Приложения. Ответы рецензентам

Μὴ δῶ τε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν , μηδὲ βάλητε τοὐς μαργαρίτας ὑ μῶν ἔμπροσϑεν τῶν χοίρων , μήποτε σ τραφέντες ῥ ήξωσιν ὑ μᾶς I. True shepherding and living preaching. (Response to Priest Babura and Priest Zelenev) (From the magazine Wanderer 1902. vol. 2, part 2) Our article “Preaching as a Living Word” (Stranger, January 1902) 48 had as its only goal a fundamental solution to the question of preaching as a living word, about the productive power of the living preaching word. It is known that in our churches we hear almost no live preaching, and very little preaching is done from notebooks. This hunger for hearing the word of God has many reasons, but in any case, among them we must also consider a theoretical reason - a false view of the sermon as a work of art. Taking this point of view, the late Archbishop Ambrose considered many talents to be the productive power of the living preaching word. Such a view, of course, cannot contribute to the spread of living preaching among us, leaving it only to a few talented shepherds. In contrast to this, we develop a fundamentally different view, namely, that preaching is not an art, that it is a simple teaching word, that therefore the possibility of a living preaching word should least of all be made dependent on special talents, that it is accessible to every called and spiritually experienced pastor. In the same magazine “Strannik” (March), one shepherd, in the article “On the question of preaching as a living word,” expressed disagreement with our article. His disagreement is based, firstly, on the strange misunderstanding that we invite all “uncalled, inept or arrogant” improvisers to speak preaching improvisations. Secondly, the author of the article bases his disagreement with us on the actual difficulty for pastors to speak extemporaneously. Let us dwell on these reviewer objections. The reviewer did not understand our article in the way we would like it to be understood 49 . Nobody gave us the power to make practical instructions to the clergy, and our article should not be considered from the side of practical consequences. Moreover, it is premature for us to fear that not only talented but also incompetent shepherds will suddenly become improvisers among us, just as it is premature for us to fear that university education will become too widespread among our peasants. The purpose of our article was nothing more than a fundamental solution to the question of the essence of living preaching. We do not forget the difficulties of living preaching for our pastors; on the contrary, we make it the starting point of our reasoning. This is exactly the question we pose: why does the difficulty of living preaching for our pastors depend - on the essence of the sermon, or on other reasons? If the difficulty of a living sermon depends on the essence of the sermon, then this can only mean that a sermon is a work of art, and therefore a living sermon requires talent. We answer this question in the negative. Let us note by the way that the reviewer agrees to stand by our point of view on the sermon, not as a work of art, but as a simple teaching speech, and meanwhile with pleasure he repeats the words of others that during improvisation, “the listeners not only follow the thoughts of the preacher, but they rejoice at every happy turn.” But this is an artistic view of preaching. If a sermon is a simple speech, then is it possible to talk about happy turns? No, we need to be imbued with a view of the sermon as a simple teaching speech, and then we will look completely differently at the skill and ineptitude of the preacher, then we will leave happy turns to secular eloquence, then it will be easy for us to grasp the idea that in the essence of the sermon there is no basis for the difficulty of the living preaching word. In any case, the reviewer did not make a single objection to this idea. If so, if we are interested precisely in a fundamental solution to the question of the difficulty of living preaching, then on the question of this difficulty we must make some restrictions. There is a natural inability to speak, starting with the inability to articulate sound and ending with the inability to speak smoothly, clearly, without antics (if the reviewer wants to talk about antics). We must consider such an inability to be an exception (relative to each educational qualification) and not take it into account, so as not to confuse matters. Let us count 10, 20, 30 percent for this inability and still there will remain 70 percent capable of a simple living word. We are talking about these 70 (if you like 60, 50, 40, 80, 20, 10) percent. This natural inability, as an example of which the reviewer cites some pathetic master of theology - a teacher who could not say two words coherently, should not be involved in a speech about the difficulty of improvisation for all our pastors, so as not to hide from ourselves the real reasons for this difficulty. After all, the reviewer himself writes that you speak freely and smoothly in society about issues of religion and morality, but delivering a sermon is a different matter. How can he not see that it is precisely at this point that we approach the question of improvisation? Why is it that pastors, 70% or 20% - it doesn’t matter, who speak freely in society about issues of religion and morality, that is, who are not devoid of either the natural gift of speech or theological education, find it extremely difficult to speak church improvisations? That's the whole question. And if we are able to show that the reason for this difficulty is not in the essence of the sermon, then we will not only eliminate the false view of the sermon (as a work of art, as a composition), which hinders the work of living preaching, but will also clear the way to finding the practical reasons for our lack of living preaching. In the words of our reviewer, “Thank God, it is now scarcely possible to meet a pastor who is not conscious of the duty of preaching.” What a bright view of reality! Is that really true? Having calmed himself with this phrase, the reviewer normalizes speaking in churches from notebooks, from collections of printed teachings, and limits worries to “happy phrases.” But along with these exclusive concerns about happy turns, with this resting on collections, a gloomy reality appears to us. What are our men like in religious terms? Here is a true depiction of a peasant family. “The old man did not believe in God because he almost never thought about him; he recognized the supernatural, but thought that this could concern only women, and when they talked in his presence about religion or the miraculous and asked him some question, he said reluctantly, scratching himself: who knows. Grandma believed, but somehow dimly; She did not remember the prayers and usually in the evenings, when she went to bed, she stood before the images and whispered: Our Lady of Kazan, Our Lady of Smolensk, Our Lady of Three Hands... Marya and Thekla were baptized, fasted every year, but did not understand anything. The children were not taught to pray, no one told them about God, they were not taught any rules, and they were only forbidden to eat fasting foods. In other families it was almost the same: few believed, few understood.” And there is no exaggeration here. Not all families are like this, not all villages are like this, but the vast majority are like this. But what can we say about the moral life of our village, where a complete lack of concepts about family morality and other people’s property and fist law prevails? What can we say about our intelligentsia, which is primarily characterized by unbelief, about our factories and cities? What are our shepherds doing? 99% are silent. For the vast majority of them, live preaching is completely inaccessible, and this is very typical of our church life. This is not a matter of a master of theology who cannot say two words coherently, nor of pathetic exceptions, but of the whole system of election and ministry of our shepherds. The trouble is not that we come across a natural inability to speak in a living way, but the trouble is that our only guarantee of preparedness for pastoral work is a seminary certificate, that the vast majority of our seminarians become priests only for the sake of a piece of bread, that all our pastors are strangers in their parishes, living exclusively on their pastoral income, that they are not prepared for living preaching even by scholastic seminary exercises. written compilation of sermons, neither by chance (i.e. without calling) of his election to the priesthood, nor by his life. This is the real reason for our lack of live preaching. If the body is sick, then the disease manifests itself in some way. The abnormality in the system of preparing and electing our pastors cannot be detected either in the liturgical or in the administrative side of pastoral affairs, but is only revealed in the absence of living preaching. And we do not need to lull our social conscience by saying “peace, peace,” when there is no peace, but to discover our ulcers in order to heal them. This is what we wrote in response to our reviewer, but did not send a response to the editor. In this case, we reasoned like this: who put us in charge of exposing the shortcomings of our church life, if the shepherds themselves recognize it as normal? But a month passed; The April book “The Wanderer” was published and here we see another review of our article, priest. In Zeleneva. And strangely enough, this reviewer raises the following objection to our article: “Are many shepherds shepherding by calling? Is it not more often, in keeping with this age, that when pastors enter a parish, they have in mind a faithful piece of bread, have little love for their flock, and gravitate more toward material goods and the comforts of life? The deep knowledge of the teachings of faith, achieved through self-education, is also very often not noticed.” Exactly, exactly, Father, that’s right! This is what we wanted to conclude from our article - from the requirement from every true shepherd of living preaching. But the reviewer does not say “thank you” to us for the path to such a conclusion. He, however, noticed (unlike the first reviewer) that according to our article, “a living preaching word is not an unprepared sermon and delivered with carelessness,” that we imagine “an improvising preacher for whom a Christian mood and way of thinking is customary, for whom the words of the Gospel are constantly in his thoughts and in his tongue, who delves into himself and into the teaching and is constantly engaged in this,” but only thinks that we spoke in contradiction to ourselves, and that it is consistent for us to call upon all inept preachers. In this the second reviewer agrees with the first. A bad technique of critics is to attribute deliberately absurd thoughts to the author, eliminating the opposite actual thoughts with an unfounded indication of self-contradiction. Μη γενοιτο. One more word. What gives the reason for the first reviewer to address us with good-natured instructions about the disastrous nature of “pastoral rudeness” for the flock? On what basis does the second reviewer claim that we invite the preacher to speak “totally ineptly, so that even the peasants will laugh at him?” The fact is that in our article we expressed the idea of ​​​​the inappropriateness of hesitation and indecision in a preacher this way: a true preacher speaks “simply, perhaps rudely, but confidently.” And that’s the whole reason, the whole reason. But if the reviewing pastors found a reason for themselves to speak against preaching ineptitude and rudeness, then let them say what is the difference between this “simplicity, perhaps rudeness” and the ignorance in the word that the apostle attributes to himself. Or can the gospel’s “brood of vipers, mad and blind, hypocrites” serve as examples of elegant language and delicate manners? Enough, enough with “happy turns of phrase”, sugary rhetoric, hackneyed scholastic phrases (commonplaces), more truth, real, genuine truth, from which the hypocrisy guarding terrible immorality, the lie hiding behind big words, moral lull hiding behind the donation of bells and candles, external splendor with internal abomination would not be hidden... II. On the living question of the living word - (Moral photophobia of the priest Babura) Last year, I came out in print as a supporter of the idea that true preaching can only be a living word, that preaching is not an art, that it is a simple teaching word, that therefore the possibility of a living preaching word should least of all be made dependent on special talents, that it is accessible to every called and spiritually experienced pastor, that speaking in church from notebooks is an abnormal phenomenon (Stran. January 1902). The priest spoke out as my opponent. Babur “Improvising,” he wrote, “or speaking from the church pulpit orally, not from a notebook, is a very difficult matter... Not only every shepherd, even a poorly educated one, is capable of having a private conversation with the people, even with a tinge of edification, instruction, but also every well-meaning and right-thinking simple person: and not every shepherd, even an educated one, is capable of a living preaching word... For Those who do not have the talent for this are left with the method of preaching according to sermons they have prepared in advance. And since the pastor does not always have enough time to compose a practical sermon, collections of printed teachings are at his service” (ib. March). Priest Babura was admonished by me (ib. October). Be that as it may, whether under the influence of my articles, or under some other influence, Babur in Pr. r. sl. (November) already writes this: “The preacher’s speech should be popular, that is, the preacher should always speak (our italics) in a living language, conversational, simple-hearted speech. A sermon should not be an expression of the art of practicing words, no - preaching should be a matter of life... “We do not stand for book sermons, which are written dryly, heavily and darkly by a rhetorician. We need conversations." Reading these lines of Babura, I was quite happy for him and saw in them the decisive end of our dispute 50. But to my surprise in Stran. 1903 Jan. Babura speaks against me for the second time... If the dispute is fundamentally over, then what else is there to talk about?.. And for Babura there is still an opportunity to throw a few lumps of dirt at me. He does this through the most unscrupulous fraud. This circumstance forces me to energetically expose my literary opponent and thereby take away his desire for such techniques. Babura exposes me as a heartless detractor and a strict judge of spiritual education and the church, and sees himself in the role of the blasphemed and persecuted. Falling into the tone of Jeremiah's lament, he ends his article this way: “We do not refuse good advice and accept everything appropriate with gratitude. And we have heard enough undeserved insults from someone else’s camp... If you want to help the trouble in any way, descend to the state of affairs, put yourself in the position of a shepherd and weigh everything impartially. More cordiality, compassion, love; and groundless reproaches will go in one ear and out the other, although, however, they will leave a residue of bitterness in the heart. We adhere to the rule: “those who are blasphemers are comforted; persecuted - we endure." Babura wants to affect the reader's feelings. It is a well-known fact that the sympathy of the public is always on the side of the persecuted... But allow the detractor to defend himself. At the same time, I appeal not to the feelings of the readers, but to reason and logic. First of all, let us note how our critic contradicts himself. On the issue of seminaries he writes: Why these discussions about theological school? According to Babura, I “reproached the theological school for not having standards in the system of preparing and electing our shepherds” (p. 60). I have never spoken or written such wild, utter absurdity anywhere. Firstly; I did not say that our spiritual school elects pastors. Secondly, I did not say that the theological school has standards in the system of training pastors. I wrote this: “...the trouble is that our only guarantee of preparedness for pastoral work is a seminary certificate.” Compare these words with what is given above in the second column from Babura’s article... Is a comment really required?! The above excerpt continues: “(the trouble is) ... that the vast majority of our seminarians go to the priesthood only for a piece of bread, that all our pastors are strangers in their parishes, living exclusively on pastoral income, that they are not prepared for live preaching either by scholastic seminary exercises in writing sermons, or by chance (i.e. without calling) his election to the priesthood, nor his life.” This is what I call “an abnormality in the system of preparing and electing our shepherds.” I call the existing system of preparing and electing shepherds abnormal, that is, the fact that our shepherds are exclusively prepared by the school. I say almost nothing about the nature of the school itself - I concern only the teaching of homiletics, and then not all teaching, but only the “scholastic seminary exercise in the written composition of sermons. On the contrary, my critic, while agreeing (in the second column) with me that one school does not do (i.e. does not prepare) a pastor, does not object to me on the issue of seminary exercises in the written compilation of sermons, but for this he at length defends seminary education in general - “The current theological school - from the point of view of the principle and purpose of the education given to its students, with the current organization of educational affairs, with an extensive curriculum and large programs for each science, with undoubted success is able to meet the educational and educational needs of our time.” Babura also says that our “seminaries prepare workers not only in the special field of serving the pastoral cause, but also in other areas, that they have not extinguished their ideal artistic aspirations, that the merits of seminarians in all fields are great”... Why are we talking about this? If our seminaries stood at the level of academies and universities, if every year five ministers and two dozen Pushkins came out of them, then it would still remain undoubted that one school cannot prepare a shepherd and that the school exercise in writing sermons is scholastic in essence. Why this deviation from the direct subject of the dispute, why these reasonings “about attacks on seminary theological science”?... Moreover, Babura even puts it this way: “It is enough to throw slander at those who, by the nature of the acquired education, are closest to the ideal... after this, how can a word of reproach escape from the lips against those who do not eat their bread in vain”?... What to answer to this? I will answer this way: I had no talk about character or seminary education, and therefore the slanderer turns out to be the one who first spoke about slander. In unusually harsh terms, Babura reproaches me as a heartless blasphemer of our shepherds. “Why,” he writes, “make such a pessimistic conclusion: “and all our pastors are strangers in their parishes”? Is that so? Is the author, i.e., really confident and has a moral basis, albeit indirectly, to assert that among the clergy there are no good and honest workers, there are no people who would be aware of the height of their calling and would serve their work conscientiously? (page 62). You see, he even appeals to my conscience, he conjures me. And in fact, have I really written such terrible words that there are no good and honest workers among our clergy? there isn't one?.. It goes without saying that I did not write such words and Babura attributes them to me unfairly. I wrote literally like this: “... that the vast majority of our seminarians become priests only for a piece of bread, that all our pastors are strangers in their parishes, living exclusively on their pastoral income.” Why do I say on two adjacent lines – now the vast majority, now all? That the vast majority of seminarians accept the priesthood only for the sake of a piece of bread - this casts a strong shadow on the moral motives for electing the priesthood, and that all our pastors are strangers in their parishes, living exclusively at the expense of pastoral income - this refers only to the method of electing and maintaining our clergy. And now I resolutely repeat that all our pastors are strangers in their parishes, living exclusively on their pastoral income - and I am quite sure that one cannot argue against this. And for my opponent, instead of appealing to my moral conscience, it would be much more expedient to give at least one example of the election of a member of the same parish to the priesthood of a parish, so that the elected one continues to be supported by his craft or occupation. But it is impossible to give such an example, because all our priests are sent to the parish and live exclusively on pastoral income. I completely agree that “it is not the fault of the seminarian going to the priesthood that he, like others, needs material support for himself and his family, wants to eat, and that the existing way of obtaining food for himself is not entirely convenient.” But inevitability or necessity does not make inconvenience convenience. It is not the seminarian’s fault that the existing method of electing priests and maintaining them is not conducive to the development of living preaching, that is certain. The proof is presented to us by our adversary himself, who writes (on page 64) “doesn’t your lack of rights against your own will make you not the owner, not the father of the parish, not the master in your sphere of activity, but something impersonal, oppressed, with your hands and feet tied, with your mouth covered? And sometimes how much work, grief, internal and even external struggle will have to be endured until you enter the hearts and consciousness of those around you as a shepherd of souls, as a welcome guest, as a respected person, and not as a mercenary and servant, obliged only to do this or that to order for a penny or two.” Absolutely right. So, this is what my “all shepherds” refers to – the method of their election and maintenance. And I have an expression regarding the moral motives for entering the priesthood: “the vast majority of our seminarians enter the priesthood only for a piece of bread.” Therefore, isn’t it clear that my opponent should pose his question (“are there really no good and honest workers among the clergy?”) not against my “all are shepherds,” but against mine: “the vast majority,” and in this case his question loses all meaning. Claiming that all our priests are sent to the parish and that the vast majority of seminarians go to the parish only for a piece of bread, I do not deny that among the clergy there are honest and good workers. I have quantitative definitions of “all” and “vast majority” - each one stands in its place, and shuffling them gives a distortion in both cases. This is the kind of shuffling my opponent does. This is not all and not even the most important thing. Babura exposes me as a detractor of our church, going against my conscience. “Isn’t our judge very strict? - said to me - However, he (that is, I) makes a reservation, warning: who put us in charge of exposing the shortcomings of our church life? (page 65) In this case, Babur is silent about one circumstance of the greatest importance - and only this unscrupulous silence gives him the opportunity to talk about my blasphemy and persecution. My article “Sermon as a Living Word” was objected to by priests. Babur and St. Zelenev. I answered them both together. In my answer, by the way, I wrote the following. “This is what we wrote in response to our reviewer (i.e. Babur), but we did not send a response to the editor. In this case, we reasoned like this: who put us in charge of exposing the shortcomings of our church life, if the shepherds themselves recognize it as normal? But a month passed; The April book of the Wanderer was published, and here we see another review of our article, priest. V. Zeleneva. And strangely enough, this reviewer raises the following objection to our article: “Are many shepherds shepherding by calling? Is it not more often, in keeping with this age, that when pastors enter a parish, they have in mind a faithful piece of bread, have little love for their flock, and gravitate more toward material goods and the comforts of life? The deep knowledge of the teachings of faith, achieved through self-education, is also very often not noticed." Now Babura, presenting me as a detractor and a judge of church life, is silent about the content of the priest’s article. Zelenev, is silent about the fact that my judgments about church life are based on the confession of priest Zelenev, that according to my clear words, I would not have made my response to Babur if it had not been for this confession of priest Zelenev. My opponent is silent about all this: what, reader, should we call this technique?! Not only that. He takes my words out of context: “who appointed us to expose the shortcomings of our church life,” keeping silent about the following condition: “if,” etc. Imagine, reader. You wrote somewhere: “if there is no resurrection of the dead, then there is no God.” Your opponent, keeping silent about the “if,” objects to you: “you write: there is no God. You are an atheist." But these are arrogant jokes! In the excitement of polemics, my opponent completely forgets what I wrote, and does not at all understand what serves as an objection to me and what confirms me. What kind of nightmare is this? What is this Babylonian confusion of languages? You say “to the right.” They object with foam at the mouth: “no, not to the left, but to the right”! “Come, let us go down and confound their tongues, lest they each hear the voice of his neighbor.” Babura talks to me about preaching as a living word. What does my Philosophy of Gospel history have to do with this, apparently? But he also made a very witty comment about this essay of mine: “no philosophy of abstract speculation, even the philosophy of gospel history (how playful!) is able to create a shepherd out of a man,” while making a sarcastic, destructive footnote: “let’s put it in someone else’s words: “The Gospel is in no way history.” Prov. r. sl. No. 17, p. 500 (Wanderer, 1903 Jan. p. 60). On page 500 No. 17 Pr. r sl. nothing is said about my Philosophy of Gospel history... In § 1 of my aforementioned essay one can read the following: “the gospels, so important as a source for the history of the life of Jesus Christ, do not represent history in the strictly scientific sense of the word, nor material for it; they cannot be considered either as scientific history or in the sense of chronicle narratives. The Gospels have an ideological and practical purpose"… What is the meaning of Babura's interlinear objection? In conclusion, I will say why my opponent is so afraid to take my words in their literal and literal sense, why does he not dare to face reality, why does he have such photophobia? Does he really find it possible to defend his case only with the help of unscrupulous frame-ups, distortions and silences? I address him with his own advice, mutatis mutandis: “more” literary honesty. III. On the issue of translation of John 8:44 and John 10:12–13 (Response to Prof. Bogdashevsky) (Bogosl. Vest. 1904, May) In the Proceedings of the KDA (1904, March) prof. DI. Bogdashevsky criticizes my explanation of John 10:12–13 (B.V. 1903. Book IX) and John 8:44 (Book X) 51. The critic finds my explanation of both passages “unnatural” (pp. 447 and 449). It would be very interesting to know from Prof. Bogdashevsky, what he means by the “naturalness” of exegesis, since learned commentators are not in the habit of calling this or that exegesis by such a term. Concerning John 10:12, 13 prof. Bogdashevsky first of all discusses the meaning of the verb σκορπιζειν. He writes: “In his understanding, Mr. Tareev affirms that σκορπιζειν, as its use in other places of the New Testament shows, does not mean to disperse, but means precisely to squander.” And so Bogdashevsky teaches me that “if accusat stands for σκορπιζειν, then it precisely means: “to scatter,” “to disperse,” referring to Ps.17 (18):15, 2 Samuel 22:15 and John 16:32. The greatest difficulty in literary polemics arises from the inaccuracy of critics and referents in conveying the author's thoughts. Usually the critic first distorts the author's thought to the point of absurdity and then, like Don Quixote, fights with the mill, with the distorted thought, imagining that he is winning victories. The technique is the most common, but unsightly. Apparently, “I claim that σκορπιζειν has no meaning to disperse,” and Bogdashevsky points out examples of such meaning. Short and clear! But... never and nowhere did I claim that the verb σκορπιζειν does not mean “to disperse.” I will repeat literally what I wrote: “The Russian translator and publishers of the Greek text are doing the wrong thing. In addition to the fact that they are forced to either rearrange the word “sheep” or discard it, they are also exposed by an incorrect understanding of the word σκορπιζει. This verb refers to the subject “wolf”, they understand it in the sense of “disperses”. But this is not true. (That is, it is incorrect to attribute σκορπιζει to the subject wolf in John 8:44 and translate it with the word “scatters”). In Matthew 12:30 and Luke. 11:28 we read: He who does not gather with Me, scatters, i.e. here (!) σκορπίζει does not mean plunders or scatters, but squanders or squanders - the verb refers not to a robber or thief, but to a guardian or manager. Also Luke 16:1: a certain man was rich and had a steward, against whom it was reported to him that he was wasting his property διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ. 2 Corinthians 9:9: ἐσκόρπισεν ἔδωκεν τοῖς πένησιν he gave to the poor. And in John 10:12 σκορπίζει means “scatters,” “disperses,” and not “scatters,” and refers to the subject shepherd-mercenary.” This is what I wrote. I did not talk about the general meaning of the verb, but only about its use in the New Testament. Scientifically, you only say what you have reason to believe and what is relevant to your goal. A scientist will never attach importance to the particular to the general. I’m not talking about the general meaning of σκορπίζειν (which is easy to find out from the dictionary and what is supposed to be generally known), I’m talking about the use of this word in N.Z. There is a big difference between the question about the general meaning of a word and the question about its use in one or another literary monument. This is the basis for the distinction between Classical Greek, LXX Greek, and New Testament Greek. According to Bogdashevsky, I determined the meaning of the verb σκορπίζειν by its use in N.Z. But I didn't do that. Not for use in N.Z. I determined the meaning of the verb, namely, I talked about its use in N.T. In any case, we will rely on the letter. I did not say that σκορπίζειν does not have the meaning to disperse: I said that the verb does not have this meaning in John 10:12, just as it does not have in Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23 and Luke 16:1. The expression “accelerates” for our parable is very specific. If σκορπίζειν means “disperses,” then of course it is the wolf who scatters the sheep, and not the shepherd-mercenary. For me it was important to dispel this prejudice and show that σκορπίζειν not only does not exclusively mean “accelerates,” but is used in N.Z. precisely in the sense of “to squander, to waste.” The proper meaning of σκορπίζειν “to scatter, scatter” (according to the dictionary) for our text and for similar ones is very vague (as is the meaning of those Hebrew verbs that the LXX conveys through σκορπίζειν in Ps. 17 (18):15 (2 Sam. 22:15) and Ps.111 (112):9 (2 Cor.9:9) and through ἐκσπασατε in Zech.8:7 (διασκορπισϑησονται Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27). the owner (prodigal son) wastes his property (διεσκόρπισεν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ Luke 15:13 cf. Ps. 121 (122): 9 – 2 Cor 9:3), or the steward (unfaithful) wastes his property owner (διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ Luke 16:1), or a shepherd-mercenary loses the sheep (σκορπίζει τα προβατα), or the wolf scatters the sheep (id.), or the Lord scatters the arrogant and the enemies of the righteous (διεσκορπισεν ὑπερηφανους Luke 1:51, ἐσκορπισεν αὐτους Ps.17 (18):15, (2 Sam. 22:15). By what signs can one recognize a particular shade in the use of a verb - what do these shades depend on? Prof. Bogdashevsky writes: “if accusat stands for σκορπίζειν, then it precisely means: “to scatter, to disperse” - and refers to the only Old Testament example Ps.17 (18):15 = 2 Kings 22:15! Here is a striking example of hasty generalizations! In this example, indeed, the Lord disperses the enemies, also Luke 1:51 (the character of the place is Old Testament): but the prodigal son wastes his property (διεσκόρπισεν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ), the steward wastes the owner’s property (διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ)”! The particular nuance in the use of a verb depends not on this, but on the context, on what subject it is combined with. In our text, it is important to determine which is the subject of σκορπιζει τα προβατα: shepherd or wolf. To determine this, we turn to the use of the verb in other New Testament places, and find a more or less stable combination with the subjects: steward, owner. This gives us a reasonable opportunity in our text to relate the verb to the subject: a shepherd, and not a wolf (That is why I did not say a single word about the definite meaning of the verb - without a specific combination of it with one or another subject of action. That is why, further, in John 16:32 the verb is used in a general, indefinite meaning). I agree that only the possibility can be substantiated in this way. But for me this is not the only and not separate basis. For me it is adjacent to another - to the fact that the use will first be indicated. place., and then noun., “ἁρπαζει αὐτα καὶ σκορπιζει τα προβατα - will plunder them and scatter the sheep” force the verbs to be assigned to different subjects. This system of grounds creates the necessary conclusion. True, my previous foundation prof. Bogdashevsky tries to eliminate this with the explanation that the wolf “will plunder individual sheep, but will scatter the whole flock.” But this objection of Bogdashevsky has no force. Firstly. That a wolf, rushing into a herd, grabs one sheep (as in Bogdashevsky), and scares away the rest, is a common occurrence. But the parable is not talking about the setting of this phenomenon, nor about the fact that the abduction of a sheep by a wolf is accompanied by the scattering of the flock. The parable does not speak about the case of a wolf attack, but gives a diagram of the relationship to the flock - the shepherd, the hired man and the wolf: the shepherd (always) lays down his life for the sheep, the hired man runs away as soon as he sees the wolf coming, leaves the sheep, and the wolf plunders them (αὐτα). If the question is about the picture of the phenomenon, it is one thing; If it's about the scheme, that's a different matter. Secondly, this is the most important thing. Even if we admit the possibility of a pictorial image, this still does not eliminate the strangeness of using the first indication. place., and then a noun. Even if a wolf tears some sheep to pieces and scares away others, there is still no reason to say: he tears them to pieces and scares away the sheep, it would still be necessary to say: he tears apart the sheep and scares them away. Bogdashevsky further speaks about the strengthening of thought. But is it really more powerful to “disperse” than to “plunder”?! Finally, that there is a difficulty in reading the text, this is shown by translators by rearranging “sheep” and “them” and by newer publishers by discarding “τα προβατα”. Against my translation of John 8:44, Bogdashevsky, firstly, objects: “this interpretation is, without a doubt, very strange, for in Scripture nowhere is there any talk about the father of the devil” (i.e., except, as I believe, this place) Ergo, both interpretations in this regard are the same. How did Mr. Bogdashevsky not see through the complete impotence of his argumentation? Is it really possible to base “undoubted” truths on such illusory arguments? Secondly, Mr. Bogdashevsky objects: “The placement of a member in front of πατηρ cannot be given the meaning that Prof. acquires. Tareev, for it is known that in the New Testament very often a noun with a member has the meaning of a predicate.” Examples follow. It is always pleasant to listen to a lesson from a professor, but it is unpleasant if the lesson strikes you with its elementaryness and aimlessness. Was there for prof. Bogdashevsky has a reason to give me this elementary lesson if I literally wrote like this: “in Greek ψευστης is used without a member, and ὁ πατηρ with a member, and therefore these two words cannot be identical parts of one sentence, namely two predicates.” Obviously, Mr. Critic does not delve into my argumentation and only therefore falls into the temptation to smugly make an elementary instruction. He would have to show that of two predicates of one sentence (used in the same way - in a general or specific sense) one can be without a member, and the other with a member. However, further Mr. Bogdashevsky writes: “that with ψευστης there is no member, but with πατὴρ there is a member, this is explained by the same reason why in the previous case, in one case there is a member at ἀλήϑεια, and in the other there is no: and in truth (ἐν τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ) is not worth it, because there is no truth (οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήϑεια) in it.” Apparently conclusive? directly to the question? Actually completely irrelevant to the question. Instead of a direct examination of the issue, there is intricacy, as if the critic either frankly does not understand or is deliberately confusing. After all, if I were to say that every noun in the gospel is used either throughout with a member or throughout without a member, then his example would have meaning. But I’m talking about a member with identical parts of one sentence, and he points me to one word in two sentences. After all, two sentences, even if they stand next to each other, do not constitute one sentence! That in these two sentences ἀλήϑεια is used differently, it is clear why: in one there is of course a particular, specific case of the Fall (ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ ἔστηκεν), although continuing in its consequences, and in the second - the general character of the person (οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ). Meanwhile, it would be completely arbitrary to continue to distinguish ψεύστης and ὁ πατὴρ as general and particular. It is interesting to ask: in the name of what prof. Bogdashevsky rejects my proposed “very peculiar explanation” of John 10:12–13 and John 8:44, caused by the difficulties that are connected with the accepted reading and usual interpretation? In the name of “your” explanation? No, in the name of what is accepted and usual, for the sake of protecting the honor of seminary textbooks. What about the difficulties? For Mr. Bogdashevsky they do not exist: in what is accepted and usual for him, everything is “immediately obvious”, “naturally”, “without a doubt”. This repose is enviable, but this “immediate evidence” is suspicious. Such reliance on “immediate evidence” on what is accepted and usual has never led to an understanding of the truth, but often puts “complacent” scientists in a hopeless position. This is how it happened now with prof. Bogdashevsky. The fact is that I found an indestructible support for my explanation of John 8:44 in ancient Slavic translations. In the “Ostromir” Gospel of 1056–1057, stored in the Imperial. publ. library", l. 33 (I had at hand a photolithographic edition of St. Petersburg, 1883) reads: “like a lie and its father.” The same reading in the parchments belonging to the MDA library. manuscripts - XI century (No. 1 Volok.) l. 19th rev., XIV century. (No. 138) l 166 rev. (Here “his” was changed by someone to “her”, so the correction in the color of the ink is noticeable, and it is easy to notice the protruding previous style). The New Testament of G and I. Chr. has the same reading. work of Saint Alexy, M. M." (I had a phototype published by Leonty M. M. 1892), “Miroslavljevo Jevanjele (XII century - ed. by the Serbian correspondent Alexander. Beogr. 1897) In the “Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” (department of I.M. 1855) it is said (on p. 236) that parchment manuscripts of the gospels Nos. 20–31, from the 12th to the 15th centuries, all, following the text of Ostromirov’s list, convey John 8:44, “for his father is a lie,” and one of the lists, No. 30 (p. 260) even says, “for his Lord is a lie,” while the paper. lists of gospels from the 15th century. Nos. 32–44 have a reading consistent with what is currently accepted (p. 284). However, the reading “for there is a lie and its father” is preserved in hand. Bibles dating back to the 15th and even 16th centuries (p. 141). Also according to the “Description of manuscripts of the Library of Historical and Philological. Institute book Bezborodko in Nizhyn, comp. edited by M. Speransky" (M. 1900) it is indicated on pp. 5 and 11 that the reading "for there is a lie and its father" has two manuscripts. four gospels of the 16th century. Even from printed Slavic gospels, for example “The Gospel Printed in Ugrovlahia in 1512” (p. 232) has the same reading. I do not consider it necessary to make further inquiries, but these are enough to see that the translation of John 8:44 that I propose on critical grounds turns out to be the oldest Slavic translation, which disappeared only in the paper-printed period, probably under the influence of “censorship” of a certain kind of “thinkers.” To understand the full power of the ancient Slavic translation, one should keep in mind that Slav. lie is not a noun. wives gender, but this is an adjective name. husband of the clan: therefore our Slavic text means “that 52 and his father are deceitful.” The hand that corrected the parchment. the manuscript of “his” on “her” belonged to an ignorant head that thought that “lie” was a noun. and. kind. I came across similar proofreading from Prof. Muretova 53. So, our ancient translators well understood the difference (in one sentence, a noun without a member, translating it as a predicate, and a noun with a member, translating it as a subject. Didn't Prof. Bogdashevsky into a “dead end”, arrogantly declaring my explanation of John 8:44 “very strange”, “very peculiar” (in malam partem) and “unnatural” and majestically declaring his “agreement with our Slavic translation and the majority of ancient interpreters”? Rarely does a polemic come to such a definite, compelling, “documentary” result, and Prof. Bogdashevsky still has the opportunity to nobly admit his mistake and not disgrace himself with his persistence. (Bogosl. Vest. 1904, July-Aug.) In defense of the “accepted and usual” explanation of John 8:44 – K. Toropova When I read the explanation of John 8:44 in the October book of the Theological Messenger last year; That’s what Prof. wanted to point out back then. Tareeva to her serious illness in the Greek language. Now that, and after the instructions of Prof. Bogdashevsky’s “unnaturalness” of the explanation he proposed, he continues to defend his translation, accepting the courage to point out the errors he made. He sins completely against the elementary rules of grammar. He is deeply mistaken when he insists in the May book that “in Greek ψεύστης is consumed without a member, and ὁ πατὴρ with a member, and therefore these two words cannot be parts of one sentence, and precisely two predicates.” But according to the laws of the Greek language, of two predicates of one sentence, one can be without a member, and the other with a member; and this always happens if after another noun there is a genitive case of personal pronouns and the pronoun αὐτός (as is the case in John 8:44). In grammars, usually in the same paragraph where we talk about the use of the member, it is also said that the genitive cases of personal pronouns and the pronoun αὐτός, if they are found after the noun, are always used with the member, and the member is placed before the noun and in the Greek language you can never find the expression: πατήρ μου, - αὐτοῦ, but certainly: ὁ πατήρ μου, – αὐτοῦ (vm. πατὴρ ὁ μοῦ, ὁ αὐτοῦ). And in John 8:44 there is a member before πατὴρ not because this word is the subject, but because after it there is the genitive case of the pronoun αὐτός - that without the member this word could not be used, despite the fact that it is a predicate in the sentence. The situation is no better with the union ὅτι. It is absolutely true that the conjunction ὅτι means “that” and “because,” but in the text one can always find an indication in what sense this conjunction is used. After all, in the Russian language, the nature of sentences is determined not by conjunctions, but by more essential features, and often completely different sentences begin with the same conjunctions. Usually, ὅτι in the meaning of “what” introduces declarative sentences: meanwhile, the sentence “a liar and his father” does not have such a character. – If this sentence were additional, then it would be expressed through an infinite phrase, since additional sentences depending on the verbs speak, think (verba dicendi, existimandi) are expressed through assemblies. With. infinite. It is also worthy of attention that in the main sentence the verb λαλεῖ is repeated, which means it is more natural to attribute to it the same addition as in the first case (ψεῦδος), and not a new one, even a whole sentence; the new addition would also be made dependent on the new verb (for example Λέγει). Prof. is interpreting incorrectly. Tareev and the pronoun αὐτοῦ, translating it as a possessive pronoun; whereas here αὐτοῦ is not a possessive pronoun, but the genitive case of a third person personal pronoun. In Greek the expression: στέργει τὸν ἑαυτοῦ (αὐτοῦ) πατέρα is translated: he loves his father; and the expression: στέργει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ is translated he loves his (someone else's and his) father. If John 8:44 had the meaning imposed on it by Prof. Tareev, then there would be not αὐτοῦ, but ἑαυτοῦ or αὑτοῦ (with thick breathing) and, moreover, this ἑαυτοῦ or αὑτοῦ would stand between the member and the noun (and such a rule exists in Greek grammars!), and not after the noun... According to the rules in Greek, by ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ in John 8:44 one must understand anyone’s father, and in this case, the father of lies, but not the person expressing this (in this case, the father of the devil), but prof. Tareev gives it a meaning that it alone cannot have. In addition to all this, the translation proposed by prof. Tareev “when he (the devil) tells this lie, he says on his own behalf that he is a liar and his Father” is not only “unnatural”, but downright senseless. The conjunction and is a connecting conjunction (and sometimes intensifying), and yet in its translation it does not connect anything and does not strengthen anything; the union would have taken place if someone else had been recognized as a liar earlier, but this was not said before. How can you say “he’s wrong” without saying it about someone else? And could the devil ever and anywhere say to himself that he is a liar? Meanwhile, in the “usual” translation, the conjunction is both appropriate and necessary, “because he is a liar and (+) the father of it (i.e., lies, as it is said in the Synodal translation to eliminate false interpretations). What was said about the member in ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ does not correspond to my argumentation. The question is not why with πατὴρ αὐτοῦ there is a member, the point is not in this expression - the point is in the combination ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ, the question is why in this combination with one the noun has a member, but the other does not. We must keep in mind that part of Greek grammar that talks about the use of a member with homogeneous parts of a sentence. The fact is that the Greek language tends to equate homogeneous parts of a sentence in relation to the member. Let's look at what this means using examples. In Matthew 10:37, in Luke 14:26, in Luke 14:26, in ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα κτλ. Why is μητέρα in Mf. without a penis, and Luka with a penis? Answer: because Matt. the preceding πατέρα without a member, and in Lk. antecedent τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ with member. To say τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα or πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα would hurt the ear. Also Romans 1:7 ἀπὸ ϑεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, 2 Thess. 1:1 the same, 1 Tim. 1:1 ϑεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν . Here πατρὸς ήμών and σωτῆρος ἡμῶν are without a member, because the previous one is ϑεοῦ without a member. I agree that the tendency of the Greek language is expressed by a complex law, allowing for many exceptions. But we mean a particular application of the law - to several predicates of one sentence, and we assert that if both ψεύστης and ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ were two predicates of one sentence, then (due to the indicated tendency) either there would be no term for both, or there would be a term for both. In this case, we can refer to the fact that in N.Z. there are examples when, of two predicate nouns, one would have a member, and the other would not have a member, so that our example, with the usual understanding, turns out to be a strange exceptional case, which is noted by the grammarians of the New Testament language. So in the Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms Winer-Lunemann (7th ed.) it is said on page 109: Einmal sind im Pradikat Subst. mit und ohne Art. verbunden Io 8:44 ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ, i.e., the only time of two predicate nouns is one without a member, and the other with a member. But obviously, this strangeness arises only from the fact that they incorrectly take ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ for the predicate - let us take it as the subject, and there will be no strangeness - What for the Greek ear in the combination ψεύστης καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ the first noun irresistibly sounded like a predicate, and the second like a subject. This is easy to confirm. So Ignatius has God. we read: ἀρνῆναι υἱὸν εἶναι ϑεοῦ, ψεύστης ἐστὶν ὡς καὶ ὁ πατῆρ αὐτοῦ ὁ διάβολος. In Epiphanius: ὑμεῖς υἱοί ἐστε τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοὺ διάβολου, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστίν, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ψεύστης ἦν... ὅνι καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ψεύστης ἦν. (See Tischend for other examples.) From these same examples it is clear how the meaning of the conjunction καὶ (ὡς καὶ) was understood. Of course, these examples cannot serve as theological confirmation of our understanding, but this is not the point now - as a philological reference, they provide unshakable grounds for the translation that I propose. What does ὅτι mean with the verb. λαλεῖν, we read about this in the Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch von F. Blass (2nd ed. 1902) on page 237: Die Verba des Sagens, Anzeigens usw. haben in weitestem Umfange ὅτι mit Verb. finit., i.e. in the New Testament language, verbs with the meaning of speak, announce, etc., for the most part have the conjunction ὅτι with the verb. finit Selten λαλεῖν ὅτι Η. 11:18. nie dies Verb, mit Akk u. Inf., i.e. rarely (among verbs with this meaning is used) λαλεῖν ὅτι Heb. 11:18, this verb is never used with ass. et infin. Regarding αὑτοῦ and αὐτοῦ, the grammars of the New Testament language explain their indifferent use. The paragraph about this in the Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms Winer-Lunemann on page 144 ends with these words: Es sollte daher auch in N.T. die Wahl zwischen αὐτοῦ u. αὑτοῦ dem besonnenen Urtheil der Herausgeber überlassen werden, i.e. the style of αὐτοῦ or αὑτοῦ should be left to the consideration of the publishers. Instructive examples can be provided. So Matthew 16:25 trace (and steam): whoever wants to save his soul will lose it, etc. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, etc. Or Luke 14:26 seq. Who does not hate his father... and his very life... and does not bear his cross σταυρὸν ἑαυτοῦ ... Matthew 10:38–39 τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ ... τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ (Text quoted from Tischendorf). So easily Mr. Toropov’s misunderstandings are eliminated by a simple reference to the grammars of the Greek New Testament language, which has its own characteristics. The sad thing is not that Mr. Toropov does not know these features, but the sad thing is that for him all the wisdom is contained in seminar textbooks. V. What some consider a victory. (Response to Prof. Bogdashevsky) (Bog. Vestn. 1904, Sept.) In June (1904 Proceedings of the KDA p. 320) prof. Bogdashevsky writes: “this place is ev. John (John 8:44) is the only one in the New Testament. a place where one predicate (ψεύστης) is used without a member, another (about πατὴρ) with a member, and therefore the requirement that we indicate other similar examples is certainly impossible. After all, there may be exceptions in the New Testament language!.. If Mr. Bogdashevsky began his polemic with this, he would not have had material for it. After all, I assert from the very beginning that recognizing ψεύστης and ὁ πατὴρ as predicates of one sentence would be contrary to the rule. In the polemic, I seek this recognition from Mr. Bogdashevsky, and since it is given, I consider the polemic over. True, Mr. Bogdashevsky sees an exception here. But it is easy to understand that if we recognize the accepted translation as the only correct one, then we must also recognize the grammatical exception; on the contrary, if this translation is questioned, if a new translation is proposed in which, according to the rule, ψεύστης is taken as a predicate, and ὁ πατὴρ as a subject, then what is the basis for creating an exception? If it can be explained according to the rule, then one should not resort to exception. Otherwise, any inconsistency in the translation could be justified by an invented ad hoc exception. On page 324, Prof. Bogdashevsky writes: “two grammatically correct translations of this passage are possible: 1) “for he is a liar and = even (he is) the father of lies” and 2) “for he is a liar and (a liar) his father (or like his father sicut et pater), that is, a demiurge. But the latter translation is clearly impossible due to the thoughts received with it.” So, despite all his polemics, Mr. Bogdashevsky recognizes it as correct to take ψεύστης as a predicate and ὁ πατὴρ as a subject. This is almost all I wish from Mr. Bogdashevsky, although he dresses his confession in a fog that hides his retreat. Firstly, he continues to recognize the accepted translation as correct, which he himself had previously admitted that it contradicts the rule. So, it is necessary to recognize as correct only that translation in which ψεύστης is taken as a predicate, and ὁ πατὴρ as the subject. Secondly, although Mr. Bogdashevsky agrees to take “liar” as the predicate and “his father” as the subject, he substitutes a new subject (he) for this predicate, and a new predicate (liar) for this subject, i.e. the same predicate, but only repeated once again. Just not to seem inferior!.. No, the liar is a predicate with a subject, his father. Thirdly, Mr. Bogdashevsky recognizes the second translation as correct in connection with the interpretation, which I do not propose, and for the sake of which he rejects the translation. But I propose a different interpretation: I mean by ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ not the demiurge, but God. Of course, in this case it is necessary to translate ὅτι not “for”, but “that”, to which not a single grammatical objection can be made. So, the grammar of the New Testament language is for me. Also the Old Slavic translation is for me. This is obvious. I propose a translation: the liar (tale = deceitful) and the Father (mean) of him (the devil, not the lie, or her). The Old Slavic translation reads: like a lie (adj.) there is also a father (or even a Lord) of it (and not of it, not of lies). But here is the method by which Mr. Bogdashevsky hides the meaning of the Slavic translation from the readers of his magazine. It should be noted that the translation of the conjunction ὅτι cannot have an original and independent meaning, because ὅτι can mean both “that” and “for”. How to translate the conjunction depends on the understanding of the entire phrase: if we translate “he is a liar and the father of lies,” then of course “for”; also, if we translate “deceitful and his father”, but mean the demiurge, then “for” is also required; but if we translate “deceitful and his father,” that is, God, that is, in these words we see the slander of the devil, then the conjunction must be translated “what.” That is why in my first article I talk only about the words “liar and his father”, and do not say a word about the conjunction ὅτι, only translating it through “what”. That is why, in assessing the Slavic translation in the first answer to Mr. Bogdashevsky, I discuss exclusively the same words, and only at the end of the argument I add “it is also immediately obvious that the ancient translators of Jn. 8:44 did not attach a cavalier meaning to the union ὅτι.” That is if in the Slavic translation “lie” is an adjective, “his father”, and not her, not a lie, is the subject and, moreover, refers, of course, not to the demiurge, but to God (even “his Lord”), then “as if” = that. I find this irresistible... What is Mr. Bogdashevsky doing? He shows that the argument is primarily and mainly about the translation of the conjunction - he writes: “it is not clear from anywhere that it does not seem to have a cavalier meaning here... The entire argumentation of Prof. Tareeva is torn apart like a spider's web... No, Mr. Bogdashevsky. The center of our reasoning, i.e. the basis, is the grammatical explanation of the words ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ; secondly, I offer my theological explanation of the words “his father”, referring them to God; hence, thirdly, the translation of the union follows naturally... In addition to the Slavic translation, I have on my side the ancient Greek readings (see above): καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ψεύστης ἐστὶν. And in this case, Mr. Bogdashevsky with his techniques can obscure the issue. He says this: “in the examples given (by me), Greek writers call either the devil the father of heretics, or the demiurge the father of the devil, and the union ὅτι for them has a causal meaning; therefore, these readings do not support the translation proposed (by me). But, Mr. Bogdashevsky, and in this case, as always and everywhere, the only basis for translation I accept is the grammatical relationship of the words ψεύστης (talk.) and ὁ πατὴρ (mean) and I’m talking about this only. I wrote: “that for the Greek ear in the combination ψεύστης καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ the first noun irresistibly sounded like a predicate, and the second like a subject, this is easy to confirm. So does Ign. God. etc. Thus, here too my argument remains in full force. So, Mr. Bogdashevsky gave in to me, admitting that the rules of the Greek language were on my side; On my side are ancient Slavic translations and ancient Greek readings. And with all this, Prof. Bogdashevsky presents himself to the readers of the Proceedings of the KDA as a winner. But is it really so difficult to distinguish victory from complete defeat? My polemic with prof. Bogdashevsky found a completely unexpected echo. Prof. Bogdashevsky gave the topic for his candidate’s work: “Review of Russian literature on the study of the Gospel over the last decade.” While developing this topic, the student came across my polemic with prof. Bogdashevsky and took my side. He really got it from the reviewer Prof. A. Dmitrievsky. See Journal. SKD A for 1904–1905 pp. 341–349. VI.Ο reality of Christ's Resurrection. (Response to Archpriest V. Lavrsky) (Bog. Vestn. 1904, June). I read somewhere about how one traveler, caught in winter by a pack of wolves, stood leaning against a tree, pretended to be dead, and stood motionless for some time. The wolves sniffed him and ran away. But if he had made one move, they would have torn him to pieces. This man, standing motionless on the dull, monotonous snowy plain, always comes to mind when I think about our theology. His immobility is so dull and monotonous. How many untouched questions remain in their primitive virginity, how many unexplained, foggy things! But if some theologian makes just one movement of thought, he takes on the daring intention of illuminating and clarifying something; when suddenly a flock of critics rushes at him, ready to tear him to pieces. Like cockroaches from cracks, some names unknown in theological literature are crawling out, menacing ones crawling out, angry that they have disturbed their swamp kingdom, disturbed their deep sleep. These critics are usually armed as if they had robbed an archaeological museum: everything is so musty and flabby. But most of all they take arrows from the quiver of the seven deadly sins, and their most favorite weapon is lies and slander. Regarding my article on the Resurrection of Christ 54 prot. V. Lavrsky hurled a sharp accusation, offensive to my honor and to the honor of the academic journal, that I denied the reality of Christ’s resurrection. This is slander! Prot. V. Lavrsky (Miss. Ob. 1904 No. 7) writes (p. 769): “... the learned theologian deprived us of faith in the reality of Christ’s resurrection! Or does Mr. Tareev really undermine faith in the resurrection in his article, leaving us only hope for the continuation of personal existence after death, and presenting the resurrection - even the resurrection of Christ - as only apparent, imaginary? After all, there are now philosophers and theologians who talk about God, about the immortality of the soul, but in fact they do not recognize either a personal God, or personal immortality, or even the soul itself.” These last words about philosophers and theologians are characteristic. Is it possible to hear in them the voice of an inquisitor who has detected a hidden sect, a spiritual investigator? which you won’t spend? “You say that you believe in God, in the immortality of the soul... Hehe... You won’t deceive us. We know for certain that in fact you do not recognize either God or personal immortality. Our theological science will have to endure a lot more from such criticism... On the same and next page, Rev. Lavrsky writes: “Apparently prof. Tareev did not intend to enter into the study of the resurrection itself; our problem is not metaphysical, but moral, he says. It is not the resurrection itself, but the meaning of the resurrection of Christ and the essence of its meaning that constitute the subject of his theological study. However (etc.)... It is not without Tareev’s intention that he expresses: a view of the subject, and not a view of the subject; With this, he seems to want to emphasize that he is not interested in the doctrine of the resurrection, but in the doctrine of the meaning and meaning of the resurrection, so that the one-sidedness and even lies that he denounces do not relate to faith in the resurrection, but lie already in the area of ​​​​conclusions from the fact. But in reality” (etc.)... How clear everything is! How obvious are the methods of criticism! After all, the author said that his problem is moral, not metaphysical, but the critic does not trust this, he imposes dogmatic tasks on the author. If he accepts my words for what I claim them to be, he will have no reason to accuse me in the dogmatic field. And here is Fr. Lavrsky imposes on me motives and innermost thoughts, on which he then exercises his critical wit. On page 772 prot. Lavrsky writes: “In the presentation of the common folk metaphysics of the resurrection... what constitutes the traditional dogmatic presentation of the belief in the resurrection, unshakable by Mr. Tareev in his research, and where the crudely anthropomorphic, Jewish-sensual understanding of the dogma of the resurrection begins, Mr. Tareev, unfortunately, did not separate. The reader of his article has to look for it himself” (etc.)... That’s the trouble, that the writings of Rev. Lavrsky is not a learned criticism, but a consistory search, and, more simply, perjury. In my article I have all the necessary instructions: I have named both what I consider to be the extreme of the sensual view, and what is its moderate presentation. My research in this part is directed against the fashionable New Way theory of holy voluptuousness. “In the presence of such an opinion,” I wrote, we have the strongest motive to reveal with particular persistence the thought of the spirituality, or spiritual corporeality, of the risen Christ... To speak of the flesh of the risen Christ in connection with reasoning about holy voluptuousness, or, at least, about holy paganism with its science, arts, culture, to speak of the flesh of the risen Christ in justification of these reasoning means, with from an exegetical point of view, to say not something that is groundless, but a strikingly gross contradiction with the word of God.” Why did my venerable critic remain silent about this motive of my reasoning? It's pretty clear why. He did not want to find himself in the position of obvious defenders of holy voluptuousness. On page 773 prot. Lavrsky cites a significant excerpt from my article (albeit with abbreviations that are undesirable for me): “we are promised a spiritual body as completely corresponding to the spiritual divine life. By the death and resurrection of Christ, the weight of the mortal body is removed from man (Rom. 7:24)... Let this not be the final destruction of the body, but the transformation of our humiliated body in accordance with the glorious body of Christ (Phil. 3:21) and we will have a spiritual body instead of a natural body (1 Cor. 15:44), so it is impossible to talk about our absolute incorporeality after the resurrection: but it is certain that our resurrected body will not have there is nothing material in itself, if only this word is given real meaning”... Thank you very much for this excerpt. Lavrsky. If he wanted to give the readers of the Missionary Review a correct understanding of my article, he could have cited several such excerpts, and especially the final conclusion of the article: “Since believers will not be resurrected each on their own, but as sons of the kingdom according to the law of the organic connection of people with each other, then the resurrected will not only be alive for God (i.e., immortal), but will be real for each other, i.e. (actually) resurrected in some corporeality (σώμα πνευματικὸν), the resurrection will be universal, the judgment over them will be objectively universal, the parousia of Christ will be objective... So, the resurrection from the dead constitutes the most basic Christian hope.” From these words of mine I am responsible for every sound, with my words I am ready to appear before the court of the council, for I believe that my confession is completely Orthodox. What about prot. Lavrsky? He's resourceful. Citing an excerpt from my article, he continues: “What does Mr. Tareev want to say with this addition: if only this word is given real meaning? Probably the next one” (etc.). Prot. Lavrsky finds it possible in this case to put his own meaning into my words, to give them his own interpretation. But why? After all, I have my words explained. Literally, I wrote this: “Our problem is not metaphysical, but moral, and we are least inclined to enter into a competition about words. We are not attracted by the metaphysical study of the “spiritual body”, since it is certain that it will not have anything material in itself, unless this word is given a real meaning - our life beyond the grave will not have material content, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but remain as the angels of God in heaven (Matthew 22:30 par), so that flesh and blood will not step outside the tomb, in which the womb will be destroyed ( 1 Cor. 6:13; 15:50)". Is it possible to speak more clearly than I speak? Was there a sufficient basis for the prot. Lavrsky interrupts my excerpt exactly where the explanation begins and asks: what does Mr. Tareev want to say? But this is not enough. Following the words given, I make an extensive footnote in explanation of the same word. In this note, by the way, I write: “If the materiality of our afterlife bodily existence is affirmed only by the essence of limited existence, that is, no more for resurrected people than for angels, whom we do not call material beings, if the afterlife materiality will not be accompanied by earthly spontaneity, if there will be no physical functions of the body, no physical fear and pleasure, if there will be no material values, if our body will be spiritualized; then obviously it will be spiritual, immaterial materiality, that is, something that is devoid of any real meaning and even logical meaning. Each metaphysical concept is not just an empty phrase or a simple logical formula if it can be further or immediately reduced to our subjective experience. Thus, the concept of material life is entirely formed by the experience of our material life, and if all the real features of this experience are eliminated, then only an empty sound will remain from material life.” In view of these detailed explanations, why was Rev. needed? Lavrsky to give his own “probable” explanation for my words? My thought is extremely clear. In addition to the metaphysical meaning, the word material has a vital and ethical meaning. In this last sense, to live a material-corporeal life means to drink, eat, marry, trade, etc. Since in this sense our afterlife will not be material, I am not interested in whether our body after the resurrection can be called material in the metaphysical sense. On page 774, the critic writes: “So, the absolute incorporeality of man after the resurrection cannot be assumed, but is it possible to affirm the (absolute) immateriality of the resurrected body? Indeed, it would be something similar to a competition about words.” I fully believe that the critic frankly does not understand how this is Greek. σῶμα, translated in Russian by the word body and allowing the combination “spiritual body,” may be immaterial... But what can I do about this misunderstanding of the critic? I can only sincerely advise him to think, study, in particular, consult the comments and dictionaries with the meaning of gr. σῶμα. From Russian books I can tell him Prav. Sob. 1902, Oct., pp. 514–516, where an explanation of gr. words of prof. Nesmelov. According to Rev. Lavrsky, I affirm that Christ “was resurrected only spiritually” (see pp. 772, 773, 776). The mere fact that the critic repeats this saying several times shows that it constitutes the nail in the harsh accusation of Archpriest. Lavrsky. And just imagine, reader, in my entire extensive article on the resurrection there is no such expression: “Christ was resurrected only spiritually.” I reveal “the thought of spirituality, or spiritual physicality, of the risen Christ”; I wrote: “Christ has risen spiritually” (p. 18). The critic, presenting my article, adds only one extra word to the basic formula. Is this really important? Yes, it’s important, one such word can change the entire meaning of the formula. My critic, in addition to his income from the church, probably also receives a salary as a law teacher at a pre-gymnasium and parish school. How will he feel if he is told “from now on you will only receive a salary from school”? What could be more legitimate than the requirement that a critic faithfully convey the words of the author? But this is so difficult to achieve. Just in the last book of our magazine I wrote: “the greatest difficulty in literary polemics comes from the inaccuracy of critics and referents in conveying the author’s thoughts. Usually the critic first distorts the author's thought to the point of absurdity, and then, like Don Quixote, he fights with the mill, with the distorted thought, imagining that he is winning victories. The most common technique, but unsightly.” And so we have to repeat this again and again. If we say that Christ was resurrected spiritually, then this only means repeating the words of the apostle: Christ was made alive in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18). To say: Christ was resurrected only spiritually, this means expressing an untenable thought. The critic makes a profitable but dishonest manipulation of my words. But the point is not only a formal violation of the legal requirement to be precise when conveying other people’s thoughts, but in essence the critic, by inserting this word into my formula, distorted my thought. I just couldn’t say that Christ was resurrected only spiritually. To say this means to imply: and not physically. But I not only spoke “about the spirituality, or spiritual corporeality, of the Risen One,” I deliberately explained that “the spirit revealed in the resurrection of Christ is the divine spirit, the divine principle of life, and not the spiritual, as opposed to the sensual.” Therefore, I further wrote: “The fact of the resurrection of Christ affirms the spirituality of Christ in direct contrast to not the mental-physical life, much less in accordance with it, but in direct opposition to the carnal, human direction of life. Our mental-physical conditioning is not directly affected by the idea of ​​the resurrection of Christ,” etc. Obviously, Archpriest B. Lavrsky absolutely does not understand what I am talking about. I believe in the sincerity of his indignation, but I do not want my reputation to suffer from his thoughtlessness. Having presented my article in this way, Rev. Lavrsky begins to criticize her. He quotes my words: “the stories of the four evangelists about the resurrection of Christ are among those gospel stories that are almost impossible to bring to unity in detail.” Prot. Lavrsky, on ten pages, makes an experiment in “reducing to unity” the Gospel stories. And here is his final result: it is easy to bring the Gospel stories to unity if one of the appearances of the Lord after the resurrection (783–784) is omitted... To such an objection I can only shrug my shoulders. On page 771 prot. Lavrsky writes: “where it comes to conclusions from the concept of the resurrection of Christ, Mr. Tareev points out many quotes and gives verbatim extracts from modern theological writers, so that he cannot be accused of altering other people’s thoughts. Unfortunately, he did not do the same when presenting the very basis of these conclusions.” My analysis of the Gospel narratives about the resurrection is presented on pp. 27–45 = 18½ pages. Of these, literal excerpts are pages 31, 32, 33 and half of the 34th from M. Philaret, Theophylact, prof. Muretova: large half of page 35 from Chrysostom; almost all 36 from Theophylact, 37 and 38 a huge excerpt from prof. Muretova (and V. Solovyova); on page 40 there is a large quote from Chrysostom. Total, at least 1/8 literal excerpts from authorities. Only the extraordinary importance of the subject and the need to observe the greatest possible caution in expressions forced me to be so attentive to authorities. I can safely say that in my article there is not a single characteristic expression that would not be a repetition of either the word of God (these are: Christ rose spiritually 1 Peter 3:18, in a spiritual body 1 Cor. 15:44) or the patristic language (these are: the body of the Risen One was alien to any materiality, or material coarseness, whiteness)... Therefore, whoever does not agree with my presentation of the New Testament teaching, the same it is necessary to face the authorities on which I rely. It is curious that Rev. Lavrsky does not stop at this. I explain John 20:20 (“saw and believed”) in the words of Μ. M Filaret. Prot. Lavrsky, not agreeing with my explanation, argues with M. Filaret. This does not happen without some oddities. Before that, to justify his assumption about the need to exclude from the number of appearances of the risen Lord the appearance of His wives returning from the tomb, Rev. Lavrsky referred to “the most reverent interpreter of the Scriptures, the Right Reverend Theophan,” significantly adding: “no one, without a doubt, will suspect him or accuse him of lack of faith” (784 pp.) But five pages below, Rev. Lavrsky polemicizes both with the “Synodal translation” and with the explanation of Μ. Philaret (pp. 789–790), apparently admitting the possibility of blaming the author of the catechism for a lack of faith. Well, of course, with such techniques you can write whatever you want (only the price of such writings is pennies). But the point is not in these particulars, but in the general spirit of the article. Archpriest Lavra accuses me of denying “the reality of Christ’s resurrection” and “representing the resurrection of Christ and ours as only apparent, imaginary.” To this I answer publicly that I have never and nowhere called the resurrection only apparent, imaginary. This accusation is pure slander. I present the resurrection as valid and say that Christ has risen and we will be resurrected in a spiritual body. To evaluate this teaching from an Orthodox point of view, let us turn to Orthodox teaching. B right In the catechism we read: “The Resurrection of the dead is the action of the omnipotence of God, by which all the bodies of dead people, uniting again with their souls, live and will be spiritual and immortal.” In Govt. Confessions Caf. and ap. c. Eastern: “The body will be glorified, immortal, incorruptible, will not require food and drink: it will be like the spirit.” Ave. - dogma theology of M. Macarius. “The resurrected bodies will be spiritual, in contrast to the current grossly material body, they will become uninvolved in bodily needs, like disembodied spirits - angels.” This is the teaching that I literally follow, and I regard the opinion of Archpriest Lavrsky about the materiality of resurrected bodies, so akin to Novy Putey’s fantasies, as nothing. VII. About the resurrection of Christ. (Response to Fr. Deacon Basov) (God. Vestn. 1910). I am writing these lines in response to the article by Deacon N.M. Basov in the first three books of the renewed magazine “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” - What the new Russian apologetics says in response to the objections of negative criticism on the question of the reality of the resurrection of Christ. O. Basov certifies (Feb. 101) that “many provisions of prof. Tareev’s essential significance is not only akin to, but also completely identical with, the provisions of negative criticism, for example, about the nature of the Gospel narratives, about the significance of the appearances of the Risen One, about the origin of the disciples’ faith in the resurrection of their Teacher, and, finally, about what constitutes the historical fact of the resurrection of Christ.” One gets a strong impression: the positions of the professor at the Orthodox Theological Academy coincide with the theses of negative criticism. But why about. Basov hides from lovers of spiritual enlightenment the fact that these main provisions in my treatise are expressed not in my words, but in the words of Church Orthodox authorities: M. M. Philaret (about the origin of the disciples’ faith in the resurrection of their Teacher), St. John Chrysostom and Blessed. Theophylact (on the significance of the appearances of the Risen One), the most orthodox theologian M.D. Muretov (about what the historical fact of the resurrection of Christ represents). After all, this would give a completely different picture. For example, on page 111 about. Basov writes: “if Tareev believes that the resurrection of Christ received historical flesh and blood in the hearts of believers, then here the new apologetics uses a ready-made formula that we read in Renan: a small Christian community performed a true miracle: it resurrected Jesus in their hearts with the intense love that it had for him. But with this phrase from Renan Fr. the deacon would need to compare not my words, but the words of M. Philaret, which I cite on page 259 of the first edition: “At that moment, as a disciple, Jesus, who loved him, entered the tomb, in the form of one robe lying, an unusually living love in an unusual way aroused faith in him; he saw nothing more than the absence of the buried Jesus from the tomb, but in the depths of his loving heart he felt that the Beloved was living.” These are whose words coincide with the formula of negative criticism. And all thoughts and expressions, the coincidence of which with the theses of negative criticism, can be reproached to me by Fr. deacon, I borrowed from the named church authorities. Such, by the way, are the phrases that the resurrection of Christ was the “triumph of faith” of His disciples, that the resurrection of Christ was “a historical phenomenon only in its consequences and in the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father in dwelling among people,” etc. If Fr. the deacon did not hide this circumstance from the readers of his article, then there would be no reason or food left for the pathos with which his article was written. But what should we call this method of silence? Further about. The deacon on pp. 170–172 of the March book shows with a series of extracts that I recommend to the last degree to yield to the claims of negative criticism, which presents all the facts of Gospel history as created by the imagination of believers. O. Deacon very wittily mocks my compliance. But the fact is that this imaginary compliance of mine was created solely by the “fantasy” of Fr. deacon. He takes extracts not from the first volume, in which evangelical history is discussed, but from the second volume (pp. 11 and 158), which deals not with the facts of evangelical history, but with the historical and philological basis of evangelical preaching. “We must recognize the most decisive dependence of the gospel on the Old Testament Jewish language, but at the same time, the gospel in its content remains the most original sermon in the history of religions.” About the fact that one must give in to negative criticism on the issue of the facts of Gospel history, that one must abandon all the facts of Gospel history - I have absolutely nowhere this completely absurd and irrevocably wild thought. My general view of the factual reliability of the gospel story on page 138 of the first volume in the 2nd edition (pp. 13–14 of the 1st edition) is expressed as follows: “The complete and unshakable reliability of our gospels is confirmed by their internal character... The apostles could not invent the gospel story. The Four Gospels cannot be considered a fictitious work.” The same on page 148. My official reviewer is Professor M.D. Muretov declared about me (Journals of the Council of the MDA for 1904, pp. 185–186): “The author takes the four gospels dogmatically in their modern church form”! I do not yield a single fact of gospel history to negative criticism. What does fiction mean? Deacon Basov? The same applies to the question of the resurrection of Christ. I recognize as a historical fact everything that is narrated in the gospel as a historical fact. The best proof of this is that Fr. Deacon Basov, according to whom I consider the resurrection of Christ to be a fiction (Feb. 114), could not make a single factual objection to me. He boils down all his objections against me to the following: “at the appearance of the Risen One, the disciples listened to speeches that were far from being an echo of their own thoughts, which contradicted them in the points most dear to their hearts - proof that He Himself was here. These completely personal, direct appeals of the Risen One reborn and transformed the faith of the disciples.” But these are exactly the thoughts that were expressed by me. I wrote: “The appearances of the Risen One were the spiritual communication of the disciples with Him. When He appeared to Mary Magdalene, she did not recognize Him by appearance and could not touch Him, but she learned from Him that He ascends to the Father. When He went with two disciples to Emmaus and explained to them what was said about him in all the Scriptures, their eyes were held back, so that they did not recognize Him, but their hearts burned within them. However, all these were preparatory phenomena: the central of the manifestations of the Risen One was the appearance of His eleven: then He breathed into them the Holy Spirit,” etc. (1st ed., pp. 269–270; 2nd ed., p. 355). Fr. himself the deacon stated that he had “true pleasure” to read “in the final pages” of my book “the recognition that the reality of the spiritual communion of the disciples with the Risen One is a historical reality and, moreover, of decisive significance,” but Fr. the deacon assures that this and similar confessions of mine are inconsistency on my part (March 177), that I was forced to such inconsistency by something (f. 107), that I cannot “consider myself entitled” to make such statements that “this basis does not belong to me” (110) 55. But why don’t I have the right to make these confessions? What is my inconsistency? I speak about the historical reality of the facts of gospel history and, in particular, the resurrection of Christ in the above passages of the philosophy of gospel history, also at the very beginning of the section on the resurrection of Christ (p. 341: the faith of the apostles serves as a condition for the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection); also p. 342: the resurrection of Christ was evidence of the reality of His eternal spiritual life: 342–343: the life of Christ without His subsequent resurrection and ascension to the Father would have been a building without a top, a symbol without a real good, a whisper without an audible sound, etc.; 345: “spirituality” does not exclude somaticity, etc. 346; the apostles saw the risen Christ, etc. The reason for all sorts of reinterpretations of my treatise on the resurrection of Christ is given by the fact that I, having made the subject of this treatise not “the question of the reality of the resurrection of Christ and not the miraculousness of this fact, but its meaning, the essence of its meaning” (God. V. 1903 May p. 1 and Philosophy of the Ev. History 1st ed.), in particular, I explain, firstly, the general church teaching that Christ is risen, as well as we will be resurrected, in a spiritual body, and not in a mental body, and, secondly, I clarify the connection of the resurrection of Christ with the humiliation of Christ’s earthly life and with the faith of the apostles. Understanding that only the resurrection of Christ in the spiritual body would give the right to call it an external event, I write: “the resurrection of Christ does not represent an external event: it is the subject of the apostolic faith and the spiritual result of Christ’s deed, and the faith of the apostles is included in the scope of this result and at the same time serves as a condition for the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection” (2nd ed. 341). “The Resurrection of Christ was a natural consequence of His moral achievement and, only in this internal causal connection with His humiliation, the crown of His life” (342). “The resurrection of Christ was at the same time and at the same time the resurrection of the faith of the apostles. Only in this connection with the resurrection of faith can the resurrection of Christ be called the reason for the rebirth of the apostles - only in the sense that the resurrection of Christ was the highest triumph of the faith of His disciples” (343). The last expression that the resurrection of Christ and the appearance of the Risen One were “the final triumph of faith over unbelief” was taken by me from Prof. M.D. Muretova (see quotes 1st ed. pp. 260–261). From him I copy (1st ed. p. 255) the phrase that the resurrection, like the incarnation of God the Word, was “a historical phenomenon only in its consequences and in the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father in his dwelling among people... Therefore, the evangelists did not and could not give a strictly historical and detailed description of the initial events of the gospel - its beginning and end, the birth and resurrection of Christ.” In the second edition, I replaced this extract with the following words: “the resurrection of Christ, like the incarnation of the divine Word in Him, were not historical phenomena in their metaphysical abstraction, but received historical flesh and blood only in the hearts of believers” (346). The phrase in the 1st edition refers to the same cycle. p. 296: “the resurrection of Christ, as a historical fact, was and is the resurrection of the disciples who died with Him” and in the 2nd ed. 355 “the resurrection of Christ, as a historical fact, was the resurrection of the disciples who died with Him.” The general idea in all these sayings is very clear: the resurrection of Christ, in its metaphysical abstraction, as a resurrection in a spiritual body, being actual, real, somatic, cannot in itself be sensually represented, visually described - it acquires such historical depiction only in connection with the spatio-temporal and spiritual-sensory experiences of the disciples 56. The Gospel narrative that faith in the resurrection of Christ arose before the appearance of the Risen One and that the Risen One appeared only to believers is quite consistent with this. In all these discussions, one can argue about the terminology, but the idea itself is clear as daylight. What does Fr. Deacon Basov? In his presentation and reinterpretation, he completely distorts my thought and achieves this apparently by the most insignificant change of words and mainly by persistent play with the word only. According to him, I recognize “not the event of the resurrection, but only the ideological-practical, religious-creative image” of it (f. 102), I recognize the resurrection “only as a matter of faith of the disciples” (105), I show in it “only faith from faith” (113), I consider it “only the final period in the religious consciousness of the disciples” (115), I think that Christ “only became invisible” (116), I affirm that “the resurrection of Christ is a fact historical, was only the resurrection of the disciples who died with Him” (m. 179). And so on with tedious monotony for dozens of pages. In all these expressions, crime from the Orthodox point of view is created by the single word only, and it is introduced into my speech by the critic-accuser arbitrarily. I, like Professor Muretov, distinguishing the divine reality of the resurrection from the sensory-historical manifestation of the Risen One, recognize that the resurrection of Christ took on a sensory-historical manifestation only through the faith of the apostles 57, and Fr. Basov ascribes to me the opinion that the entire reality of the resurrection was exhausted only by the faith of the apostles. Instead of my expression: “the resurrection of Christ was at the same time the resurrection of the faith of the apostles,” “the resurrection of Christ, as a historical fact, was together with the resurrection of the disciples,” he attributes to me the unconditional opinion that the resurrection was only a matter of faith, only the resurrection of the apostles. Instead of my expression (which, in agreement with Blessed Theophylact, presupposes a difference between the spiritual corporeality of Christ and the sensory transitional corporeality) of the expression: “the transitional corporeality was a reflection of the transitional state in the faith of the disciples” (356 pp.), he attributes to me the absolute opinion that (in general) “the corporeality of the appearances of the Risen One is only a reflection of the transitional state in the faith of the apostles” (f. 99, 115). Instead of my expression about the connection between the resurrection of the apostolic faith and the resurrection of Christ” (343), he claims (f. 102 and m. 178) that I “explain the resurrection of Christ without any connection with the event of the resurrection.” Instead of my expression that “the resurrection of Christ was at the same time the resurrection of faith,” he writes (f. 106) that, in my opinion, “the resurrection of the Savior took place primarily in the hearts of believers.” Instead of my assertion that the resurrection of Christ was not an external event, he assigns (f. 115) to me the idea that “the resurrection of the Savior is not a special event.”58 And so on. The entire article about the deacon is a petty and persistent falsification of my speech. Carry on, oh. deacon, in the same way. In my volume 1, page 152, it is said that “Christ was a real man,” accuse me of considering Christ only a man, and make parallel extracts from Tolstoy’s works. Volume 2 reveals the teaching that God is love, and on page 181 it is said that “love is essentially divine.” Shout: Prof. Tareev considers God only to be love and in this he coincides with Feuerbach. In vol. 3 p. 136 I say that Christian inspiration serves as a symbolic preview of the future revelation of the sons. Write, oh. deacon, that I recognize the Holy Spirit only as a symbol of Christian life, and quote Ritschl... You write in one place: what to call this new principle recommended by prof. Tareev? I ask: what to call this old technique practiced by Fr. Deacon Basov? You pose the question: to what type of literature should my treatise on the resurrection of Christ be classified? You find that it falls into the category of edifying works. What type of literature does your article belong to, Fr. deacon? Of course, it has nothing to do with science. It belongs to that kind of literature that is mildly called malicious defamation and is subject to judicial review. But I will limit myself to appealing to the court of honest people. And I call you, oh. Deacon, for the last competition: formulate your final judgment about me, and I will give a decisive and clear answer to the question about the reality of Christ’s resurrection. And let’s leave it to the court of honest people to decide whether I “prudently” (as you put it) adhere to negative tactics, or whether you “according to some practical calculation” adhere to very ugly tactics. You write about me (f. 115): “Summarizing your impressions of the article by Prof. Tareeva, what do we get?.. It turns out that we don’t even need to use the expression: the resurrection of Christ. The Resurrection of Christ is not a special event, or state, in the life of the Savior personally, in which it is, as Tareev puts it; did not introduce anything new, but represented only the final period in the religious consciousness of the disciples. The Resurrection of Christ is, simply, the rise, the rebirth, the final affirmation, the highest moment of faith of the apostles in their bodily deceased Teacher.” But here is what I actually wrote - and anyone who wants to honestly know the truth can read it. T. 2 p. 858: “As for the first believers, the reality of the resurrection of Christ was not a subjective dream, but He appeared to their entire society, with the objectivity of His appearances uniting them, and the Holy Spirit was revealed in their assembly in visible gifts; so in the churchliness of the sons of the resurrection the condition of the objective parousia of Christ is given to them. Just as the sons of the resurrection are alive to God and alive to one another, so Christ is alive to them.” T. 3 p. 144: “The resurrection of Christ from the dead, as the beginning of the general resurrection, is presupposed by the goals of world creation, completes the entire work of Christ and justifies our spiritual life. If Christ is not raised from the dead, the firstborn of those who died, if we Christians are not resurrected, then our faith is in vain.” God. West. 1903 June 214: “the resurrection of the dead is the greatest Christian hope; the resurrection of Christ forms the cornerstone of Christianity. If Christ had died and not risen, then Christianity would have been only a doctrine; if Christianity were only a doctrine, then it would be the strangest doctrine and we would be the most unfortunate of people. But Christ has risen: Christianity is not only a teaching, it is life.” What, a comment is required?! It is not difficult for me to unravel any such intricacy as this criticism of Fr. deacon. But it is very difficult for me to constantly protect myself from malicious defamation attempts. I will frankly say: under the pressure of this sea of ​​anger and hatred, I feel like a martyr. One of my occasional correspondents recently wrote to me about my theological works: “You have accomplished something that naturally evokes either love and admiration or hatred.” May be. I receive dozens of enthusiastic letters. But why is only hatred clearly revealed? Is it more energetic than love? Or is it simply more profitable, and circumstances, making timid students Nicodemus, give special impudence to people of a certain type? 59 VIII. Reply to Mr. “Orthodox” (Bog. Vestn. April 1905). Someone who hid under the pseudonym “Orthodox” in Moscow. Ved. No. 83 attacked my article “Spirit and Flesh” 60 and actually the third paragraph of this article, where we talk about the freedom of the flesh. The article by Moskovskiye Vedomosti is so colorful and deserves the memory of posterity that I decide to reprint it here Mosk. Ved. 1905, No. 83: Where, where are we going? “Listening, looking closely at what is now happening in Rus', you involuntarily ask yourself: is this real? Is it not in a dream that you see and hear all this? We ask the readers' attention to the following extracts: “Freedom of spirit can have the necessary support point only in freedom of the flesh.” Freedom of the flesh is in the fullness and originality of carnal life, in the fullness of its joys, its passions, especially the joys of marriage, in freedom and personal origin. The joy of carnal love in itself is not only not immoral, but it also constitutes the natural foundation of morality... Without natural carnal passions, without carnal joys, without personal pride, ambition and love of fame, there would be no world history, the entire surface of the earth would be strewn with dead bones without spirit and life.” Let's stop for a minute. Let's draw some conclusions. “Freedom of the spirit can have a necessary support point only (even only!) in the freedom of the flesh, and freedom of the flesh - in the fullness of its joys, its passions (and, so that there is no doubt about which passions, the author hastens to add), especially the joys of marriage.” Consequently: freedom of spirit is in the fullness of the joys of marriage. Isn't that right, reader? But then what should we do with the Apostle Paul, who authoritatively commands to crucify one’s flesh with its passions and lusts?” What should we do with the teaching of Christ the Savior, who tells us to take up our cross and follow Him? How then can we understand the words of the Apostle: when I am weak, then I am strong, and, therefore, then, with the weaknesses of the flesh, and not with its joys, I am free? But who among the Orthodox does not see that the author of the above lines goes directly against all the teachings of the fathers, with the teachings of Christ the Savior Himself? And what kind of service, in his judgment, did Satan render to humanity by tempting our ancestors to sin, from which came “ambition,” “love of fame,” and other passions. “From the evangelical point of view, carnal life should be given complete (do you hear, even complete!) freedom. The Gospel cannot be preached to children, because this would mean instilling in them hatred of their father and mother, hatred of their brothers and sisters.” That's how! But how did Christ the Savior consider children to be the most capable of perceiving His teaching with their hearts? And he also told adults that if they were not like children, they would not enter His kingdom, and therefore would be unable to perceive His teaching. And He thanked His Heavenly Father for hiding His teaching from the wise and prudent (such as our author) and revealing it to simple infants... Let's read a few more lines. “Judgments cannot be conducted directly according to the Gospel, because the Gospel says: do not judge.” As you can see: complete agreement in principle with the count “great writer”. “Now, in the days of war, one can often hear and read that only a Christian can be a true warrior, but such speeches are overturned by every success of the pagan Japanese over Orthodox warriors.” It is clear that the author himself does not understand what a “true warrior” is... “One priest said to the army, instead: with a shield or on a shield, with Christ and in Christ: this is unconscious blasphemy. If the Gospel commands not to resist evil, then, obviously, the Gospel does not have the task of cultivating militancy... Patriotism can be reconciled with the Gospel only (even: only!) with the help of hypocrisy and sophistry... True Christianity cannot stir up patriotic feelings.” “Only in the fullness and freedom of carnal life can there be a fulcrum for the heavenly impulses of the spirit. If it is said: hate father, mother, wife, children, distribute property, sacrifice life, then, obviously, this gospel is valid only for those who know the warmth of carnal love, the joys of family life, who have worked to acquire property, who love their people, have enjoyed honor and glory. He can be won for God who has first won himself for himself. On the contrary, whoever did not love with worldly love, did not know worldly sweets and sorrows (according to the author, this means acquiring oneself for oneself; he does not care what Christ says, even if someone gains the whole world, with all its joys, but loses his soul, there will be no benefit to him) - for that the words of the Gospel sound sluggish, weak, like the echo of a distant chant, in which you cannot understand the words, like a dream, which is not you will remember." It turns out: if you don’t sin, you can’t beg... This reminds us of one incident that happened in the Bethany settlement about fifty years ago: two dark-haired wanderers stopped at a peasant’s house for the night. The hostess, going to the field to work, asked them to look after the child in the cradle and rock him if he cried. They agreed. The mother returns and, to her horror, sees the baby stabbed to death. "Who did this"? Chernushki calmly answered “we.” – What did an innocent baby do to you? - “If you don’t sin, you won’t beg.” There are even now sectarians who claim that if the conscience is calm, then it is difficult to prepare oneself for repentance, and if it is alarmed by a crime, then it will wake up... The conclusion is the same as that of our author. But let’s take two or three more pearls of the author’s scientific wisdom: “If it were possible to instill the gospel in someone from childhood (we involuntarily recall the wondrous images of the holy youths-ascetics: for example, our relatives - the Reverend Fathers Sergius and Seraphim, who loved Christ from their youth, who followed Him in spirit from immaculate infancy) - from the first days of consciousness to raise him in true Christianity, then he would grow up to be a pathetic freak, for no one and for nothing unfit, - that lukewarmness that is spoken of in scripture would degenerate from him,” and which, we add according to the author, should be brought to the boiling point by kindling the passions and lusts of the body, isn’t it, reader? Yes, of course, so: the author further quotes the words of the famous preacher of new paganism, Mr. Merezhkovsky: “who has never been a pagan will never be a Christian,” and says: “we readily agree with this.” But enough of the extracts. Now let’s ask readers to guess: where do we get such pearls of decadence? Maybe he will say: undoubtedly, from the New Path, or from the Questions of Life that replaced it. These lines were published in a magazine published by one Theological Academy, were omitted from publication by the bishop of the Orthodox Church - the rector of one Academy, and belonged to a professor of moral theology, a doctor of theological sciences and, in addition, as we heard, were recognized by the Council of the Academy as worthy of a prize... These are the kind of “learned” professors found in the Theological Academies today. And if they openly publish such things, then what do they say in their lectures to the future shepherds of our Orthodox Church? What kind of “morality” do they cultivate?... Isn’t it true, reader, if this had not been published, if there were only dark rumors about it, then one might still doubt: are you hearing all this in a dream? But you have to read such things with your own eyes! Where, for God’s sake, tell me, where are we going?” Obviously, judging by the style, the article in Moscow belongs to the same pen of Mr. Orthodox. Ved. for the same 1905 No. 141 Once again: where are we going? - and articles in Kolokol 1909, No. 866 How long? and No. 984 At a Turning Point in Church History. Below are the latest articles. In the form in which Mr. “Orthodox” cites excerpts from my article, and in the light in which he presents them, the result is something terrible... It turns out that I demand freedom of the flesh with all its abominations. Frankly, if I wrote this, I would be worthy of complete censure. But in reality this was not the case. The review by Mr. “Orthodox” is a series of excerpts taken without any connection from my article. In this way, the Catechism of Philaret and the Dogmatics of Macarius can be accused of heresy. Or an example from a later time. The famous champion of Orthodoxy, Bishop. Nikon there is an expression: “monks-pigs”, and even these words are put into the mouth of the Mother of God. What a fuss could a Mr. Orthodox make about such expressions... Isn’t it clear that it is necessary to take the general meaning of the essay and the contextual connection of the excerpts? I wrote about the freedom of the flesh - with the following restrictions: “I in no way equate the freedom of carnal or pagan life with immorality or licentiousness. Carnal life in all the fullness of its development has ethical foundations. The pagans, according to the apostle, having no law, by nature do what is lawful; they are a law unto themselves, the work of the law is written in their hearts.” I write this at the very beginning of this paragraph. My reviewer writes down the lines immediately preceding and immediately following these words, but he omits these words, which are essential for understanding my speech. I am talking about nature within the limits of the moral law, about the flesh within the limits of ethical law. This is what reviewer Mosk is talking about. Ved. and is silent - under the name of flesh he slips in carnal abominations, about which I have no speech. I persistently apply the condition made at the beginning of the paragraph throughout the entire article. I write: “Let us consider the flesh on its merits, that is, we will have the best in the flesh, the normal... Let us look at a normal, comfortable family.” Is it not clear that I am talking about chaste flesh? And here are the final words of my article: “Before the idea of ​​the absolute sky, the earth is only the kingdom of chaste nature, before the abyss of the human sky - there is only the morally human.” Is it really possible, despite this clear speech, to accuse me of preaching debauchery? Is it really possible to call this speech decadent? The last conclusion of my article “Religion and Morality” is this: “Perfect immorality as religion is complete absurdity. Without ethical culture there is no true religion." The final conclusion of the article “Spirit and Flesh,” which serves as a continuation of the first, is this: “Christianity cannot make the slightest concession towards aesthetic religion, towards aestheticism. Nietzscheanism in philosophy and decadence, or aestheticism, in art are diametrically opposed to Christianity.” What else is required of me? How can my article be called decadent when it is resolutely directed against aestheticism and decadence? But I’m talking about the freedom of the joys of marriage, the freedom of natural passions?! Without a doubt. My reviewer thinks that all passions are from Satan and that, speaking about natural passions, I become “directly contrary to all the teachings of the fathers.” This testifies to the complete and decisive ignorance of the reviewer Mosk. Ved. The Holy Fathers not only teach that natural passion (which I am talking about) and sinful passion, or lust, are two different things, that there are immaculate natural passions, but that such were even perceived by Christ. “We confess,” writes St. John of Damascus, - that Christ accepted all the natural and immaculate passions of man” (τὰ φυσικα καὶ αδιαβλητα παϑη De f. orth. lib. III, 20). And I, together with St. as a father, I profess natural, immaculate passions, even if the suspicious and ignorant reviewer Mosk did not like it. Ved. That in particular the joys of marriage - in a normal, well-ordered family - are not from Satan, as the reviewer thinks, but from God, not unclean, but immaculate, this is clearly taught by the word of God, and St. fathers. According to the apostle, marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled (Heb. 13:4). The apostle calls people who abstain or teach to abstain from marriage as from impurity those who are seared in their conscience (1 Tim. 4:2). The church canons decreed the same. “If anyone, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general from the sacred rank, withdraws from marriage and meat and wine, not for the sake of the feat of abstinence, but because of abomination, forgetting that all good is evil, and that God, in creating man, husband and wife, created them, and thus blasphemes slandering the creation: either he will be corrected, or he will be expelled from the sacred rank, and rejected from the church. So is the layman” (Ap. 51 and others). Undoubtedly, my reviewer and I have opposite views on marriage and one of us is worthy of anathema, but who?! But the emphasis is not on the words natural passions, but on the word freedom - I’m talking about freedom of natural passions, freedom of the flesh, freedom of worldly life, even complete freedom. This is what angers my reviewer. Freedom of the flesh can be either moral freedom, that is, its freedom from the moral law, revelry, licentiousness, or religious freedom. Obviously, I am not talking about the first, since I mean chaste flesh and moral worldly life. I distinguish between worldly, earthly, utilitarian morality, and spiritual, Christian morality. I don’t rate the first one highly, but I don’t name it along with bl. Augustine covered with vice. This is true morality. It is established in nature. “Pagans by nature do what is lawful.” On what natural properties is utilitarian morality based - on the instinct of self-preservation, or on the social instinct - family, public? I say the latter - and it is so simple and innocent that it is strange to justify it. I distinguish high Christian morality from utilitarian morality. “Christianity is absolute spiritual life, faith and activity. First of all, it brings absoluteness into moral life, gives absolute expression to the moral commandment, and makes the commandment good.” So, I am firmly against the moral freedom of the flesh - I am talking only about the religious freedom of the flesh. The paragraph that so confused my reviewer ends with this formula: “in the interests of the gospel, one must desire religious freedom for the flesh.” What is this religious freedom of the flesh? I understand the gospel rules of life very highly, and therefore I think that only chosen people can live according to the gospel, that the gospel is for chosen individuals, and not for determining the forms of worldly life. “Christianity is not in the flesh, not in its boundaries, not in its forms. Christianity lies in that and only in that which is above the flesh, only in spiritual absolute love, only in the absolute striving of the spirit towards divine perfection.” Religious freedom of the flesh means freedom of the forms of worldly life from the absolute demands of the Christian religion. “The gospel life has no direct connection with the forms of carnal life - the gospel does not care about the content of worldly life, only human souls are dear to it.” An individual can live according to the gospel, but it is impossible to organize the forms of worldly life according to the gospel. There may be a Christian husband, a Christian prince; but questions about how to organize a trial with a jury, zemstvo administration, a city duma, how to wage a war, improve the state - for all these questions we will not find an answer in the gospel. Is there really heresy in this opinion? I am deciding a question that is not essentially ecclesiastical or dogmatic, but purely scientific and practical. The practical significance of the question is this: what should one desire, whether for priests to sit at secular gatherings, and bishops to participate in the state council, or for them to educate Christian souls? What should we expect Christian salvation from - from personal improvement or from good laws? I answer that Christianity is limited to the soul, and worldly affairs are best left to the laity. Social order requires good laws, and war requires good guns. Strictly speaking, this is so simple that it would not be worth talking about if there were not fanatics who respond to every social need by repeating the same words about crucifying the flesh with passions and lusts. Good words are useful when they come in handy. My reviewer equated my theory of Christianity to the wild judgment of the nigellas who killed a child. No, according to the meaning of my theory, these crazy little blacks, who considered themselves perfect in their monasticism, would have to get married in due time and have their own children, then they would not have thought of the nonsense of killing someone else’s child. Reviewer Mosk was extremely indignant. Ved. in my words, that the gospel cannot be preached to children. He solemnly points to the Venerables Sergius and Seraphim, who loved Christ from their youth and followed Him in spirit from their immaculate infancy. I will answer this as follows. The unmarried conception of Christ does not abolish the general law of human birth. Likewise, the fact that some people are prepared by the Holy Spirit into a vessel of God from their mother’s womb does not abolish the general law of the spread of the gospel. One holy child did not take his mother's breast - is it really possible to derive a rule from this - to prohibit feeding children with mother's milk? The point is not what comes out of children, but what can be done from children. Here is the real question: if this or that child is raised as a monk from childhood, can one guarantee in advance that he will certainly become a true Christian? Such an experiment was once carried out in full view of the whole world: Julian was left exclusively to monks from childhood, and he emerged as a notorious persecutor of Christianity. Christ Himself blessed the children, but did not teach them. Adults need to learn to be children, and children are their kingdom of heaven. My reviewer, having written out my words: “freedom of the spirit can have a necessary support point only in the freedom of the flesh,” draws his own conclusion: “therefore, freedom of the spirit is in the freedom of the flesh.” Here is an example of completely ridiculous logic. The “Orthodox” rests on the earth, therefore he is the earth... Further, he writes down my words: I agree with Merezhkovsky on this - keeping silent about the following: but on this I disagree. Thus, my criticism of the Novoputey teachings was reviewed by Mosk. Ved. represents how I follow him. These are dishonest methods. I agree with Merezhkovsky (only) in the words: “who has never been a pagan will never be a Christian,” that is, someone who is not strong in vice is not strong in virtue. And here is what Gregory the Theologian writes: “Souls weak in relation to both virtue and vice are equally slow and motionless; they do not lean much on either side; they have the same movements as people suffering from torpor” (Part III, p. 112). That is, these are freaks. Let us remember the words of the apocalypse: “oh, if only you were hot or cold”... I agree with these words of Merezhkovsky and use his expression “flesh” instead of “worldly life” because I am polemicizing with him. The most basic rules of debate require speaking the same language as your opponent and marking the limit at which disagreement with him begins. Having pulled out several incoherent excerpts from my article, the reviewer continues: “these lines were published in a journal published by one theological Academy, were omitted from publication by the bishop of the Orthodox Church - the rector of one Academy, and belonged to a professor of moral theology, a doctor of theological sciences and, in addition, as we heard, were recognized by the Council of the Academy as worthy of a prize”... Judge, reader: the editorship of an academic journal, the censorship of the Most Reverend Rector of the Academy, the professorship and doctoral degree of the author, the award by the Academy Council - what a host of honest witnesses in favor of my article! And who is this person hiding under the pseudonym of an Orthodox Christian, if all this does not matter to him? Truly, “Where are we going”? Moscow Ved. they call their readers from the light of theological science and the authority of church bodies into the darkness of dark informers uttering their gloomy “word and deed.” The reviewer ends: “These are the kind of learned professors found in theological academies today. And if they openly publish such things, then what do they say in their lectures to future shepherds of the Orthodox Church? what kind of morality do they cultivate there? Oh, Mister Orthodox, we do not hide under pseudonyms, we do not throw stones from around the corner, we are not afraid of the light, we are only afraid of anonymous denunciations. IX. About Mr. Zarin’s book “Asceticism” (Bog. West. 1908 May and June) The past ten months have been so absorbed in the printing of “Fundamentals of Christianity” that I have not had the opportunity to closely follow new literature on my subject. I noted for myself what was necessary and important from reviews, surveys and advertisements, wrote it out, but did not read it. And during this time I accumulated many scientific works on moral science, which I greedily attacked as soon as I freed myself from my all-consuming work. And the first book I set to work on was the most learned “ethical-theological” study by Sergei Zarin, Asceticism in Orthodox Christian teaching. Volume one: fundamental, in two books, of which the first book gives a critical overview of the most important literature on the issue (VIII + XXX + 388 pages), and the second contains the experience of systematically addressing the issue (XI + XV + 693 pages). Total 1145 pages. There is an overwhelming abundance of quotations, Greek and Latin texts on almost every page. I recalled Mr. Zarin’s recent master’s debate, rave reviews from official reviewers, and newspaper noise. Zarin is the second Bolotov: such a rumor swept through our theological world. It was said that Mr. Zarin’s work testifies “to the endless diligence of the author, his deep penetration into the subject, the author’s wonderful inner mood... All the individual concepts that are treated here are clarified on the basis of very abundant patristic data. This is the author's undoubted merit... The author is distinguished by his extraordinary diligence, he read many patristic works in their original language, studied a lot of more or less outstanding manuals, treated them with unusual attention, conscientiously, independently; he substantiates all his positions with reliable biblical and patristic data.” The panegyrist reviewer wrote that “the author has studied up to 88 volumes of patristic works” and that “the essence of the matter, the fundamental side of it, has been firmly established by the author on the firmest biblical and patristic foundation.” In view of these preliminary data, I began reading Mr. Zarin’s grandiose work with exquisite attention, with an intense sense of reverence. And the first external impression from these books was joyful, invigorating, revealing solid ground under our feet and wide horizons in the future. Taking in your hands this “fundamental” weighty volume, printed on excellent paper, in a clear and solid font, decorated with tables of contents, prefaces, introductions, conclusions, indexes, divisions, subdivisions, introductory provisions and conclusion theses, historical and philological references on every issue, endless quotations and notes to almost every word of the text, you involuntarily rejoice for our theology as a science. But the first impression of this dissertation and the final judgment that follows from a careful study of it are radically different. I will consider the work of Mr. Zarin from two sides: firstly, from the formal side - in relation to his manuals and, secondly, from the principled side - in relation to biblical and patristic sources. I will answer two questions: did Mr. Zarin really “treat the outstanding benefits with unusual care and conscientiousness”? and is it really “the fundamental side of asceticism firmly established by the author on the most solid biblical and patristic foundation”? I will show that Zarin did neither. The author presents attentive attention to manuals as an outstanding feature of his work. “One of the features of the proposed work,” he says, “is a fairly detailed review of the literature on the subject, which constitutes a separate book. This feature was the result of our conviction that the consideration of works related to the subject of our dissertation will only have significant scientific significance if we present their detailed and thorough analysis, which would have not only critical significance, but would also be a scientific and theological analysis of those issues and points of view on the subject of our work that do not fully or only partially correspond to our main point of view and main idea, and the consideration of which in the work itself would violate its integrity and consistency. This argumentation is too insufficient to justify the tediously detailed review of the literature of the subject that we encounter in the book and which constantly confuses itself with establishing differences between this dissertation and works similar on the subject: but it is quite enough to justify the presentation on our part of strict requirements for the author's review. Even more severe criticism is justified by the fact that the author himself treats the works under review extremely strictly. His entire first book is some kind of wild orgy of pedantic arrogance and boundless narcissism. Here are samples of Mr. Zarin's reviews. O Reverend Feofan: “In this case, to our surprise, we meet at the Reverend. Theophan, apparently, some inconsistency, inconsistency... In general, the relationship of ecstasy, as the highest goal of contemplative asceticism, to the requirements of the ideal of religious and moral perfection does not seem clear in the presentation of the Most Reverend. Feofan and arouses extremely important and serious bewilderments.” A.F. Gusev: “Professor Gusev failed to quite correctly grasp and accurately express the essence and fundamental features of the Orthodox ascetic view... We do not see consistency and certainty in A.F..” F.F. Gusev: “F.F. Gusev did not grasp with sufficient depth and did not highlight with sufficient certainty the dual unity of the Christian religious and moral ideal.” P.P. Ponomarev: “In the circle of Mr. Ponomarev’s thoughts being analyzed, we do not see strict consistency and complete coherence, we do not observe a strictly logical disclosure of one specific position. Unfortunately, which one experiences very often when reading the work being analyzed, the author did not thoroughly, accurately and thoroughly reveal the content of the central and fundamental concept of asceticism - salvation.” I.V. Popov: “In the further disclosure of these thoughts, some uncertainty, ambiguity, reticence, and sometimes even confusion and inaccuracy are noticeable.” MM. Tareev: “His thoughts, unfortunately, are not distinguished by the definiteness of their meaning and the accuracy of their formulation... In our deepest conviction, Prof. Tareev expressed Orthodox teaching on this issue inaccurately." Harnack: “Harnack’s works do not stand up to strict and precise scientific testing... Such a method of reasoning cannot in any case be called scientific.” Holl: “This scientist, in his judgments and conclusions, often misinterprets actual facts, exaggerates their significance, gives them the wrong color... He lacks a holistic, correct, so to speak, organic representation of the subject being interpreted - we do not find in him a completely clear, precise, definite idea of ​​the content of ascetic contemplation.” Along with these merciless reviews, Mr. Zarin stubbornly, tirelessly, truly consistently recommends his work as follows: “In our dissertation, everything serves to reveal Orthodox teaching, to clarify its general spirit and basic meaning. Orthodox asceticism is derived from the peculiarities of the Orthodox teaching about salvation; the main goal and essential content of salvation determine all particular moments of asceticism, explain the meaning and significance of all individual exploits, certain ascetic means. Here everything is revealed according to a special independent plan, from well-founded and carefully tested premises.” Well, let’s see how “carefully and conscientiously” this amazing husband “treats” the benefits that he so arrogantly interprets. I must, of course, dwell on one of the authors reviewed by him and, as applied to him, follow step by step his operation. Since Mr. Zarin deigns to place me in the field of his “review,” I will test for myself the good quality of his critical methods. Mr. Zarin mentions my name on page XV. “Traditional asceticism - in his words - is sometimes even among theologians decisively opposed to Christian love, as its beginning is completely alien, decisively incompatible with it.” Link: "Wed. prof. MM. Tareev God. West. 1906, Apr. 716" = Living souls p. 76. But in this place I (following the excerpt given by Mr. Zarin) write the following: “Traditional asceticism can be looked at differently, and we do not talk about it. But its modern theorists, whom we are talking about, take it in a certain light. They consider the feat of asceticism to be 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.” How can one refer to this passage as proof that theologians (i.e., I) oppose asceticism and love? I am only talking about modern ascetics who understand asceticism in the sense opposite to the feat of love. Let us now move on to the paragraph dedicated specifically to me in Mr. Zarin’s book. The presentation in this paragraph is noteworthy. Here, each line is replete with the following phrases: “We would express this thought in this way... Not entirely precisely... It would be more accurate and correct”... G. Zarin admires himself, enjoys his words. A thousand pages are not enough for him. He would have put this line before another, rearranged these two words, here he would have changed the comparative degree to superlative, and there the superlative to comparative, here, unfortunately, the comma is not in his spirit, and there, instead of a major dash, it would be better to write a small one... Tirelessness is like a mosquito!.. This, of course, is nothing. But it’s no longer a trifle that Mr. On the issue of asceticism, Zarin examines from all my works “Philosophy of Gospel History” and “Spirit and Flesh” - works that have no direct relation to asceticism, and does not mention a word about those of my works where the ascetic question is treated systematically - “The Purpose and Meaning of Life” and “The Temptations of Christ”, which I later combined into one volume under the general title “Christian Worldview”. In the preface to the latter, characterizing these books, I now write: “When presenting the historical Christian worldview, it is impossible to completely avoid a bias towards asceticism and symbolism: the philosophy of the Christian worldview is inevitably nothing more than a philosophy of ascetic-symbolic sanctification of life” 61. It is these books that Mr. Zarin does not consider, but focuses his attention on the two named in order to be able to come to invariably self-satisfied conclusions. Well, please tell me, what does the philosophy of gospel history have to do with the ascetic question? G. Zarin analyzes that chapter of this philosophy, which has as its subject the resurrection of Christ - and ends his review with the following self-satisfied and pedantic conclusion: “As for the essence and meaning of Christian asceticism, the real illumination of this issue is more or less achievable only from the point of view of the integral essence of Christian teaching, with which it is in an inseparable organic connection. An analysis of the single fact of the resurrection of Christ, taken in isolation, is insufficient” 62. You, Mr. Zarin, are absolutely right, as you would be right if you began to assert that Easter follows Great Lent, and the Assumption Fast occurs after Petrovka. But what gave you the reason to read instructions on this point? Have I ever argued that, based on the single fact of Christ’s resurrection, the entire ascetic question can be resolved? Not only did I not assert this, but I wrote that this fact has no direct relation to asceticism: “from the fact of the resurrection of Christ no immediate conclusions can be drawn regarding our mental and physical conditioning 63, etc. G. Zarin calls these my judgments elastic, indefinite, vague, difficult to grasp and “reduces” them to his own interpretation. The reception is too unseemly. G. Zarin should have delved into the meaning of the work he was reviewing... Likewise, the article “Spirit and Flesh”, which is part of the study “Truth and Symbols in the Realm of the Spirit”, a study that was later included in the IV volume of the Fundamentals of Christianity under the general title “Christian Freedom” - this article only touches on asceticism in the slightest, since this study and this volume lie in the non-ascetic sphere. “To free spiritual religion from the symbolic (ascetic-symbolic) shell and introduce it into living life” - this is the task of this study and the entire fourth volume 64. In the works included in Volume III, I systematize the historical-Christian ascetic-symbolic worldview, and in this study “the personal critical element comes forward, the anticipation of the future.” Is it surprising if Mr. Zarin comes to the same conclusion regarding this article: “All these concepts require special analysis, their disclosure in connection with an integral Christian worldview... Thoughts of prof. Tareev’s works do not give a completely definite and precise – even, of course, general, idea of ​​the subject – about asceticism and other closely related subjects” 65 . But the whole point is that Mr. Zarin is looking in the wrong place, and he does it intentionally and consciously, that is, maliciously, as it will now be revealed. The main lie in the choice of the material to be reviewed inevitably entails falsity in all particulars. So Mr. Zarin assures that prof. Tareev narrows the scope of the concept of asceticism too much when he says that the natural attitude of a Christian does not inevitably become ascetic and does not create an escape from the world” 66. First of all, Mr. Sarin misrepresents this passage. I have written the following: “Christianity is in the absoluteness of goodness, in the combination of ethics with faith, in spiritual believing love... The natural attitude of a Christian does not inevitably become ascetic due to this alone” 67... So what? According to Zarin, is this alone why Christianity is ascetic in the sense of escaping the world? G. Zarin gets the opportunity to develop his watery reasoning on the topic that asceticism is not exhausted by hermitage, that religiosity is not necessarily abstract - primarily because he deprives the place under review of contextual meaning. Secondly, because he deliberately forgets my systematic solution to the ascetic question. I refer to the entire content of the essay “The Purpose and Meaning of Life,” but, in particular, page 68, which is systematically characteristic: “The world, as the domain of its prince, opposes spiritual life: a Christian protects himself from its spirit by fasting and foolishness. A Christian cannot be in the world otherwise than as an ascetic and holy fool (this is a). But this same world consists of people whom a Christian is called to love... Outside of this activity (love) in the world, a Christian cannot be imagined (this is b). But foolishness and love do not exhaust the Christian’s relationship with the world... The fullness of natural development constitutes a duty for a Christian”... (this is in). Having this system of thought in mind, I gain the right to look at the question from one side or another in other places. So in op. Truth and symbols I put forward only the second point. Well, what's the point of objecting to me that I understand asceticism too narrowly?! In general, all the theses that Mr. Zarin puts forward against me, I have myself. For example, he objects to me: “asceticism (in the broad sense) is fundamentally assumed in Christianity, as a means and way to acquire and ensure true freedom for oneself. Gal.5:13 et 69. From me: “Christian fasting is not a virtue leading to perfection, and is not a merit before God: it has other grounds. We are called to freedom; only our freedom should not be a reason to please the flesh Gal.5:13 ... Fasting is necessary for a Christian, because it protects spiritual life from the grasp of the flesh. Foolishness for Christ’s sake gives us strength to fight the customs of this world” 70... In this respect, Mr. Sarin’s reviewer techniques turn out to be very strange. But this is not the last degree of magicianism to which Mr. Zarin reaches. He does not miss the opportunity to strengthen his reputation in the eyes of the spheres with a nod to the suspicion of my Orthodoxy. The accurate expression of Orthodoxy is the privilege of individuals like Mr. Zarin. And finally, Mr. Zarin finally finishes me off by stating my literary lack of independence. He writes: “Briefly but correctly, the meaning of asceticism in Christianity is defined by Prof. MM. Tareev in the following words: “The self-preservation of the spirit presupposes its freedom in relation to the body - moderation, courage, etc. But these mental-physical, or ascetic, virtues do not have independent spiritual value, but acquire such only in religious or ethical (altruistic) light.” Religion and morality. Theologian Vestn., 1904 November, p. 895. But in this case, prof. follows about. I.L. Yanyshev. Wed. 2nd ed. of his lectures (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. 202, where Fr. I.L. notes the dependence on his views M.M. Tareev (note 1)" 71. Over the course of over 15 years of my literary activity, I had to experience many attacks on my author's name. But this is the first time that I have been accused based on the views of others 72 . Let's figure it out. First of all: is “oh. I.L. “He himself notes my dependence on his views”? Nothing happened, oh. I.L. Yanyshev is too prudent and cautious to allow something like that. O. Yanyshev, citing my words 73, writes: “This thought completely coincides with my concepts.” Coincidence of thought - that's all it's about. Yanyshev. It is necessary to keep in mind the features of the second edition of his book. Leaving the text of the first edition unchanged, he “in the footnotes to it adds many references to such passages from our theological and non-theological literature of later times that are closely related to one or another paragraph of his lecture.” He sought in this way “justification or correction” of his opinions. Even “the theories of Tolstoy, Nietzsche and V.S. Solovyov served as an excuse for him”... These are the modest reasons for which Fr. Yanyshev also points out my thoughts that coincide with his opinions. And suddenly - from this modest coincidence Mr. Zarin makes an addiction. Well, isn’t this the Russian Ovid, writing his mythical metamorphoses?! Meanwhile, Mr. Zarin, when applied to himself, is well able to understand and explain the ultimate meaning of “coincidence.” On the two pages immediately preceding the paragraph devoted to me, he clarifies the relationship of his book to the book of Prof. K.D. Popova, within the limits of coincidence: “This does not mean at all that we used the work of prof. Popov, as a reference book... The coincidence... is explained simply by the commonality of sources" 74. Why does he forget about this relationship of works with similar themes when applied to me? Or maybe I have with Fr. Yanyshev states a literal coincidence? We saw excerpts from my article, which Fr. Yanyshev and Mr. Zarin. And here is the corresponding text from the book by Fr. Yanysheva: “From the satisfaction of the moral requirement to own and use the body, and through the body and external nature, the following virtues or subjective benefits of the human spirit are freely created: wisdom, understood as the wealth of knowledge... hard work... abstinence... courage" 75 ... That is, I and Fr. The Yanyshevs coincide with one word: courage, (or - let me concede - they could also coincide) abstinence, prudence, wisdom... Is this a coincidence? To talk about the coincidence in the indication of these virtues - what is it: arrogance or ignorance?! But these are the virtues called classical ethics and forming the same common place in European moral systems as the concepts of incarnation, redemption, and sanctification in Christian dogmatics. But does my thought coincide with the concepts of Fr. Yanysheva? Definitely not. According to Fr. Yanyshev, “ascetic virtues” are “subjective goods” and they are “concentrated in one thing, which can be called self-respect” (the dignity of the image of God). To “make” a match, oh. Yanyshev adds on his own behalf to my words: “the only principle of morality is that man is sacred to man (hence, I will add (Fr. Yanyshev) on my own behalf, he is also sacred to himself)”... But Fr. Yanyshev too hastily interprets my words in his own sense: according to my view, set out in the articles of volume IV, which Fr. Yanyshev - ascetic virtues do not have independent spiritual value, do not provide positive religious and ethical benefits, and morality presupposes asceticism as hygiene of the spirit and as a condition of social life, but does not at all require asceticism as a specific spiritual feat 76. O. Yanyshev stands on the point of view of Platonic ethics, and I (in this essay) stand on Aristotelian ethics. Enormous distance!.. And in general, my system does not coincide in any significant way with Fr. Protopresbyter Yanyshev. We can only have common terms - morality, virtue, asceticism, goodness 77, etc. Now we come to the last and most important point in Mr. Zarin’s “relationship” to my writings. G. Zarin, who claims that I do not have a definite and precise, even general, idea about asceticism and other closely related subjects, that I do not have an exact expression of Orthodox teaching and that I am not independent in the little that I have that is good, in fact acquires from me precise and definite, Orthodox ideas about asceticism, which he uses in the form and extent of widespread plagiarism. And Mr. Zarin’s preliminary efforts to assure good-natured readers (and his not entirely good-natured official reviewer) that I lack precise Orthodox, independently expressed ideas about asceticism and related subjects is a cunningly conceived and deftly executed maneuver of covering up his tracks. It turns out that Mr. Zarin, pretending that he is only familiar with the Philosophy of Gospel History and the article Spirit and Flesh and that he has no idea about the works included in the Christian World Outlook (i.e. The purpose and meaning of life and the Temptation of Christ) - I am closely familiar with these works, in which asceticism is put “in connection with an integral Christian worldview.” And it is curious - in the list of “works remotely related to the question of asceticism” attached to the end of the first book, Mr. Zarin mentions my books The Humiliation of Christ and the Temptations of Christ, but calls the last book in the second edition (1900), which already persistently inspires the idea that the first edition of the Temptations of Christ and equally the Purpose and meaning of life do not even have a remote relationship to his research and that he, perhaps, has not seen these books. Meanwhile... But let the facts speak, which we draw from Mr. Zarin’s second book. This, Mr. Zarin, is not a mere coincidence, but pure plagiarism. But it is noteworthy that Mr. Zarin prefaces this very schoolboy plagiarism with a reference to the authority of “patristic teaching and biblical thought” and the nature of “deliberate thoroughness and special depth”... After this, we will already know the value of “the most solid biblical and patristic foundation” in Mr. Zarin’s research. I will also note that I classify this passage as an unsuccessful theses in my first literary work, which was not retained in either the second or third edition of The Temptations of Christ. But Mr. Zarin “doesn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.” Mr. Zarin especially assiduously inserts many patristic quotations into this excerpt. And so on: Mr. Zarin borrows more from The Temptations of the God-Man than from my other books. He does not leave his attention to the 2nd edition of the Temptations of Christ. So After such a long excursion into the area of my writings, Mr. Zarin considers it appropriate to solemnly declare “the important historical meaning of the analysis of the ascetic teaching of the passions, its deep psychological and important theological significance in revealing the essential foundations of the moral teaching of asceticism, to clarify the true meaning of the latter in religious-moral, principled and anthropological relations”... From the above passage it is clear, by the way, how Mr. Zarin fulfills his task of “diluting with water” the borrowed places. Where I have “disgust”, Zarin writes “internal disgust”, instead of “natural aspirations” he writes “natural, natural aspirations”, etc. Mr. Zarin also pays attention to the Philosophy of Gospel history. After this excerpt, Mr. Zarin quotes: “Wed. N.I. Sagarda. cit. op. p. 516: Christ’s actual donation of His life for the good of humanity appears to our knowledge as an objective representation of what love is in its proper sense.” These words of Mr. Sagarda do not at all resemble that excerpt, and, however, Mr. Zarin hastens to write: “compare.” What scruples! It just doesn't show where these words actually come from. A false quotation serves as one of Mr. Zarin’s many methods of covering his tracks. He often resorts to this technique. G. Zarin does not disdain anything. But enough. I can no longer abuse the hospitality of the Theological Messenger. After all, if I were to write out now all the parts of my works that Mr. Zarin took from me, I would have to fill out several dozen pages... I'll say more than that. In addition to literally borrowing more or less significant parts from me, Mr. Zarin depends on my writings in the sense of solving the fundamental issues of his book. He reveals almost all the main points of the fundamental aspect of the matter in the sense of my theological system, although in his presentation he dilutes each thesis to such an extent with lakes of fresh water, his speech is so tediously drawn out, endlessly drawn out, that the colors of a certain worldview are constantly erased and everything leans toward hackneyed truths. In all his discussions about creation, the Fall, salvation, eternal life, Christian love, humility - I cannot help but recognize my views. I don’t know of almost a single page of a fundamental nature that doesn’t resemble my books. For example, in Zarin, page 23: “No level of religious and moral perfection achieved by a person, no matter how high, can and should not be considered final, supreme, sufficient, so that one could stop at it.” Temptations of the God-man p. 24: “The true life of man has no limit when it could stop”... In Zarin 221: man recognizes his opposition to God and, instead of self-denial, wished to realize his unconditional dignity precisely in his created, limited, empirical presence. I have page 35 (and previous ones), ending with the words: I wished to establish divine dignity in my limited exclusivity. In Zarin 28: the sin of human self-assertion placed the Divine in an external relationship with man... 222: God now appeared to him not as a loving Father, but enviously guarding His advantages... I have 38 and 39: the removal of God as a loving Father... the external attitude of God towards him... envious of him... Etc., etc. 78. Since I considered Mr. Sarin’s “attitude” towards my writings only as an example of his attitude towards manuals, I consider it necessary to add in conclusion that Mr. Zarin takes a lot from very many manuals. If necessary, I can easily prove it 79. So, to the first of the questions posed about Mr. Zarin’s attitude towards benefits, I answer: he treated the benefits with unusual care, but was extremely dishonest. Now I will move on to the second of the outlined points. Let us now talk about the principled side of Mr. Sarin’s study. Mr. Zarin has no idea about the biblical point of view on the issue of asceticism, about biblical teaching, in its unique form, in its specific features. For him, “the data of Revelation are consistently and persistently presented in patristic and ascetic understanding and illumination.” Throughout his extensive “experience of systematically revealing the question” of the ascetic, he roughly tramples the principles of biblical theology, not once does he rise to the heights of this science. Not knowing the gospel scientifically, not standing at the height of the biblical-scientific point of view on asceticism, Mr. Zarin does not have a scientific-critical attitude towards the church-historical ascetic worldview. That is, he does not raise questions about under what conditions the evangelical worldview became a church-historical ascetic worldview, at what stages the latter developed and into what types it resulted. Mr. Zarin does not want to know any of this; he simply systematizes the biblical and patristic views on asceticism, uniting different church-historical principles. Therefore, Mr. Zarin’s work has no scientific or critical significance. The point is not that Mr. Zarin does not set himself a critical-historical task, but that he does not stand at the height of critical-historical science and does not take its conclusions into account at all. Mr. Zarin’s system runs counter to the critical-historical principle: for him it serves as a mechanical reduction of heterogeneous material under one heading. The critical-historical method of approaching the material constitutes one side, only a negative condition of systematic theological work; its positive, foundational principle is the intuitive, personal and creative principle. The latter is also decisively absent from Mr. Sarin's work, and this justifies our final verdict on it; it is a miserable, menial job that has no meaning. In Mr. Zarin's book we find such an abyss of insurmountable naivety, which is hidden only under a thick layer of complacency. In his opinion, the whole question is in the number of patristic works studied, and the ideal is the mathematical accuracy of the study (=5,000 pages). In the work of the system, Christian ethics seems to follow the same path as dogma. G. Zarin revealed his decisive inability to understand the significance of the personal element in the matter of theological systematization. This is revealed both in the critical part of his work and in the systematic one. It turns out that most of the manuals that he had at hand stand at the height of personal-religious creativity, religious-philosophical thinking. Such are the works of the bishop. Feofana, A.F. Guseva, F.F. Gusev, etc. From all sides, Mr. Zarin received persistent warnings and valuable instructions. He had the most worthy leaders, and driven by the demon of petty vanity and waves of superficial thinking, he neglected these warnings and instructions, passed by all these valuable experiments. I left them with the same thing I came to them with – with invulnerable self-esteem. How was he not amazed by the ease of his criticism, the ease of his victories! And if the fragility of all these experiments is so obvious to him, was it worth it for him to devote an entire book to them?.. In general, our theological criticism stands very low: petty, picky, unscrupulous. And yet Mr. Zarin will surpass many others in his frivolity... He, you see, not suspecting the integrity of this or that worldview, with airy ease proves the one-sidedness of one, another, third, fourth authors. You know how we are used to denigrating Catholicism and Protestantism: we put Protestant ones against Catholic positions, and Catholic ones against Protestant ones. The criticism is easy, but Catholicism is an integral and harmonious system, and Protestantism is an integral and harmonious system, and what does our Orthodox theology achieve by mechanically combining Catholicism and Protestantism? Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism is exhausted by those theses and passages that are captured by such criticism: they remain, in their organic harmony, beyond its limits. So does Mr. Zarin (for example) against A.F. Gusev, who stands for active Christianity, exposes F.F. Gusev, who has contemplative religiosity, and vice versa. He puts forward the same formula against each: “yes, some ascetic fathers have such thoughts, this is one of the types of asceticism, but other fathers have other thoughts”... For himself, he sets the ideal as the unification of both types. He does not comprehend what A.F. Gusev, as a living moral personality, was reflected in his works, and F.F. Gusev, as if alive, was reflected in his book, and Bishop. Feofan, and prof. Ponomarev and others. And the unification that Mr. Zarin dreams of smells like a dead thing - and Mr. Zarin himself managed not to give a single touch of his personal worldview. His work without a soul, his ethical and theological research does not have the stamp of a human personality, the stamp of God's gift. His work ranks lower in this respect than almost all the works that he so arrogantly discusses. He did not see the image of God in anyone, did not listen to the living beating of the human soul, personal hopes, personal aspirations. For him there are only dead words. With terrible persistence, he divides systems into phrases, sayings, words, and repeats, repeats, repeats the same thing: this phrase is incorrect, this saying is inaccurate, this word is unclear. Not once did he rise to the point of looking into the soul of the authors under review, to look at the whole of this or that religious system, this or that worldview... Theological works with the nature of religious thinking, personal religious worldview, are not accepted or recognized by our environment, and are met here with smug contempt for common sense. O. Protopresbyter Yanyshev, whose book I have now, at the direction of Mr. Zarin, carefully read, devotes the following lines to me on page 200 (in a note). “In the article by Mr. M.M. Tareev’s “The Purpose and Meaning of Life” says: “a Christian cannot be in the world other than an ascetic and holy fool.” Without asceticism, Fr. adds on his own behalf. Protopresbyter, spiritual life, of course, is impossible... but what is the point of foolishness here? Meanwhile, on the next page, in passing, the same author clearly expresses such a completely sensible thought: “the calling of a Christian is to manifest the spiritual divine life in the fullness of natural life”... Fr. Protopresbyter Yanyshev considers me capable of expressing common sense thoughts at least in passing - and, behold, my idea of ​​Christian foolishness seems to him such a colossal, incredible absurdity that he is surprised how I, who still show glimpses of common sense, could express such an idea... Gentle reader! no matter who you are, you understand that the literary word in our time serves as the most vivid form of confession. Many aspects of the soul, not fitting within the narrow framework of everyday practice, can only be revealed in the form of the literary word. Hatred and contempt for every person, love for all people, the extreme shame of moral failure, the ultimate height of religious delight, heroic humility and daring pride - can be adequately reflected not in deeds, but in words. And when you talk about foolishness, it means that you put on rags and walk in it before the eyes of the world, you bare your soul, you open your heart before everyone... And the answer comes to you from the side of the jury of theology: it is contrary to common sense, absurdity!.. But what does common sense have to do with it? After all, it was the soul that spoke, the mood spoke, the living truth is here... But there is no place for living truth where common sense reigns supreme. I have encountered such an attitude towards my religious ideas, towards my religious system more than once. Mr. Zarin stands at the same low level of religious criticism. He quotes my words: “The Gospel cannot be preached to children, because this would mean instilling in them hatred of their father and mother, and this would be complete absurdity” - and adds on his own: “the same absurdity as it would be to instill in children to cut off their right hand, pluck out their right eye, etc. But such absurdities, i.e., to instill a literal understanding of the Gospel words, forgetting everything rules for understanding the sacred text should not be instilled in adults either” 80 ... Mr. Zarin loves to teach. But believe me, Mr. Zarin, the religious problem is broader than the narrow area of ​​exegetical rules. ...A decisive disregard for the personal beginning of theological systematization leads Mr. Zarin to sad consequences in the experience of his own system. Here we observe an uncontrollable desire to say everything about everything, to unite all patristic thoughts, all principles, all types. But, of course, it is impossible to carry out this endeavor to the end: a mechanical conglomerate of everything and about everything would amaze even the most undemanding glance with its wild appearance. And Mr. Zarin “involuntarily” resorted to the only solution left to him: plagiarism. He took all the important parts from someone else's hands... (From God. West. 1910 Sep.) In the recently published book of Bp. Stephen On the question of the system of Orthodox Christian moral teaching, I am once again mentioned and extremely humiliated as an opponent of asceticism. “Not only representatives of materialism, especially socialism, positivism and indifferentism (read: indifferentism), but even idealism and, finally, some of our representatives of Orthodox theology (Prof. M. Tareev) were hostile to asceticism” (p. 157, also 221). Bishop humiliates me. Stefan, firstly, by the fact that, reviewing all systems of moral theology and even “scientific works, which, although they do not give us direct data for resolving the issue of building a system of Orthodox moral teaching, can nevertheless provide a lot of valuable material for the construction and maintenance of significant departments of such a system,” does not even mention my works, although another bishop testified (in malam partem) in the Bell (No. 866) that “Prof. MM. Tareev reads the subject that is mainly treated in his famous four volumes - namely, moral theology,” and although volume 5 contains an extensive article “Churchfulness as a subject of moral theology” on a special issue dealt with by Bishop. Stephen. But (and this is secondly) Bishop. Stefan carefully dwells on my polemic with Mr. Zarin, whom, it goes without saying, the Right Reverend author takes under his patronage. Thus, Bishop. Stefan notifies readers that “Prof. Tareev is noted by Mr. Zarin as an opponent of traditional asceticism and as expressing Orthodox teaching in some cases, in particular in thoughts about asceticism and other closely related subjects, not precisely and not quite definitely... Prof. Tareev (in his answer), first of all, tries to expose Mr. Zarin in an unscrupulous attitude towards benefits both in general and in particular from him, prof. Tareeva. G. Zarin, accusing the latter of being unorthodox on the issue of asceticism, at the same time allegedly (!?) borrows from him, without showing the sources, precise and definite Orthodox ideas about asceticism... In a lengthy response to such mercilessly cruel criticism, Prof. Tareev Mr. Zarin makes every effort to justify himself from the accusations brought against him and tries to prove at the same time that the criticism of prof. Tareeva, as caused by personal irritation and anger in view of the unfavorable review of him in the study in question, does not have the character of an impartial and objective character, and that prof. Tareev himself justified the verdict he gave about our theological criticism as petty and picky” (221-222). So ep. Stefan presents the case to the reader. I will allow myself to point out to the eminent author his deviation from the actual truth. My accusation against Mr. Zarin is expressed categorically. "G. Zarin, claiming that I do not have a definite and precise, even general, idea about asceticism and other closely related subjects, that I do not have an exact expression of Orthodox teaching and that I am not independent in the little that I have that is good, in fact, acquires from me precise and definite, Orthodox ideas about asceticism, which he uses in the form and extent of widespread plagiarism." This is my accusation. There is hardly a single conscientious person in the world who would recognize this accusation as petty. No, this is one of those accusations, under the weight of which they “avoid leaving the house or meeting friends.” Mr. Zarin will not argue against this. Is this accusation picky? Let Mr. Zarin himself answer this, first of all. So, about my Orthodoxy. Calling me non-Orthodox on the issue of asceticism, Mr. Zarin, later, in response to my criticism, writes: (in the writings of Prof. M.M. Tareev) “a definite and correct, although only general, concept of the meaning and basic accessories of Christian asceticism is indeed given - and I can only regret that the presentation (of them) was not included in my review” (Chronicles Reading 1908. Dec. p. 1697). And this is not clearly stated? Is this not the end of the matter? Ep. Stefan still finds it possible to talk, referring to Mr. Zarin, about my non-Orthodoxy on the issue of asceticism?! Yes, this means seeing without seeing, hearing without hearing! Now about Mr. Zarin’s plagiarist attitude towards my writings. I have proven the fact of plagiarism with mathematical clarity; It’s even unnecessary to ask about Mr. Zarin’s later opinion here. However, what does Mr. Zarin say in his answer? He admits the fact of plagiarism: “this is a similarity or borrowing from the above-mentioned works of Prof. MM. Tareev, indeed, should have been noted by me” (Chronicle Thu. 1909, Feb. p. 300). Clear! And yet ep. Stefan finds it possible to talk about alleged borrowings. The factual truth is the minimum requirement of decency! "G. Zarin is justifying himself in every possible way.” Unfortunately this is true. He did not have the courage to limit himself to the above basic confessions, which decide our entire dispute. He succumbed to cowardice and resorted to all sorts of excuses. How pathetic are these excuses! He, you see, did not quote his borrowings from the work The Temptation of the God-Man, because “he was embarrassed by the inconvenience of the very title of the work”! If, Mr. Reader, you don’t like your neighbor’s wallet, then feel free to borrow its contents: such is Mr. Zarin’s conscience. He has other arguments. In general, he believes his fame in the abundance of quotations, therefore, the failure to include quotations from my works could only be accidental. But, Mr. Zarin, silence about any one author while there is a deliberate abundance of other indications is a fairly common phenomenon: thus O. Comte persistently remains silent about S. Simon, only about S. Simon, so Nietzsche remains silent about Stirner, only about Stirner! It's all so clear. G. Zarin in his answer attaches special importance to the fact that he did not know my essay The Purpose and Meaning of Life. He “met an indication of it in the second edition of the Lectures by Fr. Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev, which he definitely stated on page 386 in Addenda et conigenda to book 1, but, unfortunately, this edition itself by Fr. (he) acquired the protopresbyter and had the opportunity to read it when (his) work was already being published simultaneously in two printing houses.” But Mr. Zarin with these assurances only fools the public and reveals extreme dishonesty. The work The Purpose and Meaning of Life is mentioned at least three times in the Philosophy of Evangelical History, where excerpts are made from it on the very pages that Mr. Zarin examines in his review. And Mr. Zarin assures that he is “not pretending”! Further, he acts out bewilderment in front of the readers in view of my offense at the fact that he quoted the Temptations of Christ in the 2nd edition and at the same time did not name the first edition. Clearly picky on my part! And The Temptations of Christ in 2nd ed. could have been given to Mr. Zarin, without his acquaintance with the op. The purpose and meaning of life are just individual thoughts. For a long time he has been familiar with only one opus. Temptations of the God-Man in 1st ed. (about which I argued that Mr. Zarin learned most from him), which, again, due to his unfamiliarity with the treatise The Purpose and Meaning of Life, could not influence his system. But Mr. Zarin hides from the readers of his answer the mutual relationship of my writings. My first work, The Temptation of the God-Man, already represents the entire system of my Christian philosophy, and one can equate this work with the Fundamentals of Christianity. All my subsequent writings, included in the Fundamentals of Christianity, represent only a further development of the theses already given in it. The humiliation of Christ is the revelation and substantiation of the thoughts of the third chapter of the Temptations of the God-Man. The philosophy of the gospel story is outlined in the second half of the fourth chapter. Especially and most closely, the content of the Temptations of the God-Man is divided between two later works (combined in volume 3): The purpose and meaning of life and the Temptations of Christ (2nd and 3rd ed.), so that the latter reproduces only an insignificant (2nd ed. 198 pp.) and the most special part of the Temptations of the God-Man (456 pp.) - without the content that went into the works The Humiliation of Christ, The Philosophy of Gospel History and (what is really especially important) The Purpose and Meaning of Life. But with the thoughts of the last work, even if we assume (incredibly) that Mr. Zarin did not have it at hand, he could get acquainted with the same not named by him (my most extensive work) Temptation of the God-Man, so no matter how you turn things around, Mr. Zarin has “similar thoughts” with Op. The purpose and meaning of life, as he himself admits, are explained “quite naturally.” The Temptations of the God-Man, with which Mr. Zarin is now forced to admit his long-standing acquaintance and about which I said that “Mr. Zarin borrows more from The Temptation of the God-Man than from my other books” – could have influenced him systematically, so that each of my subsequent books lay on already prepared ground. In vain Mr. Zarin raises the question of whether it was possible to plagiarize the Temptations of the God-Man before the publication of my subsequent works. The answer to this question has already been given in the Soviet MDA protocols for 1899, pp. 131 –. And Mr. Zarin is also making excuses. In each incriminated excerpt, one can distinguish between content and wording, word expression. Mr. Zarin could have come to the content of the borrowed passages himself, but one and the same idea can be expressed in many ways: what is there to talk about? The very fact of borrowing is empty. And besides, Mr. Zarin continues, if you don’t pay attention to long excerpts, then, after all, small excerpts of 3-4 lines remain: there is something to talk about! No, Mr. Zarin, neither psychology, nor sophistry, nor even mathematics will help you eliminate the terrible fact (and God forbid that this is the only case in the history of our theology), a fact that remains in all its menacing nakedness with the minimal evidence cited by me and recognized by Mr. Zarin himself: Mr. Zarin, accusing me of lacking an Orthodox view of asceticism on the basis of articles not related to the issue, at the same time used my other writings, which give a definite and correct concept of asceticism, so that now it turns out that we both “expound the same teaching” (Chronicles Thu. 1908, Dec. p. 1697)! For the existence of this most shameful fact, it is completely indifferent whether the incriminated excerpt is four or five lines long. Ep. Stefan emphasizes Mr. Sarin's statement that all my criticism of his books is the fruit of personal irritation. This is what I completely agree with and what I don’t hide in any way: if Messrs. The Sarins made no attacks on my reputation or my literary property; I would never remember their name. My polemic with Messrs. Zarin, Basov, Lavrsky, etc., which I deal with in almost every book. B. West., is always only self-defense, an apology. And if in my response to Mr. Zarin I gave my self-defense a broad formulation and from defense I move on to attack, to the consideration of the entire work of Mr. plagiarist Zarin, then the very nature of his crime forced me to do this. After all, I don’t act like that towards Fr. Svetlov, whose attack against me is only an episode, is an insert in his book. How objectively evidence-based my accusations are is another matter, but my feelings towards Mr. Zarin are the feelings of an offended or insulted person towards the offender. G. Zarin writes: “a person who is interested, offended or insulted by someone, anywhere - according to sound legal standards, cannot be a judge, cannot pronounce a final verdict on a person who is or is considered an offender.” But how can these functions be divided in relation to such a crime as Mr. Zarin’s ugly act? After all, I am expressing a judgment only about Mr. Zarin’s offense against me, and not about his moral life in general. In conclusion, Mr. Zarin assimilates (from one magazine article) the following plaintive cry: “people are much more cruel than animals, and usually the more civilized a person is, the more refined his cruelty. True, we do not have lashes and whips, but the wounds from lashes and whips will heal. And in cultural countries of both hemispheres, torture is widely practiced, which consists of disgracing a person... Your religious, political, scientific opponent or simply an enemy will not set fire to your house, or lie in wait around the corner with a knife in his hands. No, he will try to disgrace you in print. He will claim about you that you are a stupid, unscrupulous person, and will make more or less clear hints that you have committed a number of crimes.” Strongly said. But how did Mr. Zarin manage to forget this in such a short time, since our business began with Mr. Zarin’s attempt on my name and my literary property. After all, it was he who made more or less clear hints about my non-Orthodoxy (and at such a critical time for me), he tried to disgrace me! Now he gets only what he deserves. He himself is to blame for his shame. G. Zarin writes (Chronicle Thur. 1909 Jan. 99–100): “...It must be said that initially my entire paragraph of the review of the theological views of Prof. was limited to this note only. MM. Tareeva. Then, having become acquainted with his articles: “Spirit and Flesh,” I presented a feasible analysis of them. Things progressed historically and naturally. But prof. MM. Tareev wants to present everything with me in a wrong way; Everywhere he sees a cunningly conceived and deftly executed maneuver.” If I personally had no reason, no motivation, no desire to “nod” to some “spheres” about the “suspiciousness” of Orthodoxy by Prof. MM. Tareev, then objectively my judgments - I’m sure - no one has used, will not use and could not use... Only something else can a frightened imagination draw such phantasmagoric pictures. But I, you must admit, have nothing to do with it... I just turned up at such an hour.” When Mr. Zarin wrote these lines, he wrote a lie - and he knew that he was writing a lie. I have documentary evidence that Mr. Zarin personally treated me “enthusiastically,” but he “could not or did not manage to overcome objective circumstances and influences” - “he was given the duty” to criticize me - and Mr. Zarin wrote “the very answer to (my) criticism” at an outside “demand.” I will publish these documents at the first request of Mr. Zarin 81. And besides, it is interesting to compare how Bishop. Stefan, who takes Mr. Zarin under his protection and protection from my review, himself speaks about the work of Mr. Zarin. “The plan (of work) was borrowed (by Mr. Zarin) from prof. A.I. Grenkov, which is not noted by the author, although prof. Grenkov is given a special place in the critical review of literature, and he is then quoted more than once... The author first depicts the salvation of man (in Prof. Grenkov - the establishment of a new kingdom of grace), and then the state of his death, his sinful unregeneration, he gives an “ascetic analysis of the passions”, “characteristics of an unregenerate, empirical person, a depiction of the specific content of the area of ​​sin and alienation from the life of God” (in Prof. Grenkov = “ empirical man with his earthly life, with his flesh and blood, with his passions and aspirations... the kingdom of this world... the realm of sin and alienation from the life of God"). Then he has “a description and depiction of Christian love as the main characteristic property of the grace-filled kingdom of Christ, as an ideal sphere of religious and moral perfection” (prof. Grenkova = “description and depiction of the properties of the kingdom of grace, as an ideal sphere of moral perfection, as an objective idea of ​​​​good”). Finally, it is shown “how exactly a person with his well-known sinful property - “passions”, with his existing religious and moral make-up can actually become a member of the spiritually grace-filled kingdom of Christ, to realize his ideal” (Prof. Grenkov = “precisely a person with his well-known created property, with his vital moral make-up can become a member of the grace-filled kingdom of Christ “...). Following the plan of Prof. Grenkov, the author found himself on the least advantageous path to fulfilling his task, since it concerned clarifying not only the essential aspects of asceticism, but also their place and significance in the general structure of true Christian life. The changes that the author made to the design of the plan of his essay in comparison with the plan of prof. Grenkov, did not serve to improve matters, but, on the contrary, to worsen... The lack of an organic connection between the parts of the study... (which) do not have a common ensemble. Therefore, built on the principle of depicting the consistent course of moral perfection, the dissertations of Mr. Tikhomirov, Mr. Mirtov, Mr. Ponomarev make a more favorable impression from their plan, and Zarin in this regard took a step back in comparison with his predecessors” (pp. 223–226). Ep. Stefan, as you can see, only confirms my review of Zarin’s book: “Mr. Zarin takes a lot from so many manuals... His work is lower than almost all the works that he so arrogantly discusses.” Ep. Stefan confirms that my review is not just the result of personal irritation. And another ep. Stefan writes (p. 238): “Even Prof. Tareev, presented by the author (Zarin) as an opponent of traditional asceticism, is more traditional in this case (than Zarin)." So the truth, obscured in every possible way, nevertheless comes out into the light of God!.. (Bogosl. Vestn. 1909 Jan.) I found myself in the muddy and stormy stream of the legend that is being created around my name. This is very difficult for me, because these faces “do not suit a modest teacher of a theological school.” The point is this. I expressed some original thoughts on the religious issue, but for “us” everything original fatally evokes the class-hereditary itch of dissent. But my religious thought is set out in the four-volume edition of “Fundamentals of Christianity.” Acquiring four volumes and studying them is beyond the power of those possessed by the spirit of denunciation... The trouble, however, is not great: you can limit yourself to a randomly snatched and misunderstood phrase or a caught rumor on the fly. This is how a legend is created. In the magazine “Faith and Reason” (1908, No. 23), a certain Mr. Brandin wrote an article on a hopeless topic: “The Gospel in its essence is individual and social.” He, by the way, denounces “the individualistic, or false-ascetic understanding of the gospel, the representatives of which include Prof. Tareev and Tolstoy." G. Brandin writes: “According to Tareev, between the spirit and the flesh, according to the gospel, there is nothing in common, there are no points of contact. “If the gospel is absolute, then when directly applied to carnal, worldly life, it denies all its forms. For the sake of the gospel, one must reject science, art, the state, marriage - all this cannot tolerate evangelical absolutism.” “Thus understands the essence of the Tarean gospel; he testifies to his solidarity with Tolstoy and treats the latter with special praise for the fact that in the name of the gospel he denies worldly life, even the most carnal existence... According to Tareev’s dualistic opinion, every external form is the product of an evil principle; form is shackles, a prison of the spirit. Therefore, the task of a Christian is not to improve the form, but to liberate the spirit from it, to escape from the world, from all forms of social activity." When and where did I teach this?! Quite the opposite, I assert that “the freedom of the spirit can have its necessary support only in the freedom of the flesh,” that “from the evangelical point of view, carnal life must be given complete freedom,” since “the gospel cannot determine the forms and types of carnal existence” (Vol. IV, 123. 124. 126). I actually have the excerpt cited by Brandin, but in these very words I express not my thought, but the opinion of Tolstoy, which I do not accept. I wrote: “Forgetting this truth (i.e., that the gospel does not determine the forms of carnal life) poses a hopeless dilemma: either deny worldly life in the name of the gospel, or lower the gospel, adapt it to the needs of life. Tolstoy took the first path. He deeply understands Christian law. His mistake is that in the gospel he sees not only the content of personal and spiritual life, but also the norm of social improvement, the basis of earthly prosperity. With this view of the meaning of the gospel, Tolstoy's conclusions are consistent. If the gospel is absolute, etc. Tolstoy does not stop at the fact that without these forms and types of natural life, the latter turns into a ghost” (vol. IV, pp. 126–127). And from the fact that I deny Tolstoy’s application of the gospel to the forms of worldly life, that I do not accept Tolstoy’s rejection of science, art, state and marriage in the name of the gospel - from this Mr. Brandin concludes that, following Tolstoy, I dualistically reject the forms of worldly life, I consider them the product of an evil principle, etc. Mr. Brandin has no idea about my four-volume system of religious thought, where I Tolstoy, except for this brief notes, I devote many dozens of pages - he is familiar with only one magazine excerpt of my writings, he builds his entire opinion about me on one misunderstood phrase. The Kolokol employee, Mr. Davydov, is doing even worse. While in Kharkov Mr. Brandin writes that I reject life in the name of the gospel, in St. Petersburg Mr. Davydov assures the readers of “The Bell” that I reject the gospel and God for the sake of pagan life (“The Bell” 1909, January 8) 82 . At the same time I reject life for the sake of the gospel and reject the gospel for the sake of life? Have mercy, gentlemen! Have at least some conscience!.. Where does Mr. Davydov get his information about my “teaching” - from what volume of “Fundamentals of Christianity”? Yes, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Davydov did not even have my works in his hands, and obtained information about me in a roundabout way. In the St. Petersburg newspaper “Novoye Vremya” recently (1909, January 3) V.V. Rozanov published an “enthusiastic” review of my work. It is too well known that V.V. Rozanov is a most talented secular writer; he is the most talented and significant of modern Russian writer-thinkers. It is also too well known that V.V. Rozanov is a man with his own idea. Whatever and whoever he writes about, he will cover everything from his point of view. G. Davydov is indignant at V.V.’s “enthusiastic” review of me. Rozanov, but takes information about me only from his review. Curiosities turn out that the Kolokol employee doesn’t even suspect about. “Why does it exist and for whom, and why did Jesus Christ preach His teachings on earth?” Mr. Davydov solemnly poses the question to me. And he writes: “Mr. Tareev literally responds to this with the following: “Besides the heart, he lives in me,” etc. What follows is a series of extracts in quotation marks taken from Novoye Vremya. G. Davydov is convinced and tries to convince the readers of Kolokol that these are extracts from my works. But I dare to assure Mr. Davydov that he is in error and is misleading others: the extracts he made are not found anywhere in my writings, and Mr. Davydov, as my literal words, attributes to me what he read in the article of “Novoye Vremya”. Borrowing information from second hand, Mr. Davydov distorts it in the most shameless manner. Thus, the columnist of “The Bell” formulates his last judgment about me as follows: “And what kind of Christian is this, in the end, who openly asserts that Christian teaching brings only exceptional harm to the state, and society, and the individual, and the sciences, and the arts, and philosophy, in a word, to every manifestation of living real life? There seems to be nowhere to go further! God, who is completely superfluous and without whom everything goes on by itself immeasurably better than with His intervention, is incomprehensible to the normal human mind.” Yes, Mr. Davydov, I certainly agree to recognize this opinion as an astonishing, terrifying absurdity, which amazes not only with its unprecedented godlessness, but also with its decisive lack of meaning. But the only author of this absurdity is Mr. Davydov, a cheeky employee of Kolokol. If he attributes this opinion to me, then this is pure slander on his part. I argued and maintain that Christianity is a matter of the individual and that it is not applicable to conventional forms of social life, but Mr. Davydov speaks of the opinion that Christianity is not necessary either for society or for the individual! a) I reject forms of social activity in the name of Christianity and b) I consider Christianity unnecessary for life The possible interpretations of my system have not yet been exhausted: it is still possible, in diametric opposition to Brandin and Davydov, to say that I, together with other allies, preach to the Christian public. This is what some hieromonk Athanasius does (Prav. Sobes. December 1910). “In the theological literature, the opinion about the obsolescence of the ascetic Christian ideal and the need to socialize Orthodoxy is held by the famous prof. Tareev, Uspensky and many others who wrote about the so-called religious community in God. Vestn., Chronicle. Thurs. and other magazines, spiritual and secular. On the same topic in Notes of religious and philosophical meetings and in the journal. You will find the New Path as many reasonings as you like. How does Christianity itself relate to these discussions about the Christian community? Just as Christ reacted to the temptations of Satan. In response to the proposal to create bread, our Lord said, as everyone knows, such words of a completely non-socialist nature: man will not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God - and then even more strictly: follow me, Satan. Orthodox Christianity, as Dostoevsky explains to us, considers the socialist movement a temptation of the Grand Inquisitor, and considers calls to the Christian public as a counterfeit of Christianity arising from thoughtlessness or, even better, a compromise with the Spirit of this age. The ideal of holiness can never be replaced by the ideal of satiety. The church could agree to the latter only if it renounced Christ and its entire centuries-old history.” Is it my religious community, the socialization of religion, the ideal of satiety? Truly, these reviews are some kind of shameless pandemonium. Tareev and Renan. Tareev and Richl. Tareev and Tolstoy. Tareev and Rozanov. Tareev and Solovyov. Tareev and Merezhkovsky. Tareev and Marx. Tareev and Feofan Prokopovich (Tserk. Ved. 1911 No. 44 approx. p. 1896). Yes, if I were torn into microscopic parts, and each part began to live an original spiritual life, then I would not be enough for all the reviewers’ slander and misinterpretation!.. A talented reviewer of Novoye Vremya writes about me based on my books. The Kolokol employee is content with the issue of Novoye Vremya. And a contributor to some “Life of Volyn” (Jan. 10, 1909) apparently confines himself to only a leaflet from “The Bell.” As awareness decreases, arrogance and swagger increase. The “former student” is already scolding me for “vain talk borrowed from the Germans” 83 . And the emerging legend grows and grows 84. The tragedy of my situation is that among the Brandins, Davydovs, “former students” and in general these, of whom there are “too many”, there was a rumor that I “have ideas in my head” - and this served as sufficient grounds for them to classify me as one of the people with whom they were accustomed, during the course of seminar science, not to stand on ceremony, trashing them at all costs! It is futile to fight them, because “blasphemy at any cost” is the only area of ​​their literary activity. And no matter how modest my desires are, hope is shattered by the old morals of school and class. I myself will refuse the title of “New Testament prophet” (Strannik, 1908, 6 p. 911 – also Morning of Russia 1910 nos. 193. 194: “prophet from Nazareth”), I would just not like to be considered the “horror” of a theological school. And I appeal to all readers who come across the writings of these Brandins and Davydovs with a request - to compare their reviews with my writings 85 ... XI. Review of the prototype. I.L. Yanysheva (God. Vestn. 1910 Sep.) ... The task is to understand Christianity in such a way that it makes room for the fullness of life, and to understand the ethics of life in such a way that Christianity fits in its very depths; The task is to create a system of worldview that would embrace the fullness of life and the undiminished height of Christianity, in which it would not be necessary to sacrifice Christian content in the name of the vitality of the moral law, limiting it to pagan rules, nor to sacrifice life for the sake of Christianity, ascetically suppressing “everything earthly” - I took upon myself such a task with a living consciousness of all its complexity and its immeasurable importance in my Foundations of Christianity. Since my system, satisfying all the demands of natural-historical life and the entire height of Evangelical Christianity, is directed against the one-sidedness of both the humanitarian and lifeless interpretation of Christianity, it naturally provokes the defenders of these old concepts against itself 86 . O.I.L. Yanyshev, who only mechanically glued Feofan’s asceticism to his system, “for which everything earthly is undesirable and even hostile,” attached himself with all his soul to the humanitarian content of the moral law. And, of course, he could only look at my system 87 from this one side. Putting everything alien to his concept under the same banner of lifeless asceticism, which “has no response either in relation to the material world or in relation to neighbors,” he brought my worldview under the same rubric, focusing all his attention on the “evangelical height” maintained in it. With the one-sidedness of his judgment, he came quite close to the supporters of the opposite worldview, who “consider everything earthly to be hostile to Christianity” and who recognized my worldview as worldly, focusing all their attention on the fullness of natural life sustained in it: but how this judgment was expressed by Fr. I.L. Yanyshev about my system, this revealed his high character. Contrary to newspaper reports that criticize I.L. Yanysheva from the unsympathetic inquisitorial side 88, review of. I.L. Yanyshev about my theology is nothing more than a learned review, and not a series of anathemas. Calling “the books of Professor Tareev - the fruit of much labor and remarkable talent - a serious contribution to our theological literature” 89, Fr. I.L. Yanyshev “nevertheless” recognizes that “requiring revision and change or correction is the entire worldview of Professor Tareev and his entire teaching about the divine, spiritual life of a Christian” 90. Like a true scientist, he takes my main idea, on which he dwells, with the exception of some comments of a private nature. To understand the main meaning of the review about. I.L. Yanyshev, you need to first become familiar with his own moral and theological system: all his main comments are predetermined by the features of his worldview. I may regret that these remarks did not reach me in a general literary form, which would have left room for fruitful polemics, which are no longer appropriate. However, I consider myself especially happy, having the opportunity to declare that all the wishes and demands of Fr. I.L. Yanyshev are quite acceptable for me and, in essence, have already been implemented in my system itself. By revealing this in the following lines, I hope to fulfill my last duty to the memory of the late Fr. protopresbyter. § 1. Do I, on page 368 of the first volume of the Fundamentals of Christianity, call the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God “spontaneous” and, moreover, reborn into the free “Spirit of Christ”, so that, as if, we can talk about the materiality of the Spirit and the changeability of the Unchangeable God? No. On the above page I am talking only about the elemental gifts of the Spirit, and the elemental spirit that is reborn into the free spirit of Christ is not called the Spirit of God (the third Person of the Holy Trinity), but the spirit of God (the action of the Spirit in man). My terminology finds justification in 1 Cor. 12-25; Gal.4; Col.2 and Heb.5:12. § 2. Do I reject, on page 132 of the third volume, the action of the Spirit of God in the prophets, saying that “the gracious action of the Holy Spirit became possible as a result of the moral feat of Christ, after His glorification - the resurrection from the dead and the departure to the Father, and is carried out through the church, which is the body of Christ” - contrary, supposedly, to the fact that the “Spirit of Christ”, according to the Apostle ( 1 Peter 1:11) was characteristic of the Old Testament prophets? I do not reject the actions of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament prophets. I speak about the importance of Old Testament prophecy in Volume II, page 81, therefore, where one can read that “prophecy expresses the very essence of the religion of Jehovah, as a theistic religion - not spontaneously pagan, but rationally human, divinely human.” But I believe there is a difference between the gracious-church action of the Holy Spirit, on the one hand, and the action of the Holy Spirit in the creation of the world and in the providence of it, His action in the prophets and even His action in the earthly life of Christ - John 7:89; 16:7. In particular, I write about the difference between prophetic and New Testament revelation on page 158 of volume I: “prophetic revelation was addressed exclusively to the human mind, while in Christ His very life was a revelation of God.” By adding here the indisputable dogmatic truth that “grace is bestowed upon us for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ” (Metropolitan Macarius), I gain the right to say that “the gracious action of the Holy Spirit became possible as a result of the moral feat of Christ.” And what is most remarkable is the indicated place from the 1st last. ap. Peter confirms my words, since “the prophets foretold the grace appointed for us” and “the Spirit of Christ who was in them” revealed to them that “it was not for themselves, but for us, that which has now been preached to us” (1 Pet. 1:10-12). Wed. also vol. II, pp. 322–323. § 3 With the words: “the idea of ​​sacrificial atonement for sin has no place in the gospel system” (vol. II, p. 320) - do I reject the church teaching about the atoning sacrifice of Christ? No. On the same pages of Volume II I write: “That Christ sacrificed His life for the salvation of man, that He, having endured humiliation and death at the hands of sinners, took upon Himself the infirmities and illnesses of sinners, and bore their sins... all this is suggested by every line of the Gospel” (II, 315 cf. I, 340). And the phrase on page 320 does not contradict all this, since here the entire emphasis falls on the word idea, and the phrase has the meaning that in the Gospel teaching about the atoning sacrifice of Christ there is no place for the contractual-legal idea of ​​sacrificial atonement. This is precisely what becomes clear on those lines of page 320 that precede this phrase. Similarly, in the same volume, below (p. 333 next), the idea is revealed that in the Gospel teaching about the kingdom of God there is no place for the idea of the kingdom of God, that is, for the theocratic idea, for the idea of ​​the people's chosen people, - that the gospel teaching about the kingdom of God is filled with all the gospel content, and “it would be a clear mistake to think that from the concept of the kingdom God can deductively extract any content of the Gospel.” In general, in such cases we are talking about subtleties of terminology, which do not in any way affect the essential content of Christian dogma. § 4. Do I assert on page 351 of volume II that the church is not given the power to excommunicate anyone? No. On pp. 138–139 of Volume III, I recognize the excommunication of the unworthy not only as a right, but even as a duty of the church. “The Church must strictly ensure that all its members are born of God, and expel from its midst anyone who, while calling himself a brother, lives as a pagan.” I do not contradict this at all on page 851 of volume II, where I only set out the Gospel parable of the tares. And to this presentation, on the same page, I add the following note, which eliminates any possible confusion: “Another thing is suggested by the task of the church to be salt and light for the world, to glorify the Heavenly Father in its eyes with good deeds. In view of this task, the church must monitor its reputation, protect its certain appearance, cut off from itself everything extraneous, everything that covers it, erases its boundary lines, depersonalizes it in the eyes of outsiders. And obviously, in the name of this task, she must eject from her midst all hypocrisy, all those pestering her for some selfish motives, covering up the achievement of earthly interests with her name. But this is not at all like pulling out the chaff.” § 5. Do I hold a dualistic view of the relationship between the divine and the human, the spiritual and the carnal? In particular – a) do I affirm that the spiritual in itself is divine (I identify everything spiritual with the divine) and that, on the contrary, everything earthly in itself is insignificant, base, even evil (vol. III, p. 68)? b) do I deprive the nature of man, precisely as a man, of its own spiritual essence - the image of God once forever imprinted in it, since I do not dare to attribute “exclusively divine origin” to the natural moral law, in view of its utilitarian side, earthly nature? c) am I forgetting that a Christian can enjoy the joys and blessings of earthly life, no matter how legal and sacred they may be, while remaining at the same time a true Christian? a) To say that the spiritual in itself is divine, to identify everything spiritual with the divine is contrary to my system. The method of my thought, explained on the pages of the Fundamentals of Christianity with almost annoying insistence (see esp. vol. I, 344 seq. vol. ΙΙ, 46 seq. vol. IV, 95 seq. 44 seq.), is that I do not begin with the psychological-spiritual, that is, with the spiritual in the sense of the ethereal, the spiritual in contrast to the sensory, reducing the divine to it, identifying with it divine, but I start with the divine, calling it spiritual. “The Jews did not know spirituality in the sense of ethereality. They called spirituality living force, life and strength, vigor, strength. Therefore, God, living, strong, omnipotent, is opposed to the world as the spirit of the flesh” (II, 46). I do not even conceptually separate the divine and the spiritual, so that they can be identified - both are one for me from the very beginning, and it is not I who fill the concept of the divine with the content of the spiritual, but rather the concept of the spiritual with the content of the divine. I affirm that “everything spiritual is essentially divine,” since (I immediately add) only the divine can be spiritual. I could not say that “the spiritual as a predicate of the divine constitutes its opposite to the human,” I could only say that “the spiritual as a predicate of the divine expresses most of all its opposition to the “human” - the base, the humiliated” (I, 344). Therefore, it is impossible to say about me that “for me everything spiritual is identified with the divine and at the same time is opposed to the human.” I keep talking not about psychological spirituality, but about religious, divine, absolute spirituality - I identify the concepts of spirituality and absoluteness. And when in any respect divine spirituality coincides with psychological spirituality, I directly note this. For example, II, 255: “in this respect, the divinity of spiritual life also turns out to be psychological spirituality.” Without identifying the divine with the spiritual, I also do not imagine the earthly as evil in itself. I do not and cannot have such an expression either on page 68 of Vol. III or in other places. I say that the world’s own nature is nothingness, that man in himself is nothingness, but in fact the world is the manifestation of divine life in nothingness (III, 60), and man is actually the bearer of life in nothingness (III, 68). “Getting glory to God in nothingness is the goal of world and human life. This goal is inevitably achieved in this reality. In all phenomena of world life, God’s glory is revealed” (ib.), etc. Hence, “the first thing that is instilled in a person with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe glory of God is the duty of life. Man was created for life on this earth, and therefore he must live in the fullness of his nature, created by God” (65, etc.). I could not call natural life evil, because I tirelessly explain that “in itself, considered objectively, in its forms, the flesh is not assessed from a Christian point of view - and is not condemned, and has no positive religious significance. The flesh is a kingdom of nature, indifferent in a religious sense, just as physiology and technology are indifferent in an ethical sense” (IV, 129), etc. “In a natural sense, physical and worldly life constitute the domain of the will of God, as this latter is manifested in the laws of nature. From this side, it is good, but this is an external, spiritual good, which enters the heart from the outside and has no moral properties, and is not subject to moral assessment. There is nothing unclean here, but there is nothing holy either” (II, 259), etc. Natural life receives an ethical form only from the moment it enters into relation to eternal life, to spiritual good. Therefore, the gospel looks at worldly life in two ways - from a natural point of view and in relation to eternal life. The God of the Gospel has two aspects, being both the God of natural gifts, natural providence, and the God of love, which requires self-denial, but the gospel does not know dualism (258 seq.), etc. b) Without identifying the spiritual with the divine, without filling the concept of the divine with the content of the spiritual, I do not deprive a person of his own moral essence, attributing it to the soul (and not to the spirit). And this is so certain that I even talk about the moral autonomy of man (IV, 68 seq.). “Carnal life, in all the fullness of its development, has ethical foundations” (IV, 124). If at the same time I do not dare to attribute to the natural moral law “exclusively divine origin” (ib.), then this is precisely what I confirm the fact of moral autonomy. By assimilating the utilitarian side of natural morality, I thereby do not condemn it, but only characterize it. I am so far from condemning natural morality as one of the aspects of natural life that, even attributing natural anger to people (according to Matthew 7:11; Luke 11:13), by this natural anger I mean the state of natural morality, utilitarian community, and I say that this natural state does not give a person the benefits of religious life, does not lead him to praise and gratitude, but at the same time it is not imputed to a person” (II, 282, 283). I do not deny that natural morality is from God, I do not say that “as if in the sphere of nature one can be without religion, without God” (IV, 420), - “in a natural sense, physical and worldly life constitutes the domain of the will of God, as this latter is manifested in the laws of nature” (II, 258–259): I only distinguish the revelation of God in nature and history, in spiritual morality, from His New Testament revelation in the Son - in absolutely spiritual, Christian life. From the latter’s point of view, only the spiritual-absolute can be called religious. When discussing all subjects within my horizons from a Christian point of view, I use the concept of religion precisely in this sense of spiritual absoluteness, and the possibility of a broader understanding of religion, the possibility of a double point of view, is always assumed. “The God of the Gospel has two aspects”... I do not break the connection between these two areas, since I insistently assert that “the gradual acts of creation of the world and man were successive stages of the revelation of divine life in nothingness, and each lower stage of creation served as a condition for the highest revelation of divine life in a new form. But the creation of man did not end the gradual revelation of divine life in the world: the highest form of revelation of divine life in the world, in which the Divine is what it is in Itself (John 4:24; 1 John 4:8), is spiritual life. Spiritual life is a new creation of God, but not unconditional: it is a new form of revelation of divine life in the same nothingness, conditioned by the last act of primitive creation, i.e. man... She could appear only when man became prepared for her” (III, 67, 68). By this condition of spiritual life I mean the entirety of natural development, the entirety of culture (IV, 94–95; 128, etc.). However, at the moment of man’s transition from natural-cultural life to spiritual perfection, I place man’s self-denial, his awareness of his natural insignificance, renunciation of his natural dignity, obedience to God and trust in Him (III, 68; 78 next). And this thesis in my system is a simple conclusion from the view of Christianity as a new revelation, a new creation (II, 185). One can fundamentally (and not due to misunderstanding) object to this thesis only from the angle of a naturalistic-evolutionary view of Christianity as a natural product of worldly culture. But this will not happen! And that for me this thesis does not break the connection between spiritual and natural life, this is clear from the fact that I again talk about the realization of spiritual life in “a world that is created from nothingness... Hence the connection between spiritual life and suffering; hence the main character of Christianity is the combination of spiritual perfection with external humiliation and spiritual bliss with external suffering” (III, {erased. Corr.}, etc.). To support my views on these issues, I could present extensive biblical and patristic evidence. But I find myself in such a happy position that I can limit myself to a simple extract from the textbook of dogmatic theology - (Metropolitan Macarius), where we read: “When we say that a person who has turned to Christianity cannot do good deeds on his own without the help of the grace of God, we mean spiritual good, which is commanded by the law of the Gospel, makes a person spiritual and serves his eternal salvation - we mean deeds Christian faith, worthy of faith in Christ. But we do not deny that a person, both before conversion and after conversion to the law of the Gospel, can himself, to some extent, fulfill the requirements of the natural law, which has not been erased from his conscience, and, therefore, do natural good (Rom. 2:14-15), using the remnant of his mental and moral strength, damaged by the fall, but not destroyed - to do good, which, no matter how weak and insignificant it is, in no way case should not be called evil, and, therefore, although it is not able to serve for our salvation, it cannot serve for our condemnation. These thoughts are set out in detail by the High Hierarchs of the East in the 14th chapter of their epistle on the Orthodox faith." c) It already follows from what has been said that a Christian can enjoy the blessings of life. I devote an entire section to the disclosure of this thought in Volume II, where I write: “according to the Gospel teaching, everything natural and humanitarian is permitted to man, all natural blessings are permitted to him, everything is permitted to him, as the apostle says, because all blessings are bestowed by the one Heavenly Father, so that there is no natural limit to the enjoyment of them” (II, 260 seq.), etc. I address this same question I dedicate the entire IV volume, where I reveal the doctrine of Christian freedom. § 6. Saying that “the absoluteness of form and love as content is the only Christianity”, that it is in “absolute divine love” (II, 182) - am I not attributing to the Christian such absoluteness, that is, unlimitedness, which the Orthodox Church does not assimilate either to the disembodied forces or to the glorified saints of God? No. The main idea of ​​my work, revealed specifically in Volume III, is that religious good is inexpressible in terms of natural perfection, that natural absolute perfection is inaccessible to man, and the very desire for personal possession of infinite perfection is evil. Christian absoluteness is, firstly, spiritual absoluteness, and not natural (cf. IV, 95 seq.), secondly, it is a gift of God, and not the fruit of natural perfection, thirdly, it is combined with natural limitations. “The God-given gift of spiritual perfection and bliss and the combination of spiritual perfection with visible humiliation and bliss with external suffering - this is what is most characteristic of Christianity from the outside, that is, in addition to the content of spiritual life itself” (III, 58), etc. Spiritual life is not human nature; no, spiritual life is divine life in man” (III, 88). It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me. Of course, for such an absoluteness instilled in a person, which fits into his natural limitations, there must be a way out, just as there is a valve for steam. Such a way out is given in free death, in self-denial. “The good of eternal life, or the absoluteness of divine love, has a predetermined entanglement with death, which it inevitably overcomes... Substitute the irreducible duration of existence, the obligatory bypass of death to any side of the Gospel principle, add to some Gospel requirement the clause “not until death,” and for you all the Gospel words will sound false and hypocrisy. In the system of Gospel teaching, only one point deals with the idea of ​​death, but it is presupposed by all the other points. A disciple of Christ can only once “lay down his life” for people, but readiness for a mortal sacrifice is a necessary prerequisite for the entire Christian life. Love and eternal life are, in the language of the gospel, the same as love and death: gospel love is love to death and eternal life in victory over death” (II, 275, 276). § 7. “If the human “I” turns out to be so passive in the process of the divine spiritual life of a Christian, and on the other hand, if everything corruptible, earthly, transitory has meaning for him only in the sense that it serves as an object of denial, suffering, self-sacrifice, while the movement of the entire natural-historical life of the world (by me) is everywhere left to its own natural laws, then in what way is the creativity of absolute freedom and boundless love of an individual Christian manifested for to humanity? and by what kind of creativity does he achieve the goal of life?” To this I give a definite and clear answer in my books. Christianity consists of: 1) in the intimate experience by a person of divine-spiritual life, which is as passive as it is active, as free as it is involuntary, as passive and at the same time active, free and involuntary is all inspired creativity (see Vol. II passim). 2) in the action on nature and the world by grace, although this action of grace is invisible, it will affect only at the end of times (II, 189. 855; III, 128 f. 284 f. V, 230). 3) in personal asceticism, for in the fight against personally conscious immorality, Christianity is an irreplaceable educational force, although personal asceticism does not affect natural-social life in its essence (II, 210; III, 93–107; IV, 175; V, 231). 4) in the freedom of natural life, in the fullness of cultural development (IV passim, V, 231 seq.) and 5) in churchliness (V, 234). Everything that can be said thoroughly about the content of Christian life and has actually been said at some time and by anyone, fits into these formulas. My system perceives the content of churchliness, which necessarily grows on a Christian root, although I call it a secondary and derivative form of Christian life (II, 347–348; V, 234 ff.). The entire fullness of culture is reconciled in my system with the absoluteness of personal Christian life and is sanctified by the latter, although I say that Christianity is not in the flesh, not in its boundaries, not in its forms (IV, 130, etc.). All the moral force of Christianity fits into my system, although I say that Christianity in its essence is deeper than morality. In my system there is enough scope for the entire metaphysics of grace, but I still see the deepest essence of Christianity not in this side of Christianity. The essence of Christianity is in the intimate experience by a person of divine-spiritual life. This is Christian mysticism, the secret of a Christian’s personal life. With complete clarity and certainty and with full motivation, I declare that this intimacy of the Christian life is inexpressible, that everyone learns the essence of this matter only from their own experience (V, 215 seq.). Just as biology, while studying the phenomena of life, cannot answer the question of what life is; Likewise, religious philosophy, studying the dialectics of spiritual life and its relationships, finds its limit in the personal intimacy of spiritual life. The task of theological science is not to exhaust this mystery, but to substantiate the very idea of ​​Christian mysticism, the intimacy and freedom of personal Christianity (see esp. vol. II, p. 165 next), and also to indicate ways of combining personal Christianity with forms of natural-historical life. More than anyone else, I can rely here on Fr. I.L. Yanyshev, on his famous thesis that the moral law is fulfilled by everyone in their own way. But Fr. I.L. For Yanyshev, this thesis remained a simple postulate, since the necessary subjectivity of the moral law cannot be realized if the content of the moral law embraces conditional social life. The subjectivity of the religious-moral, and specifically Christian, principle is first realized (systematically carried out) only in my system, thanks to the doctrine of the heterogeneity of the personal-religious and natural-social spheres. As a result, the convention of the natural-social sphere is not a burden for the individual, being determined by its own laws; but at the same time this is not only negative personal freedom, since the forms of social life are determined by natural-historical laws alone, and a Christian man always and in everything remains a Christian man, with complete freedom of personal behavior and in a positive attitude towards real life. § 8. Standing in the entire structure of my thoughts about divine spiritual life primarily from the point of view of the Four Gospels 91, do I not come to some disagreement with the teaching and modern practice of the Orthodox Church, in particular, on issues of the oath, war, nationality, and the union of the church with the state.” When I say that external cleanliness, clothing and food are not valued religiously in Christianity (II, 225-227), this does not mean that a Christian should not wash, dress and eat: it only means that there is no Christian washing, Christian clothing and food and that a Christian washes, dresses and eats like a person, and not like a specifically Christian, - according to the requirements of hygiene, climate and physiology. So, in the same way, understanding the Gospel commandments absolutely and at the same time not recognizing their socially binding meaning, I say with absolute certainty that “the forms of social life must be normalized conditionally and commensurate with earthly interests, but the believer in all his relations acts in a divine way, that is, absolutely, the religious action of the individual must be absolute” (II, 212-213). In particular, I am only saying that religious war, religious patriotism (the idea of ​​the people's chosenness of God), is absurd from a Christian point of view, although the gospel is not against patriotism as a natural good (ib. 217). I am only saying that the forms of natural-social life cannot be derived from the essence of Christianity, although they follow from natural-historical necessity. Restoring pure, evangelical Christianity as neutral in the natural-social relation, I do not forget that in Christianity, along with this primary essence, there appears a derivative, secondary form of church life and that in this latter form Christianity becomes a natural-historical force. “Only the church, and not personal-spiritual Christianity, sanctifies nature and the world, is a socio-historical force, connects Christianity with nature and history and restores a significant gap in the system of the religious meaning of life” (III, 131 and generally 130–131). I fully recognize the historical significance of the state and legal position of the church. A true understanding of the essence of Christianity in this case is an indication of the path in which the relationship of the church to the state should develop. “The legal relationship of the church to the state, aiming above temporal interests, should be a symbol of the relationship of the divine to the human, the eternal to the temporary, the internal to the external” (III, 138)... XII. Christianity and the Church (Christian 1916 Jan. Feb.) There is no Christianity without a church. His is the Holy Scripture and the Church The named pamphlets of Archimandrite Hilarion deserve attention for their important topic, although it is discussed by the author in a popular polemical tone. The spearhead of the controversy is directed at Fr. Hilarion is against the churchless concept of Christianity among sectarians and, especially Tolstoy, but he thinks to take over the theological theory of Christianity with his blow. “Christ Himself said that He would create a church, but do they really talk about the church now? No, now they prefer to talk about Christianity, and Christianity is considered as some kind of philosophical or moral teaching. Christianity sounds like Novokantianism or Nietzscheanism! This counterfeit of the church by Christianity, like a subtle poison, penetrates into the consciousness of even church society. It is a subtle poison, because it is hidden under the flowery shell of loud speeches about the shortcomings of “historical Christianity” (that is, the church?), about its supposed inconsistency with some kind of “pure”, “evangelical” Christianity. The Gospel and Christ are contrasted with the church, which is called “historical” for some reason, as if there is or ever was another “non-historical” church! Truly, here Satan has taken on the image of an angel of light; he pretends that he wants to cleanse the truth of Christ from human untruth.” If you are a gymnasium teacher, and in your presence someone talks about a gymnasium teacher who caused scandals while drunk, and begins to argue in the sense that this is what education can lead to, then you can hardly help but feel offended. Likewise, I, the author of the Fundamentals of Christianity, feel hurt by the polemics of Fr. Hilarion with the sectarian theory of churchless Christianity, in view of the fact that he talks about the penetration of the theory of Christianity into the consciousness of church society. I do not claim that the controversy about. Ilariova is aiming at me over the head of Tolstoy and the sectarians. Let me be right only subjectively. And there is no need to refer to the delicacy of the young monk, which prevents him from speaking openly against his teacher, since it is known that in our time students and, in particular, young monks do not suffer from this weakness 92. I think there are enough subjective reasons. And even without that, the topic deserves discussion. In the polemical interests of Fr. Hilarion identifies the theory of Christianity with the theory of the separation of Christianity from the church. According to him, whoever talks about Christianity, about evangelical Christianity, about historical Christianity, that is, the church, eo ipso separates Christianity from the church. “That is why people begin to talk too self-confidently about matters of faith, because they admit the possibility of the existence of some kind of Christianity, not only independent of the church, but even hostile to the church. They believe that you can be a Christian and at the same time be at enmity with the church.” Together with this Fr. Hilarion makes, as a matter of course, another identification: the theory of Christianity and the theoretical understanding of Christianity, in his opinion, are one and the same. “Church is a narrower concept than Christianity, understood in the sense of theoretical principles alone. While remaining outside the church, one can be in agreement with these theoretical positions; For unity with the church, in addition, consent of the will is necessary. But it is obvious that without this latter, only theoretical agreement with Christian teaching is completely useless and there is no salvation outside the church. In life, Christianity completely coincides with the church.” “Christianity and the church do not coincide with each other only when by Christianity we understand the sum of some theoretical provisions that do not bind anyone to anything. But such an understanding of Christianity can only be called demonic. Then demons should also be recognized as Christians, who also believe and only tremble because of this. To know the system of Christian dogma, to agree with the dogmas - does this really mean to be a true Christian? “Many of our contemporaries dream of being saved without the church and without the God-man, although with the Gospel. They hope for the book of the Gospel in the same way as Adam and Eve hoped for the apple of paradise. But the book, it turns out, is unable to give them new life. People who deny the church constantly talk about evangelical principles, about evangelical teaching, but Christianity, as life, is completely alien to them. In its churchless form, Christianity is just a sound, sometimes sentimental, but always caricatured and lifeless. It was these people who, by denying the church, made Christianity, in the words of V.S. Solovyov, mortally boring. When a church building is destroyed and an edifying sermon stands on a bare, poorly leveled site, it comes out sad and even terrible: David Strauss said this.” This point is further illustrated by Tolstoy's sermon. The starting point in Tolstoy’s false teachings can be called precisely his sharp separation of Christianity from the church. Tolstoy decisively condemned the church, while at the same time bowing to Christianity. But Christianity immediately became for him only a teaching, and Christ only a teacher. At the same time, it became completely indifferent to him whether Jesus Christ was God or not. His denial of the church led him to deny the incarnation. “The denial of the church leads to a terrible distortion, even destruction, of Christianity itself, and churchless Christianity is refuted by its complete lifelessness.” This is how Fr. argues. Hilarion. His judgments are deadly for Tolstoyanism. But what if we imagine the theory of Christianity not as a separation of Christianity from the church, but as a theory of “Christianity in the church?” What if we imagine the theory of Christianity not as a theoretical understanding of Christianity, but as a theory of the spiritual and mystical essence of Christianity, as opposed to theoretical dogmatism - after all, dogmatic teaching, of course, is church teaching - and ecclesiastical practical jurisprudence, as we see it in Catholicism? After all, all judgments about this theory are against such a theory. Hilarion are too powerless. For his polemical purposes, it is advantageous to present the matter in such a way that any theory of Christianity inevitably leads to Tolstoyanism and sectarianism, but such a simplification of the issue is no better than Tolstoy’s non-Tolstoyanism and no higher than the methods of Old Believer scolding. For Christian philosophy, to comprehend Christianity in its own essence, a more subtle and deeper thinking is required than for the apology of the church from external attacks. O. Hilarion builds the following conclusion: Christianity is impossible without the church, in particular, the Holy Scriptures are valid only in the church, therefore, Christianity is identical with the church. “To be a Christian means to belong to a church, for Christianity is precisely the church, and there can be no Christian life outside the church.” “The urgent need of the present time can be considered the open confession of the immutable truth that Christ created the church and that it is completely absurd to separate Christianity from the church and talk about some kind of Christianity besides the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ.” “The trouble of our time is that no one wants to sincerely admit their spiritual poverty, the hardening of their hearts to the point that Christ’s ideal of the church has become difficult and even incomprehensible. No, having replaced gold with copper, they do not want to attribute any value to gold itself. Now they are fiercely attacking the church and denying the very idea of ​​the church, hypocritically hiding behind loud and template-beautiful boring phrases about personal freedom, about the individual refraction of Christianity, about the religion of freedom and spirit... Some kind of evangelical Christianity is nothing more than a belittlement and distortion of Christ’s idea of ​​the church, killing any truly Christian grace-filled church life.” Christianity is impossible outside the church and, in particular, Holy Scripture has no force outside the church 93. “When guided by the word of God and the writings of the patristic fathers, one should think through in all depth an important question: is Christianity possible without the church?.. Outside the church and without the church, Christian life is impossible. Only in the church can a person live, develop and be saved, as in any organism, individual members never grow and develop separately from each other, but always only in inextricable connection with the whole organism. Without the church there is no Christianity; only the Christian teaching remains, which by itself cannot renew the fallen Adam... Any separation from the church is certainly associated with a distortion of faith. He who has apostatized from the church is no longer a Christian and is deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is why he is deprived of hope of salvation.” I definitely agree with this. This is the holy truth. In particular, I emphatically acknowledge that Holy Scripture is the property of the church. “In the church, sacred scripture does not make up everything, but outside the church there is no sacred scripture at all, the word of God: only the holy books remain. scriptures. Non-church people very often talk about their respect for Holy Scripture and reproach the Church for neglecting Scripture. But these speeches are just self-deception and a sad misunderstanding. We can think correctly about Scripture only by starting from the idea of ​​the church, and we can correctly use Scripture for our benefit only by living in the church. Without a church, without church life, Christianity itself is reduced to nothing, and reading literary monuments of a dead life cannot be replaced.” “Blessed. Augustine said: ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae Ecclesiae coramoverat auctoritas. These words of Augustine express a great truth. If there is no church, then there is no priest. scriptures. Protestants and sectarians, apparently, recognize and honor the Holy Scriptures, but isn’t this recognition hanging in the air for them? Let Protestants or sectarians sincerely think through the question: why do we recognize these particular books as sacred? scripture? To refer to your personal opinion means to refuse a reasonable answer. You can’t refer to science either. The question of the origin and authenticity of the books of the Holy. Scripture is much discussed in science. Scientific literature has been growing for centuries. Piles of books have been written. But there are no positive results... It must be recognized that the concept of an obligatory canon of Holy Scripture is an exclusively ecclesiastical concept, completely unthinkable outside the church.” All this is the holy truth. But this does not in any way lead to the conclusion that Christianity and the church are one and the same. Christianity is impossible without the church, which does not mean that Christianity coincides with the church. Just a few years ago Fr. Hilarion, then still Vladimir Troitsky, during the entrance exams to the academy, when asked about the inconsistency of materialistic teaching, “he answered the soul with the words of Kudryavtsev’s textbook: “the dependence of two objects in existence does not at all imply their substantial identity or origin from one another. Otherwise, one could conclude: vision depends on light and is conditioned by it; therefore, it comes from light and is identical with it. The sound of a musical instrument depends on it and is impossible without it; therefore, it is the product of an instrument. This last example was also pointed out by Plato in refutation of the materialists of his time, who compared our body with the lyre, and the soul with the harmony it produces.” This is how Vladimir Troitsky thought, but the logic that was obligatory for the modest Vladimir Troitsky, apparently, is no longer obligatory for the venerable archimandrite Fr. Hilarion. The soul depends on the body, this does not mean that the soul and the body are one and the same: this is how Vladimir Troitsky answered at the exam. Christianity is impossible without the church, therefore, Christianity and the church are one and the same, as Fr. now writes. Hilarion. This also includes some of his incorrect conclusions regarding the priest. scriptures, as we will see below. Hilarion proves the idea of ​​the identity of Christianity and the church not only in the indicated negative way (“Christianity is impossible without the church, ergo”...), but also with some positive arguments. We will give them, but first I will outline the relationship of Christianity to the church according to the Fundamentals of Christianity. Christianity is a spiritual and mystical reality. This is precisely: love, faith, spiritual righteousness, eternal life... All this spiritual content is not just a thought or idea: it is the divine life of Christ in man, the infusion of the Father and the Son into him, his birth from the Holy Spirit. Spiritual life is life from the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of love. Christian love is divine love, love from God, from the Holy Spirit 94. The roots of the church community lie in Christianity. “Constituting the basis of spiritual life, divine love and faith, to be effective in a Christian, must be his love for other people and his service to the lesser brothers of Christ. But this is not the whole connection between a Christian and his brothers in faith. Not only must a Christian love other people and recognize them as brothers of Christ, but for the reality of his spiritual life it is also necessary that people love him with the believing love of Jesus Christ. 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. This gathering of believers in the name of Christ, the society of His disciples chosen from the world is His church. A Christian lives only by the life of Christ, but communication with Christ is confirmed and becomes a real power for Christians only through their mutual communication, in the Church of Christ. The Church has a religious and ethical genesis; its germ is in the personal essence of Christianity, in the personal mystical depths. But in its historical appearance, the church is not covered by the basic essence of Christianity: it is broader than it. Inner Christianity is entirely divine and motionless, like eternity, while the church has an earthly appearance, bears the features of human convention, and develops historically. In the church, the white Christianity of the individual is covered with earthly dust, shines with earthly colors, moves, is militant. The Church will never exhaust the bottomless depth of personality, and personal absoluteness does not cover the historically conditional movement of the Church. Spiritual Christianity is immeasurable in depth, its sphere is the unconditionally free, absolutely creative personality: church Christianity is measured in the breadth of socio-historical development, its sphere is the “people”, society. Personal Christianity has no history; the church is a historical form of Christianity. Just as through a chemical combination bodies acquire new properties, so church life has features that are completely unthinkable in individual Christianity. These features of church life are manifested both from the side of daily activities and from the side of mysterious reality. In the first respect, the social convention of the church makes necessary the unity of the symbol of faith, the visibility of the liturgical rite and the harmony of church government, and the historical convention provides the basis for church tradition. From the mysterious side, the grace of the Holy Spirit is the mysterious feature of church life.” These are the spiritual gifts and mystery practice of the church. Then, “personal Christian absoluteness, freely combined with every type of natural humiliation and with every form of historical development, is not a natural or 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 basis of the church and diverge in the cultural-historical area. From a cultural-historical point of view, the church is more important than personal Christianity, from an essentially religious point of view - vice versa,” etc. This is the mutual relationship of Christianity and the church in a brief outline of the Fundamentals of Christianity. Now let's see how Fr. judges this. Hilarion, what arguments he gives in favor of the idea of ​​the identity of Christianity and the church. According to Fr. Hilarion, Christianity and the church are identical, because the essence of church life is love 95. “To recognize the church means not dreaming only about Christ, but living like a Christian, following the path of love and self-denial. Truth and salvation are given to love, that is, to the church.” Catholicism and Protestantism sin against love 96 . “Christianity is not some kind of abstract teaching that is accepted by the mind and contained by everyone separately. No, Christianity is a common life in which individuals are so united with each other that their unity can be likened to the unity of the persons of the Holy Trinity... It is this unity of human personalities that forms the church... People who have joined the church and loved each other are like the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, whom Their love unites into a single Being. The Church is, as it were, a consubstantial being of many persons, created by their common love for each other.” “The basis of church unity is not legal principles protecting personal egoism, but love, the opposite of egoism.” “Christ did not teach only about unity, about the church, but created the church.” He did not give only commandments or teachings about love, but in the church he created the real life of love. “Christ is not only a great teacher; He is the Savior of the world, who gave humanity new strength, who renewed humanity. It is not only teaching that we have from Christ our Savior, but life. If we understand Christianity as a new life not according to the elements of the world, which knows only the principles of egoism and selfishness, but according to Christ with His teaching and example of self-denial and love, then Christianity necessarily completely coincides with the church. To be a Christian means to belong to a church, for Christianity is precisely the church, and outside the church there is no Christian life, and there cannot be.” With this identification of Christianity with the church, Fr. To Hilarion, not only does falling away from the church seem to be a violation of love, but in general the concept of Christianity, the theory of Christianity, seems to be only a theoretical understanding of Christianity. Is it possible to identify Christianity and the church on the basis that the essence of church life is love? Of course, one can use the concept of Christianity or the concept of church in the broadest sense, so that both the concept of Christianity and the concept of church embrace the fullness of Christian-church thought and life. Whoever speaks about Christianity in a broad sense also includes the church in his thoughts; whoever speaks about the church in a broad sense also includes Christianity in his thoughts. In the broad sense of these concepts, it makes no difference whether we talk about Christianity or the church; in other words, these concepts coincide. In the same way, in particular, “it makes no difference whether one learns from the Scriptures or from the universal Church.” But when these concepts are used in a broad sense, the question of the church’s relationship to Christianity does not arise. If these concepts are used in a specific sense, and this is required by the very formulation of the question of the relationship of Christianity to the church, then it is no longer possible to identify Christianity and the church, because it is impossible to reduce the essence of church life to love. If we distinguish between the concepts of Christianity and the church, then isn’t it obvious that love belongs to the concept of Christianity? There is still nothing specifically ecclesiastical in the communication of love. A society united by love will not yet be called a church. Fr. himself Hilarion writes: “Christianity, ecclesiastical in its very essence, has in fact always been precisely the church, that is, a visible society with its own specific organization... The Lord was pleased to give His church precisely a hierarchical organization... To be a Christian means to belong to the visible church and to submit to the hierarchy established in it by God.” This is another matter. A hierarchical organization is specifically ecclesiastical. The Church is not simply a Christian society united by love, but: a visible Christian society with a hierarchical organization. But the hierarchical organization does not flow entirely from love, the hierarchical structure is not love - only love. Is hierarchical authority really just love? Is church discipline only love? Is excommunication of heretics only love? The words spoken in my presence not so long ago by one of our hierarchs still ring in my ears: “What is everyone talking about love? Love alone is not enough. Strictness is also needed. We need order. Authority is needed. We need structure." This is church thought. To reduce church life only to love means not to understand church life. In the church there is not only love, but also authority - and church authority is needed by the Christian people, people need it, it is saving for them: in the church there is not only evangelical love, but also discipline. This is what we read in the study of Prof. Kiparisova On Church Discipline. “Not all provisions of Revelation that contain the expression of a moral ideal (as opposed to direct Christian commandments), due only to the fact that they are expressed in Revelation, should be recognized as containing the laws of church discipline. Just as in the common law law and morality are distinguished, so in Revelation the images of the moral ideal and the position of discipline themselves differ. For how, in fact, could the church court exist in those details in which it now exists, if the thought of the Gospel of Matthew 7:8 was accepted as a norm of discipline, and not as a moral ideal of Christian relations towards one's neighbor? In the same way, the canons regulating the issue of disposing of church property, how could they be reconciled with the commandment about not collecting treasures on earth, if it were possible, outside the commandment of Revelation, to be identified with the commandments of frank discipline?.. A fact existing in Revelation cannot in itself yet be accepted as determining the order in any sphere of church or private life, otherwise - as instructions for discipline in this sphere,” etc. The Church unites the people in its build differently (that is, not only) as love does. And to identify the church system with Christian love means putting oneself in a hopeless position. Identifying Christianity with the church must mean either reducing the church to love, i.e., denying the church, or reducing love to the church system, i.e. denial of Christian love. In the first direction, identifying Christianity and the church would mean: the church is where the love is. This is the Protestant idea of ​​the invisible church. In the second direction it would mean: Christian love is nothing more than the church system. The deacon's trembling before the dean, the dean's trembling before the bishop - this is Christian love. Arseniy Matseevich, who tortured the 85-year-old abbot Tryphon to death and issued “a pastoral order that priests who are guilty should be punished with ropes dipped in hot resin, with a wire tied at the end like a cat’s claws” (and then himself flogged with a whip and imprisoned in the Revel fortress): this is Christian love. God forbid! We don’t argue: love can also take on a churchly form. This is church-public charity. However, this is only a particularity. Apparently, they can more thoroughly point out that the church has religious and ethical roots, that it naturally arises on the foundation of mutual Christian love. This is true. But we need to distinguish between a foundation and a building. The religious and ethical foundation of the church does not yet mean the religious and ethical nature of the church system. Arising on this basis, the church has a specific character, so that it is quite possible to distinguish between the Christian and the ecclesiastical. Personal Christianity and the church come into contact in the religious and ethical foundation of the church, but they diverge, complementing each other, since the first has its own depth, and the second has its own historical existence. The Church has not only a religious and ethical root, but also a religious and ethical task: its structure, its practice have educational significance. Christ did not teach only love “The strength and significance of the work of Christ is that it is not limited to teaching alone. Man has been given new strength, and therefore a new church unity becomes possible for him. These powers are given, first of all, by the fact that in the incarnation of the Son of God, humanity was most closely united with God. In the church, the unity of a person with Christ always and unchangeably continues, and this unity is the source of spiritual life, and without unity with Christ there is spiritual death. What is this unity? The Sacrament of Communion is where unity with Christ is and, therefore, the source of spiritual life. The Sacrament of Communion unites people with God and thereby unites them with each other. This is why Communion is the source of church life par excellence. The meaning of the sacrament of Communion is its churchliness. Outside of church unity there is no Communion. It is very significant that in patristic writing, church unity is placed in inextricable connection with the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ... Thus, according to the teachings of Christ and the theology of the holy fathers, true life is possible only with close natural or, as they now say, real unity with Christ, but this unity with Christ also creates the unity of people with each other, i.e. creates one body of the church. Consequently, Christian life is ecclesiastical in its very essence. There is also a source of new life for humanity, namely church life - the Holy Spirit... Spiritual gifts and all ministries in general that exist in the church, according to the thought of St. Paul, for the perfection of the saints, that is, for the moral rebirth of Christians, until we all come to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the full stature of Christ... Not to mention the most obvious contradictions of churchless Christianity, one can always see that in it there is absolutely no full, grace-filled Christian life, grace-filled inspiration, or enthusiasm.”... I completely agree with Fr. Hilarion and that these are accessories specifically to church life and that they are characterized by the power of grace-filled strengthening and moral education of the Christian spirit. This is both a grace-filled and disciplinary support for spiritual life, its bodily embodiment. Just as sin becomes full force when it takes possession not only of the soul, but also of the body, so the salvation of man, accomplished in the spiritual and mystical sphere, ends with incarnation in nature and society, grace-natural metaphysics and church sociology, due to which the Christian people become the body of Christ. The educational significance of the church-gracious and hierarchical-disciplinary sphere is all the more important because the life of the majority of Christians baptized in childhood begins with participation in this church sphere, from which it only gradually deepens into spiritual mysticism. Nevertheless, there is no identity between the church environment and spiritual content. On the one hand, the church sphere is not limited to spiritual and educational goals, having some independence, since - we hope for this - the participation of a Christian in church sacraments and disciplinary obedience to the church are salutary for him; on the other hand, the benefits of spiritual life and, above all, spiritual love cannot in any way be replaced by its church environment, church support. Let us recall the teaching of the Apostle Paul about spiritual gifts. “Be zealous for the spiritual gifts that make you different members of the one body of Christ, prefer those that are more useful in church terms, but seek the path that is most excellent, that is, love”: this is the teaching of St. Pavel. This is the same with all patristic teaching. Modern theology suffers from a confusion of the mysticism of spiritual life with the mysticism of pneumatic gifts. The average theologian, if he talks about mysticism, always understands only the mysticism of pneumatic gifts, and only our great theologians rise to the understanding that there is a mysticism of pneumatic gifts and there is spiritual mysticism, the mysticism of love, the mysticism of the Christian personality. Spiritual mysticism cannot be and should not be replaced by the mysticism of pneumatic gifts: one should, with the apostle, be zealous for the latter, but seek the former, as the most excellent path. Father Hilarion well develops the idea that separation from the church marks the loss of spiritual life, the loss of love. “If the connection with the body of the church is severed, then an individual person, having become isolated and withdrawn into his own selfishness, will be deprived of the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit living in the church... An individual person, even a separate Christian community, is alive insofar as it lives the life of Christ, insofar as it is united with the entire universal church. To isolate oneself, to withdraw into oneself, is for an individual or even for a local church what is for a ray to be separated from the sun, for a stream to be separated from a source, for a branch to be separated from a trunk. Spiritual life can only exist with an organic connection with the universal church; if this connection is broken, Christian life will certainly dry up... The Church is the realization of the love of Christ and any separation from the church is precisely a violation of love. Both heretics and schismatics sin against love,” etc. This is absolutely true. And yet we must remember that the truth of the downward path is not reversible on the upward path. Whoever separates from the church already sins against Christian love, already loses the benefits of spiritual life; but to belong to the visible church and to submit to the hierarchy established in it by God does not yet signify the fullness of spiritual life, the fullness of Christian love. To the question whether Christianity is possible without a church, Fr. Hilarion answered negatively. And - that's the end of it. I made a point. As if this question contained the entire Christian question, as if this answer contained the entire fullness of truth. Meanwhile, this is only half the truth. The question: is Christianity possible without the church - logically implies another question: is the church possible without Christianity? A negative answer to the first question obliges, in the name of complete truth, to answer negatively to the second question. Father Hilarion proclaims: “outside the church and without the church, Christian life is impossible.” Theophan the Recluse instructs: “it is not yet a decisive sign of true life in Christ if someone is called a Christian and belongs to the Church of Christ.” This was not said by some Tolstoyan, sectarian, Protestant - it was said by Theophan the Recluse, a theologian of overwhelming authority. Isn't it too hasty? Did Hilarion adopt such a peremptory, high tone? Will he have to make a concession? From the words of Feofan the whole theory of Fr. Hilarion’s theory of the identity of Christianity and the church is scattering like a house of cards, dissipating like smoke. According to this theory, “to be a Christian means to belong to the visible church and to submit to the hierarchy established in it by God.” But this is not true: “It is not yet a decisive sign of true life in Christ if someone is called a Christian and belongs to the Church of Christ.” The whole problem raised must be reconsidered, rethought anew: “The essence of Christian life consists in communion with God about Christ Jesus our Lord”: this not only needs to be reminded of those who have broken away from the church, but it is important to remember also those who belong to the church. All my theory about. Hilarion built on half the truth: “without the church there is no Christianity,” with oblivion about the other half, as a result of which his entire construction turned out to be one-sided, one-sided. He proceeds only from the concept of the church and neglects Christianity. The idea of ​​Christianity appears to him in extreme terms, in an ugly distortion. But the church idea is also possible in an ugly form. Christianity without a church is conceivable, and this is an ugliness; A church without Christianity is also conceivable, and this is also a deformity. A church without Christianity is papism, which recognizes the church and does not recognize Christians - these are all those who “belong to the visible church and are subject to the hierarchy,” having no internal spiritual content. The idea of ​​the Christian religion must be alien to both extremes - the extremes of Protestantism, sectarianism, Tolstoyanism, and the extremes of papism, religious jurisprudence, and clergy. The true idea of ​​the Christian religion includes both Christianity and the church, and the very formulation of the question: “Christianity or the church” (the title of the brochure by Fr. Hilarion in the first edition) is false. The extreme of popery is as ugly as the extreme of sectarian individualism. The extreme of papism, jurisprudence, clergy: here there is a church, and there is no Christianity, there is no internal, spiritual content - there is a pope, a hierarchy, a system, and there are no Christians, for the crowd that belongs to the visible church and submits to the hierarchy is not yet a people of Christians, the kingdom of the sons of God. The Church is the body, and Christianity is the soul: the soul is not alive without the body, but the body is dead without the soul. The Church is the body of Christ, a living organism: this is the holy truth. A characteristic feature of churchliness is the organic harmony of the whole. But the analogy of the body is only one of the analogies in the apostolic teaching about the church. Along with it, the apostles use another analogy - the analogy of a church being built from living stones, the sons of God. To stop only at the first analogy, to freeze on it, and not to embrace the second, means to anatomize the truth. “Whoever does not have the church as a mother can no longer have God as a father”: true. But it is also true that the sons of the church have God himself as their father, and to whom God is not a father, the church is not a mother, but a stepmother. The Church of Christ is the mother of the sons of God, royal, free sons. Those who want to know only Christianity act badly, but those who know nothing except the church act no less badly. “In its churchless form, Christianity is just a sound, sometimes sentimental, but always caricatured and lifeless.” We agree, but you will also agree that “in a non-Christian form, the church is just sound, often pogrom, always caricatured and spiritually lifeless.” According to Fr. Hilarion’s formula of “belonging to the visible church and subordination to the hierarchy” solves everything, everything is exhausted, so there is nothing more to say, as if there is nothing more to talk about, and he declares all further conversations to be hypocrisy. “Now they are attacking the church with bitterness and denying the very idea of ​​the church, hypocritically hiding behind loud and template-beautiful boring phrases about personal freedom, about the individual refraction of Christianity, about the religion of freedom and spirit.” Freedom of the individual, religion of freedom and spirit: this is for Fr. Hilarion is just bored. No, the idea of ​​the church has not yet decided everything, not everything has been exhausted. Outside the church there is no Christianity; but the idea of ​​the church must be filled with Christian content, there must be a place in the church for freedom and spirit, its church must be built from Christians, its children must be sons of the Heavenly Father, since: “it is not yet a decisive sign of true life in Christ if someone is called a Christian and belongs to the Church of Christ.” Christian theory, as set forth in the Fundamentals of Christianity, gives place to the church; The church-military theory about Hilarion leaves no room for Christianity. Father Hilarion has never spoken about Christianity in the church; he knows only churchless Christianity. Churchless Christianity is, of course, a lie, but completely different prospects are opened up by the idea of ​​Christianity in the church. “There is no Christianity outside the church”: this is an elementary truth, quite suitable for the popular struggle against sectarian, churchless Christianity. “It is not yet a decisive sign of true life in Christ if someone is called a Christian and belongs to the Church of Christ”: this is Christian philosophy, the highest, almost esoteric, wisdom. The theory of Christianity in the church is a philosophy that is not vulnerable to the church-military theory, because it lies in the highest region, because its face is turned inward. Thinking with his elementary theory to strike Christian philosophy along with sectarianism, Fr. Hilarion achieved only one thing: he lowered his gaze, narrowed his horizon, presented himself in a caricature. “To be a Christian is to belong to a visible church and to be subject to a hierarchy”: what meager theology! For Christian philosophy, “without a church there is no Christianity” is an elementary truth. “Christianity in the Church” is its own theme 97 . It is not only sectarians who speak about Christianity and the Holy Scriptures: the theologians “Letters on Spiritual Life”, “Letters on Christian Life” speak about the same thing, with much greater success: should Theophan be accused of proud sectarianism, of Protestant individualism for this? No, Theophan is not a Protestant, but he stands above Catholicism. He proceeds from the idea of ​​the church, but according to his theology, church members should also have an inner Christian life. Christians are born in the church, but the church gives birth to children of the Heavenly Father; it does not stand as a mediastinum, like the pope, between its members and the Heavenly Father, it leads each of them to direct unity with the Heavenly Father, to spontaneity and freedom of spiritual life. Accordingly, the word of God, sacred scripture, is the property of the church, preserved by it, offered from it, explained by it, and yet it is handed over by the church to everyone for immediate, intimate assimilation, for his deepest comprehension. As the word of God, it is the only word commensurate with the intimate communion of a Christian with God and therefore irreplaceable, and at the same time it can be intimately and directly comprehended only by members of the church, as sons of God. “It makes no difference whether one learns from the scriptures or from the universal church,” but the church teaches in a church-generally obligatory way, namely dogmatically-abstractly and (prescribes) disciplinaryly, and scripture teaches intimately - it teaches, of course, not in its letter, but as the word of God, it teaches not everyone, but the sons of God - and this intimate teaching is the true content for church-dogmatic formulas. Without a church there is no Christianity, but the church structure is inspired by the communion of living stones with God in Christ Jesus. Without dogmatic guidance there is no true knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, but dogmatic definitions are filled with content in an intimate comprehension of the word of God. The Church teaches everyone ecclesiastical dogmatically; Christ teaches every member of the church intimately in the word of God. Intimacy is what makes the word of God (the gospel) indispensable to the sons of God! This is the thought of the blessed one. Augustine in the book On the Teacher. He distinguishes two sources of knowledge: bodily sense and mind. “The first knowledge is called sensory, the last - mental, or, in the language of our writers, the first - bodily, the last - spiritual.” Our speech about sensory objects refers the listener to his own observations, with which he tests our words. Our speech about spiritual things refers him to his own inner experience. “When we are talking about an object that we contemplate with the mind, i.e. reason and reason, although we speak of what we contemplate as inherent (to us) in the inner light of truth - the light with which the so-called inner man is enlightened and delighted: however, even in this case, the one who listens to us, if he himself sees this object with an intimate and simple eye, knows what I am telling him about through his own contemplation, and not through my words. Thus, I do not teach him, who contemplates the truth, when I speak the truth; for he learns not from my words, but from the very things that are clear to him from the inner revelation of God: therefore, being asked about this, he can answer himself.” For those who do not have their own experience, my speech is empty sounds “Concerning those objects that are contemplated by the mind, it is in vain to listen to the words of the contemplator who cannot contemplate these objects himself, and if not in vain, then only because it is useful to believe in such objects even without knowing them. And whoever is able to contemplate is inwardly a student of truth, externally a judge of the speaker, or better yet, a judge of speech itself.” Christ is in His gospel and teaches the believer in this inner way. “I,” continues the blessed one. Augustine, tried to convince you that we should not attribute more meaning to words than they should, so that we would not only believe, but also understand how truly it is said in the divine scripture, so that we would not call anyone on earth a teacher, since one is the teacher of all in heaven. And what is in heaven, He himself will teach us this, who reminds us through people externally, with signs, so that, turning to Him, we learn internally. To love and know Him constitutes the blessed life, which everyone shouts about seeking, but few can rejoice that they have actually found it.” The same thought is strongly and briefly expressed by our Theophan the Recluse: “It is natural for God to speak directly into the heart.” Christ teaches intimately to everyone in His gospel. If there were no place in the church for spiritual, Christian life, then churchliness would be soulless; If there were no place in the church for intimate comprehension of the Holy Scriptures, then church teaching would be meaningless. What deserves special attention is that the church itself, through all forms of ecclesialism, pushes its members into the arms of the Heavenly Father, that the church teaching itself presupposes an intimate comprehension of the word of God, in general, the church postulates Christianity. Along with the church, generally binding, dogmatic teaching, the church recognizes, as the source of Christian teaching, the word of God, freely perceived by the conscience of everyone. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow expresses this thought this way in Conversations between the searching and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church. “And (questioning). I am ready for sincere obedience to the Eastern Church if I am convinced that its power over me is pleasing to God. For it is fitting to obey God more than men. Confident). But what does the Eastern Church require of you? I. I think that I should believe as she believes and live as she commands. U. In other words: so that you believe and live as she professes in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol and teaches in the Ten Commandments. U. Now answer: does God forbid to believe and live as the Eastern Church professes in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol and teaches in the Ten Commandments? I. There is no dispute about the commandments. Is it possible that the Eastern Church does not give any commandment an interpretation that destroys, or at least weakens, the power of God’s law? U. You cannot be afraid of this. since the Eastern Church leaves the interpretation of the law to your own reasoning and conscience, with the help only of church teachers and under the guidance of the Word of God. It does not have an autocratic interpreter of its teaching, who would give his interpretations the importance of the dogmas of faith and from time to time place these new burdens on the conscience of Christians.” The church accommodates personal freedom and intimate conscience in the understanding of the Ten Commandments (in general, the word of God) - and this is the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Accordingly, the whole plan of theology in Orthodoxy has a different form than in Catholicism. And in Orthodoxy, the theological system begins with the idea of ​​the church, since outside the church the theological mind is completely powerless even with Scripture in its hands. But while in Catholicism the initial idea of ​​the church has a completely determining significance for the entire content of theology, in Orthodoxy it only introduces the theologian to the possession of the material, so that the church itself then occupies far from the first place in the system. This understanding of Orthodox theology is revealed with irresistible persuasiveness by the same Philaret in Notes on the outline of an introduction to Orthodox theology. “The teaching about the sources of the Christian faith in the summary is followed by the teaching about the Holy Church as a teacher of faith. Here it is not useless to note that the church is made up not only of teachers, but also of disciples of the saints of the faith. But further in the outline of Orthodox dogmatists, after the dogmas about God and Christ, it is intended to present the concept of the church in general, the New Testament church, the Divine institution, its properties. A comparison of these parts of the outline reveals a difficulty in the expected course of the teaching. Is it in the order of concepts to first speak of the church as a teacher, and far later present the first and general concept of it? True, the outline and the introduction intend to present the general and specific concepts of the church; but in this case the same teaching will be offered twice, in two places. With what force will the doctrine of the church be proposed as a teacher, when the concept of its Divine institution and its properties has not yet been given? And is it possible to thoroughly expound the doctrine of the Divine institution of the Christian Church when the doctrine of Christ is not expounded? Saint Cyril of Jerusalem and Saint John of Damascus did not propose a doctrine about the church before the doctrine about God and Christ, and consequently, they recognized that the doctrine about God and Christ could be thoroughly presented before the doctrine about the church. The Ecumenical Creed proposed a doctrine about the church after the doctrine about God and Christ. This order is observed in the Orthodox confession of Peter Mogila. The ancient and modern teachers of the Eastern Church adhered to this order. The theologians of the Roman Church adhered to it for a long time. Not very long ago, theologians of the Roman Church began to propose a doctrine about the church and about the pope before the doctrine about God and about Christ, noticeably trying to mix their teaching about the church and about the pope together and give their teaching about the church and about the pope the primary importance, as if without it it would have been impossible to begin the dogmas about God and Christ. ...Is it necessary for the Orthodox system of theology to imitate this Western innovation? When presenting the doctrine of sacred tradition, it is necessary and enough to say briefly about the church historically, as about its guardian treasure. Then, as soon as the sources that contain the sacred tradition are well defined and indicated, which is what is prescribed in the summary: for now this is enough to move forward with a firm foot in theological teaching. The documents are ready: the Holy Scriptures, the writings of the holy fathers, the definitions of the councils. State dogmas; Draw arguments from these sources: the dogmatic teaching about the church will come in its place, which the ecumenical creed has assigned to it.” With a new look at the “corrected notes of introduction to Orthodox theology and dogmatic theology,” Filaret focused even more carefully on the question “about the place of the doctrine of the church in the theological system.” “In the explanation attached to the outline of an introduction to Orthodox theology and dogmatic theology, corrected according to the comments, the question proposed in the comments is answered: is it necessary to propose the doctrine of the church before the doctrine of God and Christ? And he answers in the affirmative. In confirmation of this, a line is presented that is laid down in the definition of Orthodox theology: according to the reason of the Orthodox-Catholic Church. But this evidence is not conclusive. The definition of educational is not immutable. The mind of truth, even according to piety (Titus 1:1): this is the apostolic definition of Orthodox theology, in which it was not found necessary to mention the church. And the definition that begins the summary will be firm, true, and capable of all the necessary conclusions, if it is expressed in this way, Orthodox theology is a systematic presentation of the Christian faith according to the true reason of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. This definition not only distinguishes Orthodox theology from non-Orthodox theology, but also exposes non-Orthodox theology, which is not based on the true reason of Scripture and tradition. If we accept as satisfactory the definition that Orthodox theology is a statement of faith according to the reason of the Orthodox Church, then Western theologians have the right to also recognize as satisfactory their definition that Roman Catholic theology is a statement of faith according to the reason of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus, Orthodox and non-Orthodox theology would be placed in an equal position, as if one were not better than the other. The explanation says that the system must be preceded by truths from which others receive their clarity. Very good. That is why it was said in the comments: “Is it possible to thoroughly expound the doctrine of the divine institution of the Christian Church when the doctrine of Christ has not yet been expounded?” For Christ is the foundation of the church, and not the church the foundation of Christ,” etc. It is clear that the idea of ​​the church, which is the starting point for theology, as the treasure-keeper of tradition, does not constitute everything in theology, does not belittle the word of God, does not abolish its exceptional significance. The Holy Scriptures, which we receive from the church, become the highest judge in all matters of faith and life. In support of this thought, I could cite entire topics of evidence from patristic writing, and especially from Russian authoritative theologians: Feofan Prokopovich, Metropolitans Platon and Philaret, Tikhon of Zadonsk, Theophan the Recluse and many others. But I will be content with the testimony of Stefan Jaworski. He is considered by us to be a representative of the Latin type of theology, although he was not a “Catholic.” He defended tradition against the Protestants, and all the arguments in favor of tradition, which are now repeated by Fr. Hilarion, Stefan already has all of them. And this Stephen, brought up on Catholic books, although he remained Orthodox in cardinal points, was a predominant champion of tradition, to the question: “Are councils or holy scriptures that signify honor and reverence?” - gives the following answer: “Do not let us prefer councils to sacred scripture: for sacred scripture is the word of God, directly revealed by God, and as if written to God telling. This is what Peter the Apostle says: “It was not by the will of man that prophecy came to pass, but by the Holy Spirit the holy men of God were enlightened.” And again: all scripture is inspired by God. This is the honor and excellence of Holy Scripture, which surpasses cathedrals. For they have below, below they write the revelations and words of God directly, but precisely they proclaim what the word of God is written, what is handed down, and what reason to have, and yet having understood enough from the sacred scriptures with one mind, they introduce and legitimize instructions in the members of the faith, below they give truth to the sacred scriptures, but they proclaim the hidden truth in them. Thus, when the councils determined that the entire Bible should be the word of God, it did not create it to be true and false, but rather announced and revealed such existence to the whole world. Thus, the Council of Nicea did not give the word of God the same essence, but only from the sacred scriptures and from the traditions of the show. Thus, all councils reveal the truth hidden in the scriptures, and define them as imperishable by their regulations. Moreover, with the verb to be, the Holy Scripture is superior to the councils, since they are precisely the interpreters of the Holy Scripture, since in it the words are clear, the doubtful is resolved, the unclear is interpreted, the meaning is clear, and somehow they decide to serve both countries. "... This is how the Orthodox theologian argues. In the system of Orthodox theology there is no place for Catholic frenzied cries: “the word of God is what the church (the pope) declares to be the word of God. Let all sacred scripture on earth be destroyed by some miracle, tomorrow the church (the pope) will write sacred scripture on its own, or declare Aesop’s fables to be sacred scripture, and this will be the word of God.” And if other theologians among us repeat the same thing, then this is a pure misunderstanding 98 . Holy Scripture gives content to church teaching, and it does this due to the fact that it is intimately comprehended by Christians, the sons of God. The content of the church system is what a Christian, as a son of God, intimately draws from the word of God. This work - intimate comprehension of the Holy Scriptures, filling church formulas with content, is performed only by Christians, the sons of God, and Holy Scripture is the only word, like the word of God, to which this method of knowledge is applicable. “The Word of God, due to its affinity with our spirit, which also comes from God, passes inward” (Theophan the Recluse). Holy Scripture (gospel) is the food of the sons of God born by the church, their ambrosia and nectar. That is why the main difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is that there members of the church, slaves of the hierarchy, are not allowed to the word of God, whereas in Orthodoxy the church looks at each member as a son of God and hands each one the Holy Scriptures. Metropolitan Philaret understood this, and throughout his life he heroically fought for the accessibility of the Holy Scriptures to the laity. So, by remaining in the church and recognizing tradition, we can talk about Christianity. But it became a decisive necessity to refer to the term “Christianity” when modern theology adopted spiritual and mystical epistemology. The theory of Christianity, in contrast to the old Catholic scholasticism, is a spiritual-experiential construction of a theological system; it is a spiritual-mystical Christian philosophy. Here, the old theological syllogism is systematically replaced by an intuitive reproduction of the Christian idea, drawn from the depths of spiritual experience. This is what marks modern Christianity, despite all rationalistic and sectarian abuses. Father Hilarion - and he is not alone - adopt, following the Slavophiles, the intimate nature of church life. The final point of religious quest, in his words, “is not the abstract concept of Christianity, but precisely the church of the living God. One can judge from the example of many people who have gone through the tedious path of search to the end that complete peace comes only when a person believes in the church, when he accepts the idea of ​​the church with his whole being in such a way that the separation of Christianity from the church will be unthinkable for him. Then the real feeling of church life begins. A person feels that he is a branch of the great, ever-blooming and ever-young tree of the church. He recognizes himself not as a follower of any school, but as a member of the body of Christ, with whom he has a common life and from whom he receives this life. Therefore, only the one who has believed in the church, who is guided by the statutes of the church in assessing the phenomena of life and in the direction of his personal life, who has finally felt the life of the church within himself, he and only he is on the right path... The Spirit of God lives in the church. This is not a dry and empty dogmatic position, preserved only out of respect for antiquity. No, this is precisely the truth, experienced by everyone who has been imbued with church consciousness and church life. The grace-filled life of the church cannot even be the subject of dry scientific study; it can be studied by an experienced person. About the life of grace, clearly felt, human language can always speak only vaguely and darkly. Only those who have it know about church life; for him it does not require proof, but for those who do not have it, it is almost unprovable” 99. Me and Fr. Hilarion – we are both talking about religious experiential knowledge, about Christian experiential truth. In essentials we agree. The question is whether to call the experiential content of Christian teaching Christian life, Christianity, or church life, ecclesiasticality, church. I call it Christianity, and I consider the second name to be lapsus linguae, I consider it the same unfounded confusion as the designation of Christian mutual love by the name of churchliness. Can the experiential content of Christian teaching be ecclesiastical, i.e., generally binding and generally understood, can it have church-unifying meaning? To think so means not to understand the characteristic features of churchliness, church unity, and to sin against the basic character of spiritual experience. Let's focus on the latter. The experimental, concrete content of church teaching cannot be generally binding and generally understood. This truth is revealed on hundreds of pages by Theophan the Recluse: in Letters on Spiritual Life, in Letters on Christian Life, in the Path to Salvation, etc. Theophan had a clear and strong idea of ​​church unity, 100 but he was equally firmly convinced of the diversity of Christian experience. “Where to begin the feat of self-correction, what to do then, what next, what is the general course of internal self-correction? A person’s heart is deep: how can one find out what is happening in it, and even more so, what should happen in it under certain circumstances? Everyone has their own character, everyone has their own intentions, passions, inclinations, habits. Everyone, therefore, must have their own course of internal self-correction: and it is impossible to establish one for everyone. Self-correction is not a matter of cold considerations, but of a living and jealous action taking place deep in the heart. Christianity is a mystery, not only in its foundation, but also in its application.” “One must think that just as each person has his own personal mood, then for each there must be an exceptional kind of good thoughts, especially striking and stimulating ones - or even one kind of dominant, all-conquering thought. And each thing makes a special sound, and only according to its own similar sound does it give an echo, when, striking it, they want to make a sound from it.”... “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 therefore it is impossible to depict them all. The matter of internal warfare is both incomprehensible and hidden; the cases in it are extremely diverse; The faces at war 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 decide one thing for everyone. The best inventor of the rules of swearing is every person for himself. Experience will teach you everything... The inner course of Christian life in each person brings to mind underground passages, extremely intricate and hidden. Entering them, the subject receives several instructions in general terms - to do this here, there to do 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 he is surrounded by many mentors and provided with many rules.” Did Fr. not mock too hastily? Hilarion on the “individual refraction of Christianity” and wasn’t he too hasty, trusting unreliable leaders, declaring Christian experience to belong to the church? However, some of its leaders replace churchness with the whole variety of Christian experience embraced in the history of the Christian church, and thus, as it were, gain the right to talk about church experience. There is no doubt that the church-historical is a fact, but the fact of the matter is that not every church-historical fact, not every church-historical experience is of fundamental importance; on the contrary, every church-historical experience is subject to judgment from the point of view of the basic principles of church life, on the one hand, and the word of God, on the other. The first court distinguishes from the diversity of church-historical experience the main thing, in contrast to the conditional, temporary and local, actually historical (this is “historical Christianity”, which, again, Fr. Hilarion is indignant in vain), and the second court - the court of the word of God - distinguishes in the sphere of religious life the divine, valuable Christian from the superficial, human, purely psychological - even physiological, and even pathological. The theory of church experience, apparently, stands on church soil, responds to the call of the church readily: “I am going,” in contrast to the theory of Christianity, which proceeds from the gospel in a spiritually experiential, fundamentally subjective interpretation and, as if, answers the call of the church negatively: “I will not go.” In reality, both theories lead to results opposite to appearances, just as of the two Gospel sons, the eldest did not go, but the younger did. Declaring itself to be ecclesiastical, the theory of ecclesiastical experience, arbitrarily choosing from historical diversity, equally fails to reach either ecclesiastical objective truth or the heights of “pure, evangelical Christianity.” Only the theory of Christianity, which places the gospel as its basis, on the contrary, reveals the specific features of churchliness. Our author also repeats the Slavophile formula: “the church does not prove itself.” That the church proves itself to outsiders, on this Khomyakov and his opponents agree. In the relationship of the church to its members, it is assumed that everything is decided by their participation in the church experience. They forget that the church, as an organism, lives and acts according to certain principles that can be established scientifically and by which any historical, local or temporary fact can be measured. The church acquires a character of intimacy that can only belong to Christianity, while the church is characterized by a character of objectivity. They teach about the church and personally speak on its behalf, while on the question of the church it is necessary to limit oneself to the principles by which the church lives, to what the church itself says about itself. To start from the concept of the church and forget that the church teaches about itself and that it acts according to a certain norm is a blatant contradiction. But the most important thing is in the relationship of the church to its spiritually mature children, who are the sons of the Heavenly Father, feeding intimately on the word of God, the word of Christ. Obeying Christ, the church indescribably rejoices at the spiritual coming of age of its children, because they are witnesses of its truth. Their spiritual freedom, their sonship with God, by their very being, testifies that she is the bride of Christ. Moreover, the church values ​​the consciousness of its children, the sons of God, desires their love, expects recognition from them, because, ultimately, in their person Christ is present for it, in their experience the mystery of His word is comprehended: the church is witnessed before them by the word of God. “The word of Christ, the word of the Holy Spirit, spoken by the Apostles and reaching us in writing and tradition, is, therefore, the only evidence of truth on which the church of all times has relied and relies” (A.V. Gorsky). Supporters of the formula: “the church does not prove itself” direct their attention only towards the external relations of the church, and for them the inner life that is in full swing, its relationship to its own children, to “Christianity” remains closed. (However, Khomyakov came up with expressions that violated the harmony of his “logical” teaching about the church and which would have forced him to change a lot in this teaching if they had been thought out by him. In one of his letters to Palmer (II, 394) he wrote: “a Christian belongs to his diocese only in relation to his external life (discipline, rituals, etc.): his inner life belongs to the Universal Church" ... In the letter to Koshelev (VIII, 136), “the church world, that is, the historical world in which the church is clothed, may seem and be for a long time not only not perfect, but also completely shoddy, despite the perfection of the shrine contained in it.” In a letter to I.S. Aksakov (VIII, 356): “I allow myself to disagree in many cases with the so-called opinion of the Church, and you, for your part, could, with some justice, say such a stern word about the historical Church.” More about external belonging to the visible church and about the invisible church II, 225-226). So, “there is no Christianity without the church” is an undoubted, but elementary truth. “It is not yet a decisive sign of true life in Christ if someone is called a Christian and belongs to the Church of Christ” - this is the highest theology, esoteric wisdom, invulnerable to elementary criticism. This is an elementary theory, suitable - subject to the condition of avoiding one-sidedness - for practical purposes or hierarchical-administrative ones, like Fr. Hilarion, or confessional-polemic ones, like Khomyakov’s; This is Christian philosophy, selfless “knowledge for oneself,” meek, alien to combat aggressiveness, intimate comprehension of the truth. Perhaps this is the reason that Christian philosophy, having a limited circle of friends, awakens mass hatred towards itself and causes embitterment all around: it is that it deals not with the elementary lower levels, accessible to a primitive view, but with the highest levels of Christian truth. But here is also an explanation of her predetermined victory over all those who seek her soul: elementary defenselessness, designed to acquire free friends, turns out to be a bait for aggressive natures, straining their strength by lifting a stone that they considered easy... It is a difficult sight when a dark force takes over not by its power, but by its numbers, its spread in society, its insect-like reproduction. Marcus Aurelius reports: “Democritus was eaten by parasites, Socrates was also killed by some kind of parasites.” Our epic depicts a battle between a hero and a wild horde: when he cut through one of the enemies, two appeared in his place. And the poet, mourning the fate of one of the mighty, exclaimed: I had to remember this fecundity of dark power all my life, and I had to remember again now: my self-defense “Slavery and Freedom,” although the ink had not yet dried, had already caused an explosion of new anger in the article by Prot. Stelletsky “Concerning the reviewer’s note about our book by M. Tareev” (V and R. 1915, No. 23). My article “Slavery and Freedom” was written on a sad topic - about the intolerance that prevails in our uncultured society towards religious and philosophical creativity, towards original thought, towards personal opinions 101. And how many history of Russian theology knows the victims of this intolerance. I will name, in addition to the instructions made there, two names that should be remembered first in the catalog of martyrs of Russian theology and were omitted by me due to an unforgivable oversight, which can only be explained by the extreme haste of the work: Archim. Theodore (A.M. Bukharev) and prot. Pavsky 102. Hardly anyone will argue against the fact that my name stands among the persecuted, reviled, and rejected. Everyone knows this, and one of these days my book is coming out, in which I bring as a reminder, first of all for myself, and then for those interested in the fate of Russian theology, my literary martyrology. The article “Slavery and Freedom,” one stroke in this martyrology, was written by me in self-defense, like a number of my articles in this genre. In it I denounced Rev. Stelletsky in shameless plagiarism. I told my persecutors, you are persecuting a living thought, while you yourself are filling the book market with pathetic waste paper. The point is not that you are orthodox, but that you advertise your orthodoxy in order to cover up your spiritual weakness. Now Rev. Stelletsky, on behalf of the company headed by a “famous spiritual writer,” answered me. His article serves as the conclusion of everything that has been written against me. Since I am currently interested in everything of that kind, she is a pure find for me. At the same time, the future historian of Russian theology and Russian morals will find precious material in it... Prot. Stelletsky begins, according to the ancient tradition of self-justification, by stating my heresy. He repeats much of what others have written 103 . For me, this technique is prot. Stelletsky serves as justification for the fact that I look at him as one of my flock of enemies: he joined their company. But I don’t understand how my heresy can serve as an excuse for the unbridled plagiarism of Fr. Stelletsky. O. Stelletsky points out the harshness of my review of his book. Of course, my article reveals a feeling. I will say in the words of A.S. Khomyakova: “without some accusatory courage, the truth can hardly appear in the world.” However, the horror that emanates from my article lies not in my words, not in my characterization of Stelletsky’s literary techniques, but in the very fact of his unbridled plagiarism and boundless ignorance: my words are only a conclusion from this fact. I couldn’t write like this: “This is the place my dear Father Stelletsky deigned to copy from such and such a writer, but this dear father deigned to borrow this place from such and such a writer.” Everything has its own tone, everything has its time: there is a time for tenderness, there is a time for indignation and disgust. Prot. Stelletsky calls my review of his compilation rude and impudent. But if passing off someone else’s as one’s own, if plagiarism is not falsehood, deception, or a scam, then what can be called falsehood and deception? An exposed plagiarist would be ashamed to look at the light of God, would humbly repent, but he criticizes his whistleblower! This is in the spirit of the immortal Nozdryov 104. Stelletsky attributes to me wild intolerance: we call intolerance towards ideas, beliefs, opinions wild, but there is no wildness in intolerance towards plagiarism. Here we have to be intolerant. Stelletsky presents me as an embittered reviewer, inclined to accuse everyone of plagiarism, and as an example points to my review of the dogmatics of the prot. Malinovsky. However, in the Malinovsky case, I am one of all members of the academic council who were inclined to the negative conclusion of Archimandrite. Hilarion, stood for a lenient award to Fr. Malinovsky, a doctorate in theology: his story is a bad testimony to my bitterness. Wanting to discredit me, Fr. Stelletsky reports that even... Christian, in which my article is placed, “having previously been admitted to the reading of the lower ranks, is now recognized as absolutely undesirable for dissemination among these ranks, as carrying out the views of the religious sect of Evangelical Christians.” Need I say that this is slander worthy of Nozdryov? This is the same fiction as the fact that I am a former professor, as Stelletsky continues to call me, following Svetlov, due to incomprehensible persistence. Wanting to humiliate me, the “famous spiritual writer” and his agent Fr. Stelletsky write that in my review of Stelletsky’s book I adhere to the “technique of market women”. I confess: this is the first time I’ve heard of Kharkov market women exposing university theology professors of plagiarism. Until now I thought that this was a privilege - the competence and sacred duty of the professors of the academy. Prot. Stelletsky, who published the pitiful compilation that I exposed, presents himself in a touching manner as an innocently persecuted man. He - and here helplessly compiling Zarin - applies to himself a whole series of texts about innocent suffering, and, of course, the role of the persecutor is adopted by me. But oh. Stelletsky selects texts poorly. He forgets the only text that fits him. Ap. Peter, calling Christians to innocent suffering, writes: “Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evildoer, or as one who encroaches on someone else’s property” (1 Pet. 4:15). Here is a text that suits disgraced plagiarists. To the presented, documented, substantiated accusation of plagiarism, Stelletsky responded with the most persistent denial, and ends his rebuke with the words: “I will respond to all further insinuations addressed to us, if any followed, with complete silence.” Stelletsky does not sufficiently appreciate the fact that my review, which was murderous for him, continues to exist and its instructions are available for everyone to check. Now the point is not in Stelletsky’s denial and not in my repetitions, but in any third person who will take upon himself the task of checking my instructions. Quite confident in the moral looseness of society and in full hope that the upper hand in the opinion of such a society remains with Nozdryov’s arrogance, Stelletsky allows himself amazing methods of self-justification. 1) He justifies his plagiarism by the fact that, in contrast to my heretical subjectivism, he adheres to the objective method. That is, objectivity equates with plagiarism! 2) He wants to devalue my revelations by pointing out that I do not cite the passages completely borrowed from him. But here, for example, is just one place. Paragraph six, “Historical Essay on Moral Theology,” 11 pages long, is copied page for page, youth for line, word for word from Grenkov’s article, and if I had completely copied out this one passage with the parallel text of the original, I would have had to write 22 pages! And this is just one place, could I completely write out 500 pages of plagiarism? That’s why I called Stelletsky’s book a grandiose scam. 3) He calls my review frivolous and superficial, because I limit myself to the formal side of the matter. But is it really possible to discuss plagiarism from the content side?! 4) He writes that he did not quote the passage borrowed from my book by accident. Stelletsky wants to say that after the words: “(we consider it a duty of conscience to declare”, etc. - he could have put a quotation: see “Tareeva p. 2”. It would have been an oath in someone else’s words: monstrous! Isn’t it obvious that Stelletsky had the intention of passing off someone else’s words: “(we consider it a duty of conscience to declare that) we did not look at our quotes as decoration of our book” as our own? Or, Maybe Stelletsky caresses his children with quotes: “Dear Petrusha, as Pushkin says on page 73, I love you very much, according to Lermontov in the poem Prisoner of the Caucasus”? And all these are still minor things in Stelletsky’s “rebuke” compared to what followed. Stelletsky wants to assure that he is accused of plagiarism only for personal reasons. And he talks about the “behind the scenes” of his relationship with reviewers. So about Fr. He reports to Svetlov that he once, during a difficult time in his life, was forced to turn to him, Fr. Stelletsky, with a “proposal to exchange” official places... What is this? After all, it’s not customary to introduce revelations from intimate life into scientific debate?! Stelletsky does not hesitate to cross the “other side” of science: shame on him 105! On my part, the Kharkov plagiarist could not indicate anything personal. And he and his company resorted to another means of “barring my lips.” “Stopping the mouth” has been practiced since ancient times! Persecuted, Russia, you are merciless fate, Like the once unfaithful Balaam. The mouths of your prophets are blocked And free speech was given to your donkeys. A famous spiritual writer, who did not dare to reveal his name, in a letter to Stelletsky, and Stelletsky, referring to this letter, these two, hiding behind each other, like vile attackers 106, called (in the spiritual magazine Faith and Reason 1915, No. 23 p. 508) my article “Slavery and Freedom” a hooligan prank. This is in the style of “Kharkov market women”. Now it’s my turn to say about my opponents: “there’s nowhere to go further”! We've reached the limit! What was said was unheard of, unprecedented in literary polemics! In Bunin’s story Budnya, a seminarian in a cemetery got into a conversation with a seasoned man whose ideas about the theater, the garden, the “beast room” and the “curl’s room” were confused. The seminarian was interested in this confusion in the man’s head and tried to bring him to his senses. The conversation was interrupted by the man’s unexpected exclamation: “Now I’ll come over, I’ll torture you in the best possible way, then sue me!” Stunned by such an unexpected end to the conversation, the seminarian thought: - Strange, strange! In fact, you shouldn’t have gone out without a revolver. I found myself in the position of this seminarian! I debated with my opponents for a long time. They strongly scolded me, “nonsense”, “absurdity”, “non-human”, Nietzscheanism”, “Tolstoyism”. I answered in the same tone. But until now, both I and my opponents have remained in the field of science. They struggled with temperament, but remained within the limits of literary judgments. And then a loud cry was heard from Kharkov, palpable even for judicial qualifications. Oh, I wasn't offended! And if the famous spiritual writer and his echo Archpriest Stelletsky think that they humiliated and insulted me, then I will answer them with the words of Socrates: “Anitius and Melitus can kill me, but they are not able to insult me!” I was not offended, but I cannot help but suffer from the abyss of hatred with which I am being persecuted. I cannot help but suffer, and yet I understand my situation, I am not surprised and I humbly bow my neck to the “wild enmity and evil madness.” Should I, lonely, rejected and defenseless on all sides, expect anything different, speaking as an accuser of society’s moral insanity? Whoever strikes a reptile in the head is always in danger of being stung in the heel. And is it too late for me to repent of the long journey I have taken? It's almost evening. Vision weakens. Strength is falling. And the plow of God is already heavy for tired hands. But just as menacingly as in the days of youth, the Heavenly command resounds in the soul - not to take care of your soul, not to value your reputation, not to hide from human malice. No rest, forward, forward! Look at the field: there is a lot of arable land It's too late to look back. The state of affairs is already such that “the darker the night, the brighter the stars, the deeper the sorrow, the closer God is,” the stronger the embitterment of the enemies, the more evidence of my loyalty to the Highest Call. And I hope that this last sharp thorn in that crown of thorns, which the will of the Heavenly Father placed on my head on the twenty-fifth anniversary of my enthusiastic service to Christ’s Truth, will shine, with the power of the Sweetest Jesus, with a joyful light in my soul. I would be guilty before my readers and ungrateful to my friends if I did not remember here the numerous and varied manifestations of sympathy that my writings met. It wasn't just my enemies who honored me with their attention. 1) a long series of bibliographic messages giving positive reviews of my books, 2) many sympathetic reprints and presentations and, finally, 3) detailed ideological recommendations of my system - all this is more than enough for me to recognize my work as not in vain. Without repeating the more or less friendly consonances already mentioned in various places in this book, I will indicate the following responses in magazines and newspapers: The article was included in the book “Critical Essays on Homiletics,” and this book was revised and reprinted under the title “Sermon” in the fifth volume of Fundamentals of Christianity. Reviewer Bogosl. Bible L. (1902 in 2–3), in agreement with reality, sets out the contents of our article as follows: “G. Tareev in the above-mentioned article says that delivering an improvisation before parishioners does not require special oratorical talents from the priest, but presupposes in him only a constant Christian mood and a Christian way of thinking, penetration into himself and into the spirit of the gospel. Whoever has all this will, of necessity, use the living word, which is preaching in the strict sense. If many are afraid to improvise, then the reason for this lies in the false rhetorical view of our homiletics on a sermon, as an oratorical speech, etc. This is how the reviewer of “The Wanderer” would understand our article if he treated it objectively. Is it only Babur, writing in Pr. Sl., not the same Babur who writes in the Wanderer? This explanation of John 8:44 and John 10:12, 13 is reprinted in the appendix to volume II of the Fundamentals of Christianity. Wed. 1 John 1:10; 5:10; also 1 John 2:4; 4:20. It seems that Bogdashevsky, due to the same misunderstanding, refers to the Slavic translation. God. West. 1903 m. May. The treatise was included in the Philosophy of Evangelical History (Fundamentals of Christianity, Vol. 1). We can reassure Fr. Klitina: they are working on this topic. Fr. openly used the same technique of distrusting my direct words and introducing an alien interpretation into them. Lavrsky, as I have already noted. This is the usual distrust, this suspicion of every writer of cunning and cunning (see especially the picture in which Father Deacon Basov paints me on page 100 February) - this psychology in our department is obviously fostered by some common reasons. Poorly understanding the essence of the question, Fr. the deacon directs the following reasoning against me (f. 108) “If it is indisputable that no one witnessed the resurrection itself, then this only obliges us not to forget the traditional distinction in the question of the resurrection of Christ between two sides, which are the reality of the resurrection and its image, or, as German theologians put it: die Tatsachlichkeit und das Wie der Auferstehung. How the resurrection of Christ happened, traditional apologetics has always classified this as one of the supernatural, incomprehensible truths, but in the words of Grützmacher, die Unvorstellbarkeit der Auferstehung Jesu beweist ihre Unwirklichkeit noch nicht and, since we can talk about the resurrection of Christ from the point of view of its reality, it is abundant in signs not only an extraordinary miracle, but also, in the full sense, a historical event; the time of the event, its place, its conditions and setting, the circumstances preceding it and immediately following it are indicated”... But these reasonings do not go against me: I reason this way myself. I precisely distinguish the reality, the reality, the somaticity of the resurrection from its historical, sensory appearance. My difference from Fr. deacon's only point is that I do not consider the historical side of the resurrection (time, place, etc.) to be the very reality of the resurrection, for all this is not what the resurrection was in itself, but what it was experienced by the apostles, for not only the conditions and circumstances of the resurrection, the circumstances preceding and following, do not constitute the resurrection itself, but the spiritual body also stood above spatio-temporal limitations. That the resurrection of Christ in itself was truly real, somatic, and that in the circumstances of space and time, in the environment that accompanied it, it became a historical fact, a historical appearance. an external event - I accept this with all the strength of my soul. Page 345: “Spirituality does not exclude somaticity, but it excludes the earthly, spiritual nature of physicality, its sensuality both from the side of one’s own earthly interests and from the side of accessibility to external feelings. Divine reality is accessible only to the eyes of faith and becomes reality for this world under the condition of faith.” Father Deacon Basov is obviously not a philosophically educated person. For the curious, I will remind you that in my system (see vol. 2 pp. 185–186 given. vol. 3 p. 120 and many others) I posit a strict distinction between divine reality and its appearance in this external world, the latter I attribute to faith, which will be superfluous in the afterlife. So vol. 2 p. 186 “The bliss of divine love is experienced by a person who recognizes himself as a son of God as a self-evident reality. And since this is absolute love, bliss in its own power turns out to be inexhaustible and limitless. However, this power of inner bliss does not cover natural-historical life, and the latter opposes the divine-filial self-consciousness in the meaning of external material that has yet to be overcome. In relation to this external reality, sonship with God is determined by faith." T. 3 pp. 120–122 “The essence of faith is not in the mere recognition that God exists, but in the confidence that this invisible world exists for me, that for me, in this life, it can become reality, that I can live it in this world. Existing outside of man, the invisible divine by the power of faith becomes reality for him. Divine love exists outside of man; it becomes love for man through faith. Etc. In general, my books do not contain fragmentary treatises, but an integral system, and what is not explained in one place must always be looked for in another place. Each term is clarified in relation to the whole system. O. Basov in one place (f. 100) sarcastically paints a picture in which he presents me as cleverly calculating which course is most convenient for me to take on the question of the resurrection. I dare to assure the deacon that this picture does not correspond to reality... The treatise on the resurrection (according to the deacon’s calculations, it is only 18 pages) is only an organic part of the first volume, which is part of the five-volume system. For me, the question of the resurrection, like any other particular question, is predetermined by the entire system. And oh. The deacon authoritatively teaches me: “faith could not be a condition for the historical reality of the resurrection of Christ without a special influence on it from above” (f. 108). Beyond all doubt. I've known this for a long time. In volume 3, page 120, I write: “In any field, human creativity is limited to perception, reproduction and imagination, materialization, embodiment of an idea. The creativity of faith is subject to the same restrictions. The divine, existing outside of man, through the power of faith, becomes reality for him.” My entire system is imbued with the conviction that the divine is given not as a result, but in the initial outcome of world and human life. On this basis I do not agree with idealism (See vol. 5 pp. 201–202) The whole work of the resurrection was a matter of two factors: divine reality and human faith. The latter was only the condition under which the divine reality of the resurrection became a sensually historical phenomenon. Therefore, I should not say that the resurrection was only a matter of faith. I don’t even say this, Fr. just attributes this to me. deacon The difference between me and Fr. the deacon, who also tries not to confuse the supersensible incomprehensible and the external side of the resurrection (f. 105), is that Fr. The deacon, due to his philosophical lack of education, considers the apostles’ vision of the Risen One to be an event that took place apart from their experience. O. Deacon sufficiently showed with his article that he had mastered the English language self-instruction manual. He now needs to learn to think and understand. I'm not even talking about the decency of speech. They don't learn this. This is only given by education. However, what is most eloquent is the fact that my ideas are entering the mainstream of theological thought. See prof. prot. I. Galakhova About religion, part II (1915) pp. 212–214: “We can comprehend the mystery of the resurrection of Christ only when we understand the meaning of His earthly humiliation. The resurrection of Jesus Christ, as a historical fact, was at the same time the fact of the spiritual resurrection of the disciples themselves, when their Jewish national aspirations for the Messiah changed radically” (However, Fr. Galakhov, with direct, quite frequent, quotes from the Fundamentals of Christianity, usually polemicizes with me). Printed in God. Vestn., then separately in the publication. Truth and symbols in the realm of the spirit and, finally, included in Volume IV of The Foundation of Christianity. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. III, p. 6. Philosophy of Ev. history, p. 249. (This place is not included in the Fundamentals of Christianity). Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. IV, p. 6. Truth and Symbols p. 154 (– Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. IV, p. 129). Purpose and meaning of life, 2nd ed. pp. 143–144 (This place was not preserved in the Fundamentals of Christianity). Purpose and meaning of life. 2nd ed. 104, 108. (Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. III, pp. 98. 103). Accusing the literary dependence of the authors under review is one of Mr. Zarin’s favorite techniques. For example, page 186: “the named studies by I.V. Popov owes his idea and general formulation of the question to the influence of Gaulle’s very interesting book.” Page 227 the same about the dissertation of S.I. Smirnova. “The only principle of morality is that man is sacred to man; the only type of immorality is murder in the literal and broad sense of the word, a sin against one’s spiritual personality and against the life of others.” Truth and Symbols, page 118. Truth and Symbols, pp. 73 (Fundamentals of Christianity, IV, 69) and 118). And what I really have, like Fr. Yanysheva, these words are used, about this Fr. For some reason, Yanyshev considered it necessary to notify his readers on pp. 200, 462, etc. I must admit that I am used to encountering plagiaristic attitudes towards my writings. But I cannot help but be outraged by those cases of plagiarism when my name is either deliberately obscured or even pronounced with obvious disapproval. I feel extreme indignation when theologians who draw from my wells zealously throw dirt at me. This is not uncommon. For example, some Glebov, who wrote about the resurrection of Christ, “treats” the XI chapter of my “Philosophy of Evangelical History” in exactly the same way as Zarin treats my works, and also misleads his official reviewer. (However, Prof. Grigoriev notes the generally compilative nature of Glebov’s work, and writes the following about his criticism: “... except for texts and hackneyed unfounded phrases (Glebov) has nothing. The reader will not find the author’s theological speculation in other places in the chapter under consideration. The only thing that enlivens this chapter is the polemical notes addressed to Prof. Tareev and D.S. Merezhkovsky. Largely true, these notes are still of little interest, since the author’s thoughts revolve in the plane of textbooks on Dogmatics and Moral Theology, and the thoughts of Messrs. Tareev and Merezhkovsky flow from springs of living spirit, into which Mr. Glebov does not find it necessary to descend.” Right Sob. 1909 November 223–224). Or - in the Proceedings of the KDA (June 1907), someone, discussing the temptations of Christ, does not remember with a single kind word me, who worked so hard on this issue - directs all his reasoning against me, not forgetting the “destruction of church teaching about the person of Jesus Christ,” and in conclusion teaches that the temptations of Christ were “a feat of His self-abasement.” This is against me, although it was I who put the “Humiliation of Christ” at the head of my religious system, and from this very idea I consistently and persistently explain the temptations of Christ!.. And Mr. Chekanovsky, the author of the treatise Towards an understanding of the doctrine of self-abasement I. Christ, Kyiv 1910, owes too much to my research on the humiliation of Christ to have the right (even under the auspices of the Kyiv Academy) to speak so disparagingly about my works. (By the way, Mr. Chekanovsky, with seminarian rudeness, emphasized the disappearance in the second edition of my study of numerous “saints.” If he was so interested in this trifle, then I will say frankly: in the second edition I crossed out the words “Our Lord Jesus” in the title and in the text numerous “saints,” because in the first edition these words and notes were introduced by the diligent hand of a bigoted censor. Cf. and autobiographical message of A.P. Lebedev. Vestn. (1907 May p. 163 note) But Mr. Zarin surpasses everyone in this regard... And I can’t help but cry that it is beyond human strength to tolerate this! In one respect I can personally be grateful to Mr. Sarin. Having made extracts from my writings on many dozens of pages, he looks for numerous patristic quotations for almost every excerpt, and thereby irrefutably proves the closeness of these excerpts to the patristic teaching. Book 1, p. 204. That is, in my heartache the Christian problem is posed, and Mr. Zarin calls the very torment of my heart, my very problem, absurdity. Of course, Mr. Zarin has not yet stated and will never express this “desire.” What a characteristic role Mr. Sarin played in my story! The sentence of Mr. Davydov was confirmed by the author of the article in the same Kolokol (1909 No. 866) How long? Here is this article. “In addition to the article by Mr. Davydov, published in No. 855 of “Bells” under the title. “Zarnitsa”, it must be said that Professor M.M. Tareev is not a simple learned theologian - he reads the subject that is mainly treated in his famous four volumes - namely, moral theology. After this, we can judge what kind of teachers of moral theology will come out of the Moscow Theological Academy for our unfortunate theological seminaries. But let’s go further - it doesn’t matter - logic demands this inexorably: our seminarians, having heard enough lectures in the spirit of Tareev, will then teach their flock in the same spirit. They say: in German countries there are many pastors who preach from the pulpit that Christ was a simple man. We won’t have to wait long for such preachers if our highest church authorities do not clear out the composition of professors in theological academies. It should not be forgotten that Messrs. the innovators are doing things skillfully, with consistency, fulfilling their promise: “give us autonomy for three or four years, and only shreds will remain of your Orthodoxy”... How long will we silently await the complete destruction of the Church by these servants of Jewry, who are already undermining the “foundations of Christianity.” After all, my heart ached, my soul suffered, looking at this. After all, in a little while the terrible judgment of God, which punished the once weak-willed Eli, the high priest of Israel, will befall those who allow evil to grow, and the word of Scripture will come true on us: “the glory has departed from Israel.” In the same spirit is the article in No. 984 of the Bell for the same year. At a turning point in church history. That my strict reviewers are simply unfamiliar with my books, this can be seen in the example of the reviewer in Volyn. Eparch. Led by. 1911 No. 38, where we read: “Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy M.M. Tareev is one of the most prolific theologian-writers of our time: he has written many articles on church and social issues in Russian theological journals, several separate brochures on the same topics and extensive volumes of scientific work under the general title Christ. Prof. Tareev writes very clearly and even artistically when it comes to literary criticism, modern journalism, and other issues. But where is it about Christ the Savior? Isn’t this the reason for the fact that students of academies are invited to speak out about my worldview in semester and master’s theses? However, it should be stated that, despite the general critical direction, which is quite in the order of things, these works, as far as one can judge from official reviews (see Journal of the KDA Council for the 1906–1907 academic year, pp. 489–493, review by Prof. Kudryavtsev about the essay of a student and Kolosov on the topic “The attitude of Christianity to culture: a) a critical analysis of the views on this issue of Paulsen, Rozanov and Tareva; b) a positive solution to the issue” and id. for 1911–1912 pp. 436–440 reviews from Assoc. Ivanitsky and prof. Pesotsky about the composition of Art. V. Zerchaninova on the topic: “Christian freedom. Presentation and critical assessment of the theory of Christian freedom by prof. MM. Tareev”) - these systematic works (precisely in contrast to the cursory, sharp remarks addressed to me in student essays) are quite correct in nature. (However, similar passages in reviews attract attention: “The most difficult thing for Kolosov is criticism of the views of Prof. Tareev, he puts forward too elementary truths as a weapon against the author being analyzed.” Instructive). Prof. The copy of the Gospel and Social Life 1913, polemicizing with my views, sets them out quite correctly and discusses them with perfect correctness. K.M. Aggeev Christianity and its attitude to a well-ordered earthly life 1909 lovingly shares my understanding of the question posed in the topic, P. Troitsky, despite his student antipathies from the period of political excitement and, as if against his will, takes my side in his book. The attitude of the state to the church according to the views of our writers and public figures, N. Yumonov in Art. Christianity and forms of cultural life (Stran. January 1915) already considers, without even mentioning me, to be undoubted. “The religion of Christ is a religion of the spirit; it addresses its covenants, demands and instructions to the human soul and therefore has no direct connection with the forms of carnal life. Life according to the Gospel instructions and natural life are each governed by their own laws and the former cannot directly enter into the latter,” etc. {but little by little they get used to it. This is how I am always bombarded with contradictory, mutually exclusive and equally unfounded accusations - from some of extreme asceticism and from others of anti-asceticism. Anyone who has the ability to understand other people's expectations, let him imagine how much Fr. Yanyshev - in pursuance of an official order - the accusation of lifeless asceticism was a surprise to certain spheres, in the opinion of which the unforgivable sin of anti-asceticism weighed on me. My “story” will tell posterity many instructive things. Rus. Sl. 1910 No. 32 (Echoes of the revision of the Theological Academy), No. 142 (Meltted talent., i.e. protoprep. Yanyshev). Early Morning 1910 No. 125 (Review of O. Yanyshev about Prof. Tareev), Morning of Russia No. 149 (Prohibition of the works of Prof. M.M. Tareev) and dozens of other notes (among them Rus. Sl. 1909 No. 156. In the spiritual world and 1910 No. 168, 171 and 172. To history Prof. M.M. Tareeva). Compare this generous review of. I.L. Yanyshev with the stencil melodies of all these Svetlovs, Zarins, Davydovs, Skvortsovs, their name is legion, in order to appreciate the entire moral height on which the late Fr. stood, among the atmosphere surrounding him. Protopresbyter. This review by the late Fr. protopresbyter is not at all surprising to me. I myself, in a recent response to Mr. Zarin, asserting the impossibility of my thoughts coinciding with the concepts of Fr. I.L. Yanyshev, wrote: “in general, my system does not coincide in anything significant with the system of Fr. Protopresbyter Yanyshev." Now the same thing testifies to I.L. Yanyshev. However, I must testify to my long-standing acquaintance with the work of Fr. I.L. Yanysheva. G. Zarin, who has the rare ability to distort everything he touches, which is inevitable with his amazing graphomania, reinterprets my words: “Oh. Protopresbyter Yanyshev, whose book I have now, at the direction of Mr. Zarin, carefully read, dedicates to me,” etc. in the sense that I was not familiar with the work of Fr. Protopresbyter I.L. Yanysheva. "Prof. M.M Tareev,” says Mr. Zarin, “had never even read the works of Fr. I.L. Yanyshev, as he testifies in this bibliographical essay” (Chronicle Cht. 1909 Feb. 294). “The professor claims,” says Mr. Zarin (ib. 295–296), “that he has never even read a book by Fr. I.L. Yanyshev". "Prof. MM. Tareev admits that he read the book about the protopresbyter only now, and even then on my instructions,” repeats Mr. Zarin again (Chronicle Thu. 1906 Nov. 1538). But I could not say what Mr. Zarin attributes to me, since the book about. I.L. Yanyshev in I ed. quoted in my essay The Temptation of Christ (2nd ed.) on pp. 9 and 148. I will also add that at the academy we prepared for the exam in moral theology using a book about I.L. Yanysheva. I didn’t say that I “never read before”, “never read” his book, that “I read it only now.” To read a book carefully, especially in the 2nd edition, especially according to some instructions, for some specific purpose, this does not mean that the book was not read in the 1st edition, in general - before. After all, Mr. Zarin himself, saying: “having read carefully - and more than once - the collected works of the professor, I can firmly state” (Chronicle Thu. 1909, Feb. 303), does he mean to say that he did not read these works before, in the first editions? This is the prototype. Yanyshev sees the root of all the shortcomings of my system in the fact that “in the entire structure of my thoughts about divine, spiritual life, I stand primarily on the point of view of the Four Gospels,” which lead me to “disagreement with the teachings and modern practice of the church.” A tragic accusation: it can serve as a starting point for long reflections... Be that as it may, in the proposal to the Holy Synod of the most learned and intelligent protopr. Yanyshev - “to order Professor Tareev to refrain, both in his teaching and in the press, from everything that disagrees with the teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church” - this sentence makes complete sense. But it is curious what the Synodal Office made of this proposal about Yanyshev: according to the office formulation, I am ordered to “refrain from now on, both in my academic teaching and in my literary works, from everything that disagrees with the word of God, the teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church.” In the review about. Yanyshev makes sense: here I am portraying myself as a person who became carried away by the word of God and lost sight of the guiding significance of church practice. The office presents me as some kind of monster: a professor who is not guided either by the word of God or by the teaching and practice of the church! Nekrasov, in the poem Who Lives Well in Russia, forces men to read in the garden of an abandoned manorial estate the inscription on the gazebo, in which two or three letters have been erased: So did the Synodal Office in the noble word of Fr. Yanysheva erased two or three letters... “... prot. P.I. Dobrov attacked the theological school, saying that theology in our schools and religion have many differences, and whoever wants to be Orthodox should better not read our theologians. Seminary teacher S.I. Goloshchapov went further. He pointed out that some professors at the academy undermined the fundamental truths of Christianity in their published works. So one professor directly stated that a child raised in the spirit of the catechism (?! Gospel?) will undoubtedly become a freak” (From a newspaper report about one meeting of the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment) - This Goloshchapov, who publicly insinuates about me, is my student. The author of the wretched brochure directed against me, Christianity and Culture, Mr. Voinov (monk Serapion) is also my student. This idea was also expressed by Khomyakov. The most difficult thing for a superficial mind to understand is spiritual reality. He values ​​physical strength, he values ​​mental gifts, he values ​​ecstatic states - “spiritual gifts”, but it is impossible for him to recognize the spiritual-divine reality, to recognize the power of the Holy Spirit in spiritual life and, above all, in love. Without faith in the Holy Spirit, without faith in spiritual-mystical reality, there is no Christianity. The doctrine of spiritual-mystical reality is revealed mainly by the apostle. Pavel. Of the newest theologians, I can especially recommend Indicating the Path to the Kingdom of Heaven, Met. Moscow Innocent. According to him, “the spirit of Christianity is pure, selfless, spiritual love - love that is bestowed only by the Holy Spirit; people call a lot of things love, but not everything is Christian love... The Holy Spirit, like God, the third Person of the Holy Trinity, is as omnipotent as the Father and the Son. He gives life, animates and gives strength to creatures. He gives life to animals, intelligence to people, and spiritually higher life to Christians... The Holy Spirit, moving into a person, gives him faith and light. The Holy Spirit, indwelling a person, produces true love in his heart,” etc. Christianity in no sense is an external teaching that is carried out in life, a series of instructions that determine behavior. The specific, rich meaning of the idea of ​​“Christianity in the church” for me is determined by the fact that, as mentioned above, I recognize the independent saving significance of churchliness. “Belonging to the visible church and submitting to the church”: this is saving for a person, and many, I believe, will be saved only by this. But for one to whom the secret of inner spiritual life has been revealed, “belonging to the visible church and submitting to the hierarchy” is not enough: it is obligatory, but not enough. Therefore, replacing Christianity with “belonging to a visible church and submitting to a hierarchy” is a lie. The truth of Christianity must be known not only in order to understand the essence of Christianity, but also in order to understand the specific features of churchliness. A.S. Khomyakov, in the second volume of his works (ed. 4), page 8, writes: “The Holy Scriptures are the collection of Old Testament and New Testament books that the church recognizes as its own. But there are no limits to scripture, for every scripture that the church recognizes as its own is sacred scripture. Such, for the most part, are the confessions of the councils and especially the Nicene-Constantinople confession. Therefore, before our time there was a sacred scripture and, if God wills, there will be another sacred scripture.” A.V. Gorsky in Notes on theological works of A.S. Khomyakova (see Archpriest A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of the MDA about him on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his death) Khomyakova writes about this opinion (p. 164): “Is it permissible for an Orthodox theologian to mix the inspired writings of the Old and New Testaments with the works of the Church proper? Symbolic statements of church doctrine are themselves based on scripture. This is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol, chosen according to a word from Holy Scripture. “There will be more writing.” Is the author prophesying a new revelation for us? The Church has never expressed such hope. If there are new scriptures, will there be new dogmas? Why then not justify the addition of filioque and other newly invented dogmas of leisure Catholicism? Yu. F. Samarin, vol. V (Stefan Yavorsky and Feofan Prokopovich) p. 40: “The Church, recognizing within itself a living revelation, of which scripture and tradition are only two manifestations, does not allow itself to be looked at from the outside, does not prove, but posits itself. Its justification lies in its being, in the powerlessness of any objection against it” (cf. p. 24) Pp. 458: “The Orthodox Church has a deep consciousness that it cannot be comprehended, defined and proven from the outside. Only he can comprehend it who lives in it, who is connected with the church by the unity of life,” etc. A.S. Khomyakov, vol. II, p. 8: “The Church does not prove itself either as scripture, or as tradition, or as a deed, but is testified by itself, just as the Spirit of God living in it is testified by itself in scripture.” “Are there a hundred truths? One truth? Are there a hundred paths? One way? Are there a hundred Gods? One God, one faith, one baptism... They do not know how to solve the question: what are other confessions? But due to the fact that we cannot solve it properly, we should not interpret it crookedly and understand what is absolutely correct. Look what happens in photography. A person's natural persona is his truest type. Photographers take pictures, then print them. One is too dark, the other is too light, that one didn’t get the trick right, the other gave an unnatural pose. But there are also photographs that are very faithful to the original. How much does underpainting change the characteristics of traits? Now looking at all these photographs, is it really possible to say that they are all equal, when among them there are also those in which the person from whom the portrait was taken does not recognize himself? God said to Moses: see, and make (the tabernacle) according to the image shown to you on the mountain (Ex. 25:40). And it was so until the coming of Christ. The Lord, having come, took down from heaven another tabernacle for us - St. faith and the church, also organized according to what He saw and heard from the Father - in the eternal council of the Trinitarian God. But unauthorized photographers appeared, let’s paint, let’s take new pictures - and they piled up... The face of the Church is one; but in the homemade photographs, one had two heads, another had no arms or legs, the eyes were changed, the clothes were completely different, and so on. and so on. And they all have the same inscription: church... In parallel with this, for a long time we have had in use the accusation of non-Orthodoxy as a means of fighting even political rivals, personal enemies. Historians call this fighting technique common. For example, Kharlampovich K.V. Little Russian influence on Great Russian church life p. 10 about M. Joasaph: “...he managed to accuse his accuser of non-Orthodoxy (an argument that was often used in the interests of self-defense!)”... About the persecution of A.M. Bukharev, see prof. P.V. Znamensky's Sad twenty-fifth anniversary, Theological polemics of the 60s about the attitude of Orthodoxy to modernity and A.A. Lebedeva Techniques, knowledge and impartiality in the critical case of the editor of Home Conversation V.I. Askochensky - About Archpriest. Pavsky, see in the book: Archpriest G.P. Pavsky Christian teaching in a brief system - an application by prof. N.K. Nikolsky. On this topic in general, see Kotovich’s study on spiritual censorship, A.P. Lebedeva Blind leaders and autobiographer. articles, also N. N. Glubokovsky’s report on the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod. My enemies are already repeating the cycle of accusations has already been exhausted. Nozdryov looked at the border of his possessions like this: - This is the border! Nozdryov said: everything you see on this side is all mine, and even on the other side it’s all mine. When a partner exposed Nozdryov as a fraud and refused to play with him, Nozdryov shouted: - Ah! You can't do that, you scoundrel! When you saw that it wasn’t yours to take, you still couldn’t! Beat him! When Nozdryov was beaten with boots for an unclean game, or his sideburns were put on hold, he - what is the strangest thing that can happen only in Russia - after a while he already met again with those friends who had teased him, and met as if nothing had happened. “Nozdryov,” Gogol wrote, “will not be removed from the world for a long time. He is everywhere between us." It’s even more than a shame, he doesn’t even have simple tact. I remember from my childhood in the village: it used to be that the elders would call a boy a “fool,” and he would certainly answer, “You’re a fool yourself.” But he’s a boy! Stelletsky was caught plagiarizing, exposed, disgraced, what is he doing? “You... yourself wanted to change places with me.” Well, tell me, what does this have to do with space? "A! I was convicted of plagiarism, so I will tell you who married without a dowry, whose wife ran away. Everyone will get it. They’ll find out how to touch me.” What literary bad taste! They not only know that I am an ordinary professor at the academy, but they themselves attribute to me “a remarkable mind and undoubted talent” (p. 514) and only refuse to call me “a generally recognized authority” (473) and “a brilliant creator in the field of theology” (p. 507). They even curse me with the curse of Balaam!