involuntarily changes in external expression. Living preaching cannot be repeated; and the requirement from modern preaching is the requirement that the preaching not be repeated. A living and effective sermon cannot be delivered with complete benefit to the cause by another preacher, at another time and in another place - it is timely and appropriate only once. 3. Now the question is about the limits of application to the character of modernity and nationality. We see a fairly definite, as far as definiteness is possible here, indication of these boundaries in the very concept of modernity: it is not the source of content in the sermon, but only an image, or method, of revealing this content, a psychological form for it. Therefore, the verbal discovery of modernity in a sermon is permissible only to the extent that it does not become the content of the sermon. In particular, homiletics must firmly remember that Christianity is neutral in relation to the natural-historical laws of life, to its natural-social forms, and that, therefore, preaching cannot be modern in the sense of the organization of natural-social life, in the sense of resolving issues of family-folk life and public-state policy. The preacher must stand aside from these issues, chastely protecting the purity of an exclusively religious-ethical point of view. If Christ, sending the apostles to preach, commanded them “not to greet anyone on the road,” then minimally this, when applied to later preaching, means that a Christian preacher should not stick to any political party, should not carry in his heart curiosity about legal and political casuistry. He should cherish the unimpaired opportunity and undefiled ability to look at everything sub specie aeterni, to relate to all the phenomena of life from the height of eternal goals, he should keep himself unbound by any random programs. From this side, he can, at most, strive to create churchliness as a religious society, as a moral organization - the point at which preaching comes into contact with Christian journalism and, further, with moral and theological tasks. The proper, specific purpose of preaching is moral teaching and moral judgment in individual application, namely in application, first of all, to certain individuals, then to certain situations and conditions, to a given time and a given historical situation. Based on the scientific-theological truth of the neutrality of Christianity in relation to natural-historical laws and natural-social forms and, accordingly, keeping aloof from natural-social laws, the preacher approaches, in individual illumination of life, the closest distance to it, puts himself in the closest contact with it. He has nothing to do with natural and social states and situations, but his direct concern is that a Christian, in every state and position, behaves in accordance with his highest rank, and always walks before the face of God. Without in the least encroaching on the natural foundations of the family and not being interested in canonical interference in its structure, the preacher makes sure that the Christian in family relations, regardless of the legal status of the family, behaves in a Christian manner. Without at all touching upon any political program, the preacher has the right to demand that a Christian, regardless of any program, remain a moral Christian, that a society that calls itself Christian never forgets the moral tasks of Christianity, that every social system tends toward the good of people, that the moral ideal and the good of man always stand above all else. An individual attitude to life gives preaching advantages that Christian mysticism, which builds a religious worldview on the sole basis of an intimate, personal-religious attitude to world reality, and theological science, which clarifies the (neutral) attitude of Christianity to natural-social laws and natural-social forms, do not have: the preacher illuminates every individual manifestation of life with Christian light. But the most important thing for him is to maintain Christian neutrality in relation to natural social forms - and this would give his word indestructible power... 1. To the question whether preaching is an art, in the first edition I gave a completely negative answer: it is not an art, but simple Christian teaching. Now, in connection with the general understanding of Christianity, as set out in the Fundamentals of Christianity, I significantly change my view. Christianity is inspired and contains spiritual beauty. It is the kingdom of spiritual personalities; its leaders must be inspired and free. And preaching, as the work of a person filled with the Holy Spirit, must be an inspired word, must be fraught with spiritual beauty. This makes it similar to art, although it is different from other types of church art and, although it is not only art. The inspiration of the preaching word does not prevent us, as before, from distinguishing preaching, as religious teaching, from all types of church art in the sense that it is directed from heaven to earth, is the word of God to people, while art is directed from earth to heaven, from people to God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). But even with this difference, preaching remains an inspired word, an art sui generis. And as a religious teaching, a sermon should not be dry, school speech; the preacher cannot be an automaton. True preaching comes from the depths of personal Christian experience and is the fruit of a creatively free personality. The gift of prophetic and edifying speech. Paul counts among spiritual gifts. In this view of preaching, nothing is changed by the fact that Christian teaching is given by God and preserved by church tradition, that the church has always jealously guarded its exclusive right to teach. After all, over time, the church was forced by the abuses of heretics to take art under its supervision. But this observation applies, as is self-evident, exclusively to the church use of works of art: the church, without prohibiting private creativity, only limits its church use. So in relation to church teaching - not in the sense of authoritative resolution of issues of faith, dogmatic preservation of church tradition, but in the sense of the revival and education of spiritual children, preaching catechism - the church can only observe the church use of the evangelistic gift. She cannot create preachers by her power alone. The preaching calling cannot in any way be identified with the church system: it is not limited to hierarchical blessing. When sending people to preach (Rom. 10:15), the church cannot and should not see those it sends as its slaves or novices. With her blessing and under her control, she can allow only free bearers of the spirit of God to be active in God’s field. 2. Inspired preaching is an art sui generis. It is rooted in intimate Christian experience, in the communion of the Holy Spirit, in real spiritual life. The gift of preaching is not only art and, in particular, oratory. Art, in its own sense, does not consist only in the contagious expression of feelings, but it also presupposes the artist’s ability to observe life, perceive it, assimilate the various feelings of others, evoke once experienced feelings in himself and express them deliberately contagiously, using a well-known technique. Art can convey feelings, although experienced by the artist, but not deeply embedded in his nature, which do not reveal his very spiritual intimacy - and even the perfection of art is manifested in the expression of such precisely captured feelings in all the diversity of human life. The same is true of oratory. An orator, according to the definition of classical rhetoric, must teach, please and convince (Cicer. Orator, p. XXI; Quint. Instit. orat. lib. III, c. 5) and more precisely - to teach and please in order to convince; the speaker must mainly act on the heart (Cic. Brut. p. LXXX: permovere atque incitare animos – inflam mare animos audientium); The goal of the speaker is that his listener, at his request, should be moved by strong feelings (Orat. p. XXXVIII). For this, the oratorical speech itself must be fiery (nec umquam is, qui audiret, incenderetur, nisi ardens ad eum perveniret oratio. Ibid.). And classical rhetoric vividly paints the image of artistic oratory. The speaker must live primarily from the heart (pectus est, quod disertos facit. Quint. Instit. orat. lib. LX, p. 7); The art of oratory consists in the ability to express one’s feelings in such a way that they are transmitted to listeners, inclining them to a certain action. Hence, classical rhetoric placed eloquence in close connection with psychology, demanded from the speaker knowledge of the inclinations of his listeners, the ability to adapt to their state of mind - the speaker must “notice which soul, from what speeches and for what reason, is either convinced or not convinced” (Plato Phaedrus, 271, B; in translation by Karpov, part 2, ed. 2, p. 101); hence she made certain demands on the personality of the speaker - she demanded that the speaker, in his mental and moral character, deserve the trust of the listeners (Aristot. Ar. rhetor, lib. I, p. 2), she even said: nemo orator nisi vir bonus (Quint. Inst. orat. lib. XII, p. 10). But classical rhetoric paid its primary attention to everything that the speaker did to the ears and eyes of the listeners during a speech, and she looked at all this exclusively from an artistic point of view. She demanded that the speaker’s speech be artistic both in terms of form and musicality of structure; she paid strict attention to voice and pronunciation and made the success of oratory more dependent on pronunciation than on content (Id. LXI, p. 3); Finally, she believed eloquence not in one word, but together in the “action” of the speaker (est enim actio quasi corporis quaedam eloquentia) and considered his movements, posture and facial expression very important for the success of the speaker (Cic. Orat. pp. XVII. XVIII). In classical antiquity, in addition to the eloquence of the scientist and the oratorical proper, the eloquence of the sophists was even known. This was the skill of proving something of which the speaker himself was not convinced - to prove indifferently for and against; it was purely verbal mastery - resourcefulness of thought, ability to speak, play with words. The sophists applied such skill to the most abstract philosophical propositions. Their goal was not so much to convince as to please (Cicer. Orai. p. XIX: non tam persuadere, quam delectare). On the contrary, Christian preaching presupposes such experiences that constitute the very depth of the preaching personality. Only a Christian can be a Christian preacher - and this is a Christian for whom the work of preaching is the highest Christian work. A sermon reveals a certain worldview, which gives it a certain content. Its task is to convey to the listeners this integral worldview, to convey to them the whole “soul” of the preacher (1 Thess. 2:8) and, in turn, to capture the whole soul of the listeners, to revive them. Therefore, Christian preaching should be completely alien to everything artificial, designed to quickly excite temporary feelings, everything owing exclusively to the acquired technique, external techniques. Christian preaching is an art sui generis, but there should be nothing specifically artificial in it. Or, at least, all this does not lie in the essence of preaching and is parallel to the motive of vanity. Therefore, the influence of pagan oratory on ancient Christian preaching must be recognized, in essence, as negative. The oratorical techniques of even the brilliant preachers of the fourth century, not to mention the subsequent centuries of the decline of enlightenment and preaching, should be looked at not as a virtue, but as a disadvantage, as a concession of preachers due to human weakness, love of fame, and the whimsical desires of listeners who were carried away by eloquence and expected from the sermon not teaching, but pleasure. This is how the preachers themselves looked at it - John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian. So the first of them, in conversation XXX on the Acts of the Apostles, reproaching his listeners for the fact that they “are not looking for a touching word, but are looking for a pleasing word both in pronunciation and composition of speech, as if listening to singers and musicians,” writes about himself: “and we, in a cold and pitiful way, try to please your desires, which should be rejected. And it happens the same as if some father gave his too tender and, moreover, sick son cake, refreshments and everything that only delights, but did not offer anything useful... The same thing happens to us when we care about the beauty of expressions, about the composition and euphony of speech, in order to give pleasure, and not to bring benefit, to arouse surprise, and not to teach, to delight, and not to touch, to receive applause and walk away with praise, but morals cannot be corrected. Believe me, I say it not without reason, when my words are accompanied by applause, at that time I feel something human, why not tell the truth? - I rejoice and enjoy; but when, returning home, I think that those who applauded did not receive any benefit, and if they could have used anything, they lost it from applause and praise, then I grieve, regret and cry, I think that I spoke in vain, and I say to myself: what is the use of my labors when the listeners do not want to receive any benefit from my words? 3. During medieval scholasticism, rhetoric also took on a scholastic appearance. Scholastic rhetoric is the same classical rhetoric with the replacement of the artistic spirit of oratory with the mechanical use of artificial, conventional techniques. With such a replacement, art ceases to be such and turns into dexterity, or dead artificiality. At the same time, scholasticism has essentially a lot in common with ancient sophistry - here we encounter the same tension of abstract thinking itself; this character of scholasticism was also reflected in scholastic rhetoric. It was based on the view that the eloquence of an orator consists in observing the most specific rules, in using certain techniques. Mainly these were rules regarding the disclosure of a given topic and regarding the form of speech; these were conventional techniques for constructing sentences and presenting evidence. During medieval scholasticism and homiletics, it was only a department of rhetoric - it was scholastic homiletics. Such homiletics, in its main and essential aspects, remains to this day. The main homiletical error lies not only in the fact that it considers preaching to be an art, but mainly in the fact that it considers oratory to be a mechanical observance of certain rules, first of all, regarding form - it posits it in a certain form. This is a decisive distortion of the truth. And because art does not lie in the mechanical observance of certain rules, and because preaching is not oratory, the entire teaching of homiletics about the form and in general about the external side of the sermon is expressed in two words: the sermon from the external side should be completely artless and simple. The art of preaching lies in the spiritual experience of the preacher, in the vitality and inspiration of his words. A sermon can be a simple teaching speech, it can also become art in the immediate sense, but this is possible only under the condition of free creativity, and not scholastic theory. And the so-called question of the living word is the question of the inspiration of preaching. The inspired preaching word can be expressed both literary and verbal. The preaching word before the listeners, in the strict sense of the church sermon, if the preacher is inspired, can only be a living word. Application. Plan of "Fundamentals of Christianity" The starting point of the “Fundamentals of Christianity” is the Christological idea of ​​divine condescension - the self-abasement of Christ, mainly revealed by St. Paul in the epistles, to Phil. 2, 5-11 and in the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. In the Christological system of St. Cyril’s teaching is especially important about the subordination of the Son of God to the laws of human nature and about the unity of the divine-human life despite the heterogeneity of the divine and human natures (vol. 1, 92–101). This patristic thought runs like a red thread through all the volumes of “Fundamentals of Christianity.” And first of all, it is applied to the explanation of the gospel history, since “the main meaning of the earthly life of Christ, both in the essence of His personality and in His historical significance, is the revelation of the spiritual divine life in the conditions of earthly existence” (vol. 1, 149 - 151). This meaning of the gospel story is delineated with particular clarity in the story of the temptations of Christ. “Christ responded to the first attempt with humble submission to the natural laws of human life; to the second proposal He responded by refusing to tempt the Lord with a demand for extreme visible protection; He contrasted the third temptation with refusal to serve the evil spirit of national pride” (vol. 1, 193–195). Following the Gospel story, the same principle is applied to the presentation of the Gospel teaching. The essence of the gospel is that the divine (spiritual) life of Christ, the Son of God, becomes the property of believers and is combined with natural-historical necessity, which fills the visible gap between the initial (gospel-historical) miraculousness and eschatological promises - in other words, in Christianity absolute love is combined with faith (2, 189 and generally 165-198). Hence, evangelical spiritual righteousness is a principle of personal spiritual life, and not a conditional law of natural-social existence, and in this respect it characteristically differs from Old Testament religion (2, 199–201). Eternal life according to the gospel is the manifestation of divine life in conditions of temporary existence. “The Gospel teaches that a person can, even in conditions of temporary existence, live a divine-spiritual life” (2, 248). The gospel looks at worldly life in two ways. In a natural sense, physical and worldly life constitutes the domain of the will of God, as this latter is revealed in the laws of nature. But before the spiritual good of eternal life, worldly life, as a person’s spiritual self-satisfaction, is a negative value, evil. For the gospel, just as there is no natural impurity, there is no natural or external ethical value: self-denial by the gospel is required only for eternal life, for spiritual good: this is exclusively self-denial of love (2, 258-261). The third volume examines Christianity from the perspective of initial creative goals and final eschatological aspirations. The purpose and meaning of life are determined by the idea of ​​divine condescension. “Getting glory to God in nothingness is the goal of world and human life” (3, 63). The ideas of absolute personal happiness and personal natural perfection turn out to be false (3, 17–45). The first thing that is instilled in man by primordial predestination is the duty of life in the fullness of nature created by God, despite the suffering associated with certain forms of life (3, 65). Christianity seems to be the highest realization of this goal, since the combination of spiritual perfection with visible humiliation and bliss with external suffering is the most characteristic thing in Christianity (3, 58). From the point of view of the same idea and precisely according to the meaning of the temptations of Christ, world history is considered, starting with the fall of our ancestors and ending with the history of the Christian church. At the same time, the peculiarity of the third volume, which gives it specific weight, is that here Christianity is considered not in the form of a given teaching, ideally realized in the person of Christ, but in a specific Christian personality, in the reality of church society and in the reality of human history. This circumstance introduces new elements into the system, stemming from the sinful weakness of man and from the actual temptations of Christianity. This is, firstly, a pedagogical-ascetic element, expressing the moral strength of Christianity (3, 93-107), - secondly, an element of church grace, arising, on the one hand, in view of the fact that in the form of the church Christianity acquires natural-historical significance, becomes a cultural force (3, 130), and, on the other hand, the church is a treasury of grace that acts on nature and the world, destroying the very depths of the original sin and invisibly preparing the world for eschatological renewal (3, 128–156). In the fourth volume, it is not the specific life of a Christian and Christianity that is examined, but here the subject is the relationship of Christianity, in its evangelical idea, in personal-spiritual absoluteness, in the sense of pure divine life, to natural-historical life in its forms and in its laws, i.e. to that area of ​​natural-historical laws and natural-social forms that is not affected in its essence by the moral-conscious activity of a Christian and does not change in its appearance by the grace-filled activity of the church, but lies between these spheres. This relationship is established according to the principle of Christian freedom, that is, the freedom of the absolute religious spirit from the conventions of historical forms and the freedom of natural-historical life from the external claims of religious authority. In other words, the heterogeneity of the areas of personal-religious (divine-absolute content) and natural-social (unchangeable laws of nature and conditional social forms) is clarified, which, according to the strength of this heterogeneity, are combined into a higher unity (esp. 4, 382–395). In this regard, the religious and social theories of L. Tolstoy, F. M. Dostoevsky, architect. Feodora Bukhareva, V. S. Solovyova, V. V. Rozanova. Finally, in the last, additional volume - from the point of view of the previously revealed principles, the religious life of our days is critically reviewed - firstly, the highest of the manifestations of modern active Christianity, the highest types of personal charitable and communal Christian activity are described, - secondly, the upcoming tasks of Christian churchliness and Christian preaching are substantiated. For details about the icon and its history, see “The Legend of the Lesninsk Miracle-Working Icon of the Mother of God” by Archpriest. N. Strashkevich, Hill 1900 Brief information in the Church. Ved. 1893 No. 17 and 1901 No. 43; detailed in brochure "The Legend of the revered miraculous Pyukhtitsa Icon of the Dormition of the Mother of God." Revel 1902 (in Russian and Estonian). I also had at hand the Reports of the Ieven branch of the Baltic Orthodox Brotherhood for several years, ending with a report for the period from August 1, 1903 to August 1, 1904. See brochure. Archpriest A. Svirelin "Pereslavl Fedorovsky Convent". Vladim. 1903 About her e.g. Shower. Thurs. 1901, I, 361 next. Wed. Dobschutz Die urchristlichen Gemeinden, Leipz. 1902, pp. 105–106. The complete works of N.N. Neplyuev are supposed to be in 6 volumes, of which 4 volumes were published. In addition, I have brochures: “Faith and Life - a public lecture for believers,” St. Petersburg. 1905, “War or Peace? Public lecture for non-believers”, St. Petersburg. 1904, “The vital importance of labor brotherhoods”, 1905, “February 19 and the peasant community”, 1905; “Party of Peaceful Progress. her ideal foundations and life program", 1905; "Letter to the Clergy", 1905; “Letter to the rural population”, 1905; “Brief information about the Orthodox Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross”, Chern. 1905; “Brief information about the Vozdvizhensk school”, Chern. 1903; brochures of members of the Labor Brotherhood, for example. F. E. Spanovsky “In Defense of the Labor Brotherhood”, A. I. Fursey “Do they have reason to talk about the Neplyuevshchina and the Neplyuevites”... In view of this abundance of material covering all aspects of fraternal life, in this essay I try, wherever possible, to speak in the own words of the founder and members of the Brotherhood and set my main task to be accurate in conveying their thoughts and in describing the structure of fraternal life. Here is one of those characteristics that were read in front of us and copied by me for myself. The name in the description has been replaced by another. “Ivan Semenov is one of the greats in his class. He entered the junior class through a competitive test in 1904. This means he is living at school for the first year. Ivan is a tall young man, but not in good health. At home he was often very sick. He had kidney inflammation twice and pneumonia once. During the winter at school, Ivan felt very bad several times due to his health being damaged by illnesses: he coughed heavily and complained of pain in his chest and side. But thanks to the fact that the disease did not start and Ivan, at the first attack of it, turned to the paramedic for help, there was no sad outcome, such as a very serious situation. Nevertheless, such poor health makes itself felt quite often, preventing him, who is already not accustomed to work, from working well and acquiring temperament in work. When Ivan arrived at school, he did not know how to work at all and never did almost anything at home. That is why, when Ivan was at home during the Christmas holidays and, out of old habit, wanted to make his bed and sweep the room, they began to laugh and make fun of him and carefully watch how he did all this. Ivan’s figure is built quite proportionally and beautifully, but Ivan seems like a sloppy and dissolute boy, he gives it such a position, maintains it in such a way that at times it makes an unpleasant impression. He sits and walks hunched over, his dress is rarely in order, he doesn’t know how to make graceful movements, and even at work he can be awkward and sluggish. In general, Ivan really doesn’t like physical movements. He has a great disposition towards continuous calm and lethargy. To these distinctive features in his character we must also add his terrible absent-mindedness and great sloppiness. For example, Ivan is on duty at school. Everyone is having lunch, and he is serving. Ivan takes a cup of borscht and instead of pouring the borscht into the tub of slop, he pours it into the tub of peeled potatoes. He poured it out, stood and looked into the tub, surprised at what he had done. They ask him for water. He leaves to look for a mug. During the search, he will forget what he is looking for and bring a salt shaker instead of a mug of water. He starts sweeping a large room and sweeps only half, leaving the other unswept. During the winter he exchanged his hat several times for someone else’s, because he put it somewhere and then couldn’t find it. His sloppiness manifests itself at almost every step. He does not like to take care of the cleanliness of his body; He washes his face very carelessly and really doesn’t like going to the bathhouse. At the table, he wipes his hands on his blouse, placing the fingers of his right hand under the left armpit, the fingers of his left under the right armpit, pressing well and pulling, and that’s the end of the matter without unnecessary worry in searching for a towel. In his desk, at first, until I told him that it was necessary to maintain cleanliness and order here too, there was a big mess. The books were mixed with notebooks, there was a crumpled towel lying around, in one corner there was a warehouse of scraps from pears and apples, mixed with old feathers, pieces of chalk and paper. Ivan was so accustomed to paying little attention to order and purity that my remark surprised him little. It seemed to him that this was how it should be. There is nowhere for the litter to go from the desk, and it goes without saying that there will be more and more of it, and there is no need to worry about removing the desk, since the habit of living well among disorder and dirt. Seeing this trait of such a sloppy person in Ivan, I paid special attention to it in his life, often giving instructions on how to do things, teaching him how to make his bed, showing him how to throw off his laundry, demanding that he rinse his mouth when washing, wash his hands well and more often, etc. Now Ivan has become comparatively more neat, but he is still very far from being a completely neat person. I have already said that Ivan generally does not like to make large movements, and therefore never takes part in the general games of his comrades, although sometimes he watches the progress of the common game with animation. Ivan reads a lot, so he devotes all his leisure time to this activity. By reading vigorously, holding the book close to his eyes, he seriously damaged his eyes. How poorly he sees can be judged by the fact that, sitting at his desk, he does not see what is written on the board, while others, sitting in his place, freely read what is written. The books he read were of significant benefit to him, because he thought through what he read well and turned to teachers for an explanation of what he did not understand. His favorite books are descriptions of travel to various parts of the world. This choice of books reflects his love for the study of geography. Having read quite a lot, Ivan accustomed himself to the correct expression of thoughts and more competent writing. He can convey well what he heard or read from a book. Ivan listens carefully to what others say. Ivan has some abilities. He has some talent for drawing and music. Although he almost never learned to draw, he can depict various pictures on paper quite well. But even here he is hampered by his poor eyesight. He loves music extremely and, upon entering school, he immediately began playing the violin. Ivan really loves the literary and musical evenings organized at our school. They give him great pleasure. He watches with great intense attention the person reciting the verse, listens to the sounds of the violin or the whole orchestra. Maybe it will be too much for Ivan if I say that living with the feelings received from music is a spiritual need for him, which is especially strongly developed in him. Ivan has another habit that is very noticeable and soon attracts attention when living together with him. For example, he sits, reads, or draws, or simply does some kind of work. Then he suddenly leaves what he is doing and, fixing his gaze on some point or object, stares there for a long time, deeply thinking about something. At that time, some mysterious thought visited him, very interesting to him, but which he could not give a full account of, but he vaguely remembers and experiences it. This phenomenon occurs, as we know, with people who have experienced a lot of grief, with people who are morally very shaken. What makes Ivan fall into such oblivion? What does he think about at such moments? We can learn this to some extent by reading extracts from his diary dated February 1st. He writes the following. I feel extremely bad. I can't find a place for myself. I'm looking for some kind of entertainment and I can't find it. I want to entertain myself with a book, but I’m giving it up now. My head starts to hurt in class. The pain gradually increases, and I unconsciously listen, or rather pretend to listen. Everything before my eyes is clouded with fog. I can barely make out the teacher's face. I myself can’t tell myself whether I’m dreaming this or this is reality. Today it seemed to me that I was the most unhappy person in school. Sitting on my bed during recess, I felt the touch of someone's hand. Looking up, I saw that it was Yakov Ignatiev. He stood in front of me smiling. I admit that I now envied him. He is always so affectionate and cheerful. Looking at him, I was truly convinced that I was the most unfortunate. Remembering the past makes me even sadder. And indeed I have experienced a lot of horrors: just remembering them sends a chill down my spine. I now noticed the following: I have the habit of fixing my gaze on some point and looking at it for a long time. When I usually look, my thoughts are far away at that time, and I cannot immediately consciously answer the question, which surprises everyone even more. And my thoughts are far from cheerful. After the vacation, I somehow began to think more about my relatives who remained there far away, as much as eight hundred miles away. It begins to seem to me that they are perhaps a hundred times more unhappy than me and, therefore, I am a hundred times happier than them. From this extract from Ivan's diary we see that he complains very much about not feeling happy. This depresses him very much, especially when he sees his happy comrades. He is greatly disturbed by the memories of his experiences. He cannot escape from them anywhere. They prevent him, along with other comrades, from engaging in a common cause and gaining satisfaction for himself. These memories can in no way be cheerful, since he had to go through a lot of sad and difficult things. In the family in which Ivan was born and raised, life at first went peacefully and happily. My father was a caretaker at a wine shop. With the salary he received, he could provide the family with everything they needed for a comfortable existence. Ivan's mother loved him, and he experienced maternal affection. Life smiled at him. He felt very happy. The happy moments of his life were imprinted on his soul. But family happiness and his happiness did not last long. At one time my mother became very ill. Just before her death, she suffered from insanity. During an attack of illness, she rolled out of bed, began running around the room and saying incoherent words and phrases. When the attack of illness was not so severe and she could control herself to some extent, then she would sit down at the table and start talking to the children. These conversations had the character of a conversation between a person before death and those whom he loves and who it is a shame to part with. All this happened in the same room with the children. Of course, they saw everything, heard it and did not let it go unnoticed. One can imagine the impression this made on the children who loved their mother. What struck Ivan and then remained in his memory for the rest of his life and remained a mystery to him was that during one of these conversations between the mother and the children, she told them that only Ivan would remain alive, but the brothers would soon die. The mother soon died. After her death, the children also became ill. Ivan also fell ill. After a short illness, one brother died; on the same day, a little later, the other one died. Ivan was sick, but he could imagine what was happening around him. When the father asked the doctor about Ivan, the doctor recognized Ivan’s situation as hopeless and said that Ivan would certainly die. This was said, although in another room, but Ivan heard what was said. It shocked him terribly. He was alone all the time. He was tormented by the knowledge that he was no longer a tenant in this world. What frightened him was that he did not know what would happen to him after death. He did not have faith in God, under which death would not be terrible for him and it would be incomparably easier to endure the misfortune that befell his family. He rarely prayed, and if he did, he did it mechanically, in church and during prayer he always thought about strangers. The whole weight of grief fell upon him with all its force and oppressed him terribly, yet he did not know why he was enduring all this. He had no one to tell his grief to. He constantly thought about who needed his life and why. The grief he experienced, the consciousness of the purposelessness of life, made him feel very unhappy. The thought haunted him even more when he arrived at school and saw many cheerful and happy pupils, while his grief constantly haunted him and became even more palpable at the sight of cheerful and happy peers. Ivan thought for a long time, why is this so? Why can’t he be as happy and cheerful as others? He analyzed his character many times, wanting to find in it something that could give him happiness and strength to endure the grief that befell him. But apart from the negative aspects of his character, he found nothing else, which after each such over-judgment plunged him into even greater despondency. It often happened that I would come to class in my free time, sit at Ivan’s desk and start talking to him. More often I found him reading the books he had read, which he spends most of his time reading. The conversation usually began in the most relaxed manner. I asked him what he read, what he liked to read most, how many books he had read, which writers, etc. I told him what I read, what I was interested in, what remained in my memory from what I read. He was very interested, as it later turned out, in how life works in our school, what kind of relationships exist between teachers and students, why there are junior and senior clubs, and who can join them, and therefore during such conversations he almost always asked about what was new to him, what interested him. I was surprised by the attention with which he listened to my words. I was even surprised by this, since I didn’t think at all that these kinds of questions interested him very much. I saw that this was not simple curiosity caused by the novelty of the information being reported, but that he had learned about ml. br. mug, about the proper relationship to God, he felt, if he did not see, something that could calm him down and give him joy in life. I told him, explained as best I could why he felt so unhappy. That he will feel completely happy only when he loves the Lord God, sees in Him a source of strength, loves his comrades and experiences their love. After this conversation, Ivan became calmer, felt much better, and became more cheerful. How consciously and confidently he will treat what I said will become clear in the future. Now, having seen his delusion, he is trying to get out into the light. He tries to break the habit of bad habits and become a good student. In short, Ivan is like this: dissolute, lethargic, absent-minded, sloppy, capable, well-read, not religious. Here is an extract from the chronicle of the (teacher's) family of St. St. Nicholas the Wonderworker for the week from March 28 to April 3, read with us. “The exams are underway, in the midst of them, so to speak; a lot of conversations about various details of this or that exam, sometimes reading essays in the evenings. Kostya (a 4-year-old child) began to recover completely and Fyodor Evfimovich became cheerful. They expected N.N. to arrive on Tuesday, but he postponed his departure by telegram to Thursday, then to Saturday, and finally did not come at all this week. The road is getting worse and worse, the weather is very bad, damp, cold, with snow and real blizzards, so it’s difficult to even walk through the village. Wednesday was the usual family meeting. We read the recent weekly chronicles for the month of March - S.N.K., A.I.I. and I.S.D. For the first time in these chronicles, S.N. recorded the family meeting abruptly and colorlessly, so that the main thing was not emphasized at all. A serious indication from the family, made at this meeting, was issued regarding the narrow, extreme selfishness that was manifested by mothers in the desire to better feed their children, and the case of improving children's soup was also released. The fact was that U. A. Ch. suspected that children's soup was better since housewives began feeding it to their small children, but until then it was of worse quality. Conveying this suspicion, the foreman asked the sisters to interrogate themselves in their conscience about this, because if it were true, then it would be a disgusting manifestation of the most callous family egoism. This was answered by the sisters at the next family meeting, recorded by I.S.D.; This answer, without prior recording in S.N.’s chronicle of the above fact, is incomprehensible. M.I.L. asked the brothers not to put their hats on the table in the living room, but to leave them in the hallway, as this would give the room a disorderly appearance. N.K.S. thought in this regard that it would be possible to clear our front room a little of things and put a table there on which to place hats. Then A.A.L. On the issue of the children's table, he proposed several sample lunches for children and several general comments on the nutrition of children; they did not discuss this. A.N.K. informed the family that L.F.K.’s relatives are sick all the time and ask her to come for 2 months. A.N. is thinking of going then for a short time and returning with Sasha, and L.F. will remain there alone. Only the Duma can give permission for such a vacation, but the family should only decide whether Sasha can be accommodated; A.N. would have thought that he could be completely under the care of the duty officer. M.I.L. thinks that it will be difficult for the duty officer to cope, especially in the summer, when A.N. will need to get up early and go to work, and besides, we now have very few nurses on duty. They suggested that the sisters think about whether it would be possible to arrange for Sasha on their own in this case or whether they should ask someone for help. Then Fyodor Evfimovich Chvertka (sergeant major) asked everyone about mutual relations, whether there were any misunderstandings. Everyone responded that they had nothing and were happy. Now we are approaching the time of fasting, said foreman Fyodor Evfimovich - to Holy Week, when we need to especially try to correct, settle all disagreements and misunderstandings among ourselves, eliminate any unkind feeling towards anyone; We need to cleanse ourselves of every bitter feeling that we, even by chance, have allowed to accumulate in our souls. I want to share the feelings that I experienced at this time: most of us already have children and therefore should have parental feelings. When Kostya fell ill and the illness became more and more persistent every day, I experienced a lot of bitter and anxious feelings, even despair at times, which were replaced by hope and relief in my soul at any sign of improvement in his health. For me, I’ll say straight out, Kostya’s death would be an unbearable blow, maybe it’s not good, even a sin; They say that if you love someone in this way, then you will be taken away. This heavy feeling in me was aggravated by the consciousness of complete helplessness: it was impossible to call a doctor due to the impassability of the roads. And now there was only one thing left - prayer. They say that whoever has not been to the sea has never prayed to God, and they also say that children will teach their parents to pray to God; and it's true; This week brought me a lot, I experienced a lot. Now I hope that next time I will react more calmly in such a case, not with such excitement; but now it was new to me. I wanted to share this with you because I am sure everyone will understand these feelings. At such a time, of course, participation is especially dear, and I wanted to express my gratitude to all those present and many absent members of the Brotherhood for their heartfelt participation, for their warm prayers; It was dear to me to notice every sign of the cross when praying for Kostya. Although during this time I was completely cut off from my family, it seems to me that it was at this time that I became even more close to the entire Brotherhood, since I saw and felt that the real spirit of brotherly life was alive in us, sincere and heartfelt participation in each other. It especially evokes a feeling of gratitude that these warm feelings are shown not only to you personally, but to what is dear to you. This is how it should be, it is necessary for the child of one to be dear to everyone. We should not miss the opportunity to express our feelings in such circumstances - this makes us very close and brings us closer into one truly brotherly family. Everyone thanked Fodor Evfimovich for sharing his feelings and this ended the meeting. On Thursday they began whitewashing the dormitory for the holiday; Only common rooms were whitewashed; this time foreman Fyodor Evfimovich did not allow private rooms to be whitewashed. As usual at this time, for two days it was very bad in the rooms, there was nowhere to hide - where they whitewashed, where they washed, where it was cluttered. There was a slight displeasure between the foreman Fyodor Evfimovich and the hostesses; the first was dissatisfied with the fact that some in their rooms ordered the stoves and cracks to be anointed, and the housewives were not efficient, as a result of which they ordered the stoves in the corridors and hallway to be whitewashed after the floors in these rooms had been washed. These days, interest in the events at the theater of operations, which had weakened for a while, has grown again; now they are monitoring the movement of Rozhdestvensky’s squadron. Regarding the upcoming holidays, the family said that it would be nice to somehow reduce the troubles during Holy Week, we could bake Easter bread less, it would be better to bake fresh bread after the holiday, otherwise we still have completely dry Easter cakes for a long time after Easter. Maybe this year they will do so, especially since it will be very difficult for the sisters, since there are few of them. It will be necessary to ask Maria Nikolaevna for one of the sisters to help look after the children during this time. E.V. P-va herself invited the sisters to come and help them bake Easter, since she would be free during this time. On Saturday we had visiting guests I.A.B. and I.V.K. The first came to get acquainted with the Brotherhood, and the second asks to be accepted into the Brotherhood. B. made a pleasant impression; he is apparently seriously interested in the Brotherhood, since he himself plans to organize a small community. He dined with us, had lunch on Sunday, and told how he visited Tolstoy. The second guest was very silent and shy, so it was impossible to have a definite impression of him. There was nothing on Sunday due to very bad weather. In the morning G.G. brought his little Manya to us; after long deliberation and after consulting with the doctor, he decided to take advantage of A.E.’s offer and gave her his child (that is, after the death of his mother). A.E. and A.I. willingly offered their help to their father in a brotherly way. Many family members were sincerely glad to see such a purely fraternal, bright appearance. Of course, the other child will cause a lot of trouble and inconvenience - both A.E. and A.I-chu, but out of brotherly feeling they willingly took on all this. May the Lord help A. E. not in the responsible task she has taken upon herself, but we all, especially the sisters, with our attitude, in whatever way we can, I hope, will make her task easier for her. In particular, Tolstoy wrote about the book like this in another letter to Verigin: “So many harmful books have been written and distributed that this harm can only be counteracted by a book. To knock out a wedge with a wedge... Inaugural Lecture on Moral Theology, given in September 1909. M. Verthelot Science et morale. E. Haeckel “Monism as a connection between religion and science, World mysteries, Wonders of life”; I. I. Mechnikov “Sketches about human nature, Sketches of optimism.” N. A. Shaposhnikov “Experience in the mathematical expression of concepts and conclusions of ethics.” Prof. Kareev “Thoughts on the foundations of morality.” Tr. K. D. A. 1879, Jan. p. 74. The same in “History of Morality and Moral Teachings,” part 1, 1882, p. 7. Ibid. (History no. p. 110). Wed. at Prof. A. A. Bronzova “Moral theology in Russia during the 19th century” and N. P. Arkhangelsky “The task, content and plan of the system of Orthodox Christian moral teaching.” According to this plan, the Orthodox Christian teaching on morality was compiled. I. L. Yanysheva. Former professor of the Kyiv Academy M. A. Olesnitsky, the book “From the system of Christian moral teaching” is compiled according to the following plan: part one - the general doctrine of Christian morality and moral life (freedom, ideal, moral good, conscience, character) and (second part) the doctrine of sin and salvation (objective and subjective); part two - private or special teaching about morality and the moral life of a Christian: section one - personal or individual moral relations of a Christian to God, to his neighbors and to himself, section two - social moral relations of a Christian (family, community, state and church). Cheat. An instructive and conscientiously compiled book by Prof. A. A. Bronzova “Moral theology in Russia during the 19th century.” The book already mentioned by N. P. Arkhangelsky, “The Task, Content and Plan of the System of Orthodox Christian Moral Teaching,” examines the same question and presents an interesting discussion, but it lacks a general theological breadth of vision and a critical attitude to the subject. Prof. V. V. Bolotov “Lectures on the history of the ancient church”, I, (1907) p. 228. Wed. Chr. Thurs. 1893 Jan. page 113 next Christ. 1908, May, pp. 59–62. Wed. our apologetic articles: Ibid. 1907 Jan (The moral tragedy of socialism); 1908 May and June (Apology for Christian Morality: Evolutionary Ethics); God. West. 1908, July–Aug. (Haeckel. Monistic ethics); ib. Oct. (Sociological morality); ib. Dec. (Orthobiosis); ib. 1909 Nos. I–3 (The religious problem in modern light); ib. June, July and Aug. (Religion and Society), etc. Criticism of Catholic and Protestant morality obviously belongs to this same part of moral theology. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. II, p. 9. “Every dogma in mysticism is resolved in the inner course of life. There is a productive force in mysticism, and dogmatic orthodoxy lives only by transmitted, ready-made dogma, in other words, mysticism gives a certain content to the general religious feeling in the imagination.” Ep. Alexy Sumsky Christian mysticism in its difference from science and positive religion. (Vera and R. 1904, No. 19 p. 344). Wed. about I. L. Yanyshev “The Essence of Christianity from a Moral Point of View” in Chr. Thurs. 1877 vol. II, p. 166. Ep. (now Archbishop) Anthony, Complete Works, vol. II, pp. 11–12. Foundations of Christianity, II, pp. 250–253. All works of Bishop Theophanes, one might say, reveal this one thought: Christian life begins with the fact of communion with God. “It is wrong,” he writes, if anyone began to think that when communication with God is the last goal of a person, then a person will be granted it after, for example, at the end of all his labors. No. It must be an everlasting, continuous state of a person, so that, since there is no communication with God, since it is not felt, a person must admit that he is outside his goal and his purpose. Such a state is the only true state of a person, it is the only decisive sign of the presence in him of the beginning of a truly moral and spiritual life.” Outline of Christian Moral Teaching, pp. 35-36. Ep. Anthony Complete collection. сочинений, II, стр. 31. Gefding, V.S. Solovyov and others. Foundations of Christianity, vol. I, pp. 340–358; II, 244–276; III, 143–156. Основы христианства, т. II, 236–243. Foundations of Christianity, vol. II, 276–288. S. Nikitsky “Teaching of the Christian Orthodox Church on Morality”, vol. 1, pp. 56. 62. Here about the moral law, pp. 40–41: “man by himself cannot serve as the primary source of the moral law” and pp. 42–43: “natural moral law is the set of rules for the operation of human freedom, compiled by man himself on the basis of the testimony of moral feeling and... conscience.” About the entire philosophical part of moral theology, including here all sorts of collisio officiorum, ἀδιάφορα, we can say that it finds a place here for casuistic reasons, especially obvious in Catholic ethics. Wed. Chr. Thurs. 1896, Nov.–Dec. pp. 627–659. Right Sob. 1872, III, 78–79. 84–85; 1875, I, 62–63. For systematic explanations of the essence of the issue related here, see Fundamentals of Christianity, esp., vol. II. Prof. A. I. Grenkov in Prav. Sob. 1872, part III, pp. 79–81. This is systematically revealed in Volume III of the Fundamentals of Christianity, especially pp. 26-45, where I refer the reader. Works of Innocent, bishop. Penza and Saratov, part 1 (1845), pp. 1–3. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. II, p. 276. This is essentially the case. But what is also striking is the disorganization of individual theological programs: what is the need for moral theology to repeat the plan of dogmatic theology? Read on this issue. various works by A. Foulier, especially Les elements sociologiques de la morale. Wed. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. II, p. 256. The Path to Salvation, vol. II, page 4. “Apparently it cannot be disputed that there are laws of historical development. It is known that every nation grows, ages and dies. Is it possible to dispute the fact of the discovered truth? But by law I mean a provision that has value. If someone from the pulpit proclaimed the indisputable truth that everyone is mortal, then no one would give him a copper penny for it.” V. V. Bolotova Lectures on the history of the ancient church I, pp. 2–3. See The Path to Salvation no. II, pp. 18–20. 22.24–31. From here it is no longer difficult to move on to what Gregory Dvoeslov gives in Part III of his Pastoral Rule, i.e., to the instruction on how a preacher must conform his teachings to the different states of his listeners, teaching differently men and women, young men and old men, poor and rich, merry and mourning, etc. However, this difference in states is far from the same as the individualism of Christian mysticism in its essence. The Path to Salvation, vol. II, pp. 63–64. The path to salvation, vol. III, pp. 64–65. Introduction to Moral Theology (Lecture 5): Essays Viz. Wolff, vol. X (1875), pp. 185–186. 192–193. Italics are ours. Foundations of Christianity, vol. III, pp. 93–107. Archbishop Anthony also decisively distinguishes between these two sides of the matter, especially in the article “on learned monasticism” (vol. II, pp. 416–427). “As a life principle, monasticism consists in setting the sole goal of one’s life to create one’s inner man” (mysticism in the terminology of Archbishop Innocent), and in this regard, “monasticism does not differ from Christian duties as something higher than them, which is impossible (Matthew 5:48 applies to all Christians).” An extremely important idea! But historically, “monastic life appeared not only as a principle and not as a revelation of a purely subjective mental process of the gradual Christian growth of a person, but also as a well-known specialized way of applying this process to life, as a well-known specific individual and social way of life. The disclosure and regulation of this method are carried out by monastic regulations, preserved in tradition and written.” Meanwhile, the “vows of tonsure” must be “understood in a purely moral, and not regulated, sense, where, for example, obedience is expected only to the elder, non-acquisitiveness - in the sense of the absence of monetary property, from the feat of virginity they require - not to speak even with a woman.” But “in the rite of tonsure there is no question of the obligatory nature of a certain established household regime.” If such a distinction between concepts were always observed, then we would save ourselves from many theological disputes and misunderstandings. Unfortunately, to understand these differences, two rarely combined conditions are required - personal spiritual experience and high education (higher theological education), while neither practical asceticism without education (and even worse with semi-educated seminary), nor abstract rationalistic theology are sufficient for this. “We have pictures of moral deeds, full of a kind of artistry, we have a kind of sacred epic, written under the influence of the most living, immediate feeling of faith and reverent animation, distinguished by artlessness and the most integral simplicity - our tales about the lives of saints. Our people love them... Nevertheless, this is far from the science of Moral Theology.” A. X. (Bishop Chrysanthos) in Chr. Thurs. 1868, part I, pp. 357–358. Orthodox Christian teaching on morality, 2nd ed., pp. 20–21. Ep. Anthony's Complete Works, vol. II, p. 118. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. III. pp. 130–131; Одинокие (Христиан. 1907, фев. стр. 312–313). I. Pyatnitsky “The Experience of Orthodox Moral Theology”, p. 318. In this case, as in all others, I name a textbook not in order to distinguish it from others, but as an example by which one can judge the rest. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. III, pp. 128 next. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. II, pp. 189. 355; vol. III, 284. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. II, p. 210. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. IV, p. 175. Foundations of Christianity, vol. II, pp. 206–211 Here is this (ancient and strictly canonical) formula: Nuptiae sunt conjunctio maris et feminae et consortium omnis vitae, divini et humani juris communicatio. The later scholastic formula of marriage does not change anything in our question, if only because it adds a new moment of “secret”, which does not cancel anything in that natural-cultural formula. O. Favorov “On Christian Morality”, p. 126. Literally repeated in Pyatnitsky p. 336. See eg. Dorner System der christlichen Sittenlehre, Lemme Christliche Ethik; Martensen “Christian teaching on morality” and others. Prof. M. Olesnitsky “From the system of Christian moral teaching”, the section on the church is presented on 9 pages out of 485. At the prot. Favorov “On Christian Morality”. In his Essays no. pr.-khr. The teaching department is still designated: “duties to the church.” If there are more meaningful pages about the church and mainly about the sacraments (and rituals), then here the church “is considered from the side of its grace-filled actions, which have a certain influence both on the nature of man in general, and in particular on his free will, and from the side of those spiritual manifestations of a person that make him capable of accepting and assimilating these grace-filled actions” (N.P. Arkhangelsky, 183–189), i.e. from the outside dogmagical (metaphysically-gracious) and from the personal-mystical side, which do not constitute their own field of moral theology. Wed. Ep. Feofan "Letters". There are several journal articles on the same topic. Fundamentals of Christianity vol. II, 349–350. Fundamentals of Christianity vol. III, 128–129. Die katholishe Moral von V. Cathrein S. J. Freiburg im Breisgau. 1907. Foundations of Christianity, vol. III, 298–311; vol. IV, 38–39. Foundations of Christianity, vol. II, pp. 347–348. Wed. prof. N. N. Glubokovsky The Good News of St. Apostle Paul on his origin and essence, book one, pp. 443–444: “In our salvation, the idea of ​​the church will be to a certain extent secondary, since it already indicates its further result in the actual grace of many through the Redeemer. He brings us truth and sanctification and penetrates every believer with equal energy. A Christian is only the recipient and organ of its action, which is the same in everyone. The necessary outcome is self-evident, and it is enough just to state it. All Christians are united in the Lord and are united in Him to the point of inseparability by the power of the incarnation of His spirit. In this sense, they do not form an external union, but constitute an organic whole, where in the different positions of the individual members the common functioning element of the grace of Christ is revealed. It is not surprising that the apostle of tongues so often and definitely calls the church the body of Christ. But it is not outside the believers and not independent of them, which is why it does not in the least express its objective presence apart from individuals who would be grafted onto it as given in advance. On the contrary, they themselves form a living church of a spiritualized organism, because they are united in Christ to the point of indissolubility. The name of the body of Christ is the most accurate analogical description of the actual structure of the church, which embraces the entire community of those being saved, both by its historical origin and by the nature of its internal development. Christians are in an organic relationship with each other, and it only marks their actual combination. It is undeniable that the latter must have a special reason for its real quality and finds it in sonship to God, when we become brothers in the Son of God with the same properties of freedom. In this case, the concept of the body of Christ is precisely covered by the Christian brotherhood and will, in turn, capture a new and derivative moment of grace-filled salvation. And again it is obvious that it is fundamental - it arises in us not through being included in the kingdom of Christ in the church, because in the world it itself actually exists after the individual sanctification of many.” Wed. also protopr. I. L. Yanysheva “Orthodox Christian teaching on morality,” 2nd ed., p. XI: “The essence of normal moral life, its relative perfection and bliss on earth - in any case, not in external manifestations, but in the internal spiritual structure that animates them. The dignity of external forms, no matter what they concern, whether church life or forms of individual life, social and state structure, is always and everywhere conditional.” Впрочем, последние строки требуют некоторого ограничения. - Archbishop. Anthony of Volynsky seems to be saying something different when (in his article “The Moral Idea of the Dogma of the Church”) he defines the Church as “the unity of the nature of believing humanity restored by Christ,” however, in his opinion, the introduction of a new nature (grace) into the soul of every Christian does not occur as directly as the development of the human personality of innocent Adam on the basis of human nature, but primarily through the conscious assimilation of the life of Christ or Christianity” (IV, 175 –176). Foundations of Christianity, vol. III, 309–315; vol. IV, 40–41. From here it is easy to see into which groups (according to the time spent in the academic course) theological sciences should be united: Holy Scripture (with auxiliary ones), patristics and church history - the first group, to which philosophical sciences should also be included; dogmatics and moral theology are the central group; homiletics, pastoral theology, liturgics, canon law - the last group. I note by the way that all these subjects should be taken in the first three years, and the fourth year should include those secular subjects that have no immediate significance for theological science and are taught at the academy solely for the purpose of training teachers for the seminary. We have a kind of bureaucratic view on this matter: the more important the subject, the more it should be taught unconditionally later and by persons of the highest rank. So in seminaries, the Holy Scripture of the New Testament is taught in the 5th grade by the inspector and in the 6th grade by the rector - as a result, firstly, seminary education does not have a New Testament-biblical character and, secondly, the Holy Scripture is taught very badly. And in academies, students, when scientific tastes are determined and the choice of candidate’s work is predetermined, are saturated with all sorts of literature and history, and basic theological subjects are assigned to the fourth year, when students are interested in their already chosen specialties. Fundamentals of Christianity, II, 325 ff. Fundamentals of Christianity, IV, 361. Martensen “Christian teaching on morality”, vol. II, (translated by Lopukhin), p. 748: “the kingdom of God embraces all forms of the human kingdom.” A different matter is mystical-individualistic ethics, the basis of morality is personal and religious, which cannot be discussed in “scientific” ethics. This is, of course, a question that requires lengthy research. For some attempts to solve it, see my articles: “The Moral Tragedy of Socialism” (Christian, Jan. 1907), “Sociological Morality” (God. Herald, Oct. 1908), about Feuerbach and Comte (ib. 1909 nos. 1–3). Wed. “The Tragedy of the Religion of Common Sense (Christian's Rest, January 1909). It is especially interesting to trace the evolution of Guyot's philosophical views: see his Irreligiousness of the Future, - Art from the Point of View of Sociology, - Education and Heredity (sociological research). Other works here include G. Ratzenhofer Positive Ethik, Durkheim La division du travail social, Les regles de la methode sociologique, Levy-Bruhl Morale et la science des moeurs, Bergemann Ethik as Kulturphilosophie, A. Dumont La morale basee sur la demographie, Wundt, Paulsen, Menger, Kautsky, etc. This article is a reissue, in a revised form, of the brochure “Critical Essays on Homiletics.” All changes made during this reissue, including a significant reduction, are explained by the integration of this essay into the system of the Fundamentals of Christianity, which required the coordination of these applied considerations with the main theses of the theological system and the highlighting of everything that turned out to be unnecessary repetition. In addition, in accordance with the general nature of the entire publication, in this last essay the sermon is considered exclusively from the religious and theological side. All references to homiletical literature have been discarded due to the fact that this essay is not genetically connected in the slightest degree with homiletical works, which in general are completely insignificant and not worthy of even critical review. M. Filaret (Exposition of the differences between the Eastern and Old Churches §§ 1. 8): “the single, pure and sufficient source of the teaching of faith is the revealed word of God,” and “to admit the unwritten word of God means exposing oneself to the danger of destroying the commandment of God for human tradition.” Arch. (contemplative) thoughts of revelation about God.” We express only the thought of Arch. Philaret (Pr. D. B-ie, 1, p. 10): “it’s another thing to reject dogma, it’s another thing to not know it,” etc. In the extreme case, this is a matter of free choice: “we still read in the Epistle of Patr. pr.-caf. c. (chapter 2), “it makes no difference whether one learns from the Scriptures or from the universal church.” We are talking only about preaching choices. In this last, homiletical, respect, the instructions of the book “On the Offices of Parish Elders” are especially valuable for us, which teaches that “all members of the faith are contained in the word of God, (therefore) we must test the word of God, draw divine truths from it and teach the people - from the writings of St. father (only) to explain what part of the faith and to confirm the teaching proposed to the people, a decent passage can, and sometimes should, be used in one’s conversation. But like St. Father of Scripture, so church traditions should not be confused or compared with the word of God” (18-22). Archbishop Ambrose X. "Sermons", 1885, pp. 212–213. You might be interested in: