The Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith and a Rebuttal of Immanual Kant's Idea of Autonomous Morality

THE MORAL IDEA OF THE MAIN DOGMAS OF THE FAITH AND A REBUTTAL OF IMMANUAL KANT'S IDEA OF AUTONOMOUS MORALITY

by ANTONY KHRAPOVITSKY METROPOLITAN OF KIEV Translated from the Russian by Bishop Varlaam Novakshonoff Edited and footnoted by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo Prefaces by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo and V.Rev. Dr. Michael Azkoul.

SYNAXIS PRESS The Canadian Orthodox Publishing House 37323 Hawkins Road Dewdney, B.C.; V0M-1H0, Canada ISBN: COPYRIGHT: The Canadian Orthodox Monastery of All Saints of North America First Edition: 1984 Second Edition (Expanded) 2015 All rights reserved

This present work has been typeset in 12 pt. Garamond, with chapter headings in 15 pt. Albertus. The cover and title page are set in Algerian. Printed and published in the Sacred Monastery of All Saints of North America, in the God-protected village of Dewdney, British Columbia, Canada, on 30 September being the feast of**********, to whom be glory and honour in this age and in the everlasting age to come.

Printed and bound in Canada

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROLOGUE Foreword of the Translators...... 1 An Excerpt From the Life Of our Holy and Father, Antony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan of Kiev. . . . . 7

PART ONE CRITIQUE OF IMMANUEL KANT'S IDEA OF AUTONOMOUS MORALITY Foreword to Part One (Fr. Michael Azkoul)...... 16 Editor's Foreword To Book One (Archbishop Lazar Puhalo)...... 20 A Brief and Simplified Overview of Immanuel Kant’s Thesis (Archbishop Lazar Puhalo)...... 22

THE TEXT OF PART ONE I. Moral Autonomism and Theism as Revelation. . . . 28 1. Foreword...... 28 2. The Conditionality of Moral Autonomy...... 30 3. Moral Autonomy and Revelation...... 35 II. Moral Autonomism and Jesus Christ as Saviour. 37 1. The Means of Knowing the Lord as the teacher of Truth and as Saviour...... 39 2. Jesus Christ as Moral Ideal...... 45 3. Saviour—sufferer...... 51 4. The Suffering Redeemer is True God...... 58

iii PART TWO THE MORAL IDEA OF THE MAIN DOGMAS OF THE FAITH The Dogma of the Holy Trinity...... 55 The Dogma of the Incarnation...... 83 The Dogma of the Holy Spirit...... 102 The Dogma of the Church...... 113 The Dogma of Redemption...... 139

iv Foreword of The Translators

his work of Metropolitan Antony's is often regarded as This most important writing, especially when combined with his related articles. Dogmas are those Divinely revealed truths upon which the faith rests. They reveal to us what is essential and indispensable for our salvation. When the dogmas of the faith are mutated by human reasoning and manipulation, they lose the power of their content and instead of serving for the salvation of mankind, they lead into an abyss. The essence of Orthodoxy is the correct understanding and application of the dogmas of the faith. Indeed, without a correct understanding, a saving application is not even possible. For almost three centuries our religious textbooks and catechisms were polluted and deformed by Western scholasticism, pietism, and insobriety. In the 19th and early part of the 20th century, a theological movement—a prelude to active ecumenism—developed, which sought to subvert the dogmas of the Christian faith. This development was neither surprising nor difficult to start. The dogmas of the Christian faith had been so perverted in the West that the scriptural unity of the Church was reduced to a dictatorial legal fiction in Rome or, in the Protestant world, to a fantasy about an invisible, intangible, incomprehensible spiritual Church which supposedly compensated for the anarchy and Gnosticism of Protestantism, with its multitude of mutually contradictory denominations. In the Orthodox world, the defence (as well as the application) of the dogmas of Christ's Church had become very difficult, because Western scholasticism had so corrupted the seminary texts and church-school study material in much of

1 the Orthodox Christian world. In the late 1800's a concerted effort had developed in Russia to correct these deficiencies and errors. In part, this movement was generated by the active critics of the dogmas of the faith, who quite correctly pointed out the internal contradictions, moral emptiness and, sometimes, even the immorality of the Western, scholastic versions of these dogmas. The dogmatic theology of the Russian scholastic textbooks did not escape this criticism and they actually deserved it. Because of the rich Orthodox dogmatic content of the Divine services, an awareness of the vital role of the dogmas in true moral life and the salvation of the soul was maintained among the Orthodox faithful. Our holy father Metropolitan Antony had undertaken a response to these challenges soon after his ordination to the priesthood. He took, as his starting point, the criticisms of Christian dogma made by the most influential thinkers of the era. Foremost among these was Emmanuel Kant. This brilliant rationalist sought to develop a philosophy which maintained a Christian morality, completely independent of all the dogmas of Christianity. Ultimately, limited by the scholastic grid in which he was bound, Kant developed an "ethics of obligation," a legalistic system of duty to what "ought to be done" (deontology). Saint Antony also responded to the less worthy philosophical ideas of Lev Tolstoy. The basic challenges which Metropolitan Antony set out to face were these:

1. Morality was being defined as civil obedience, conformity with social norms, compliance with religious laws and/or the sum total of "appropriate behaviour."

2 2. Salvation was being viewed as either obedience to a central church government, a simplistic faith in Christ according to a given religious definition or the appropria- tion of the "saving merits" obtained by Christ by His various sufferings for man.

3. The dogmas of Christianity were being interpreted as (a) religious definitions given primarily for the sake of obedience; (b) a series of religious laws; (c) a system of philosophical posits which had subverted the simple moral truths of the Gospel and which themselves had no value either for moral life or the process of salvation.

4. The idea had arisen, and taken root, that morality (either as it was popularly understood, or as it was presented in the more lofty thought of Kant) could be achieved by natural powers found in man, if he accepted the living example of a certain teacher from Nazareth and the exalted philosophy presented by Him in the Bible, free of the "constraints" of the Christian dogmas.

5. Theology had been divided and its inner bond of sacred unity severed. Following Hellenistic, scholastic ideas, theology was divided into compartments: moral theology, dogmatic theology, liturgical theology, pastoral theology, etc. The inner, living, unified, and practical bond of theology was almost completely unknown.

6. Finally, the movement was already taking shape which would proclaim that a unity of mankind, beginning with those who profess belief in Christ in one form or another, could be attained by an emptying and finally a subverting

3 of the Christian dogmas. This movement resulted in the W.C.C. and the Ecumenical Movement (both aimed at reductionism and minimalism, and the replacement of Christian dogma with a social and political theory).

In facing these problems, Metropolitan Antony accomplished the extraordinary feat of clearly and directly demonstrating the application of the main dogmas of the faith to the daily life and moral development of every Orthodox Christian person. In so doing, he proved himself to be a part of the living stream of apostolic-patristic theologians, one of the number of those great, inspired men we call "fathers of the Church." The moral application of the dogmas, bringing them into the stream of our daily lives, is precisely what Metropolitan Antony set out to do. He is not giving detailed, complete expositions of the dogmas. He is only demonstrating their central essence. The rest has already been done repeatedly. Among other things, this holy father has:

1. demonstrated that morality is far removed from all notions of "legalistic norms of `good behaviour,'" which curse and condemn those who fall below a certain minimum level of "acceptable" conduct. Rather it is stated in terms of an active struggle with one's weaknesses and vices, a gradual transformation and transfiguration of the entire being of the individual in the struggle for perfectionment. Morality is most truly expressed in manifestations of sincere co-suffering love, and it is supported and guided by the essence of the dogmas of the faith;

4 2. shown that salvation consists in the assimilation of Christ in truth, and redemption consists, not in justice or vengeance, but in the outpouring of the Creator's co-suffering love for His creation;

3. taught us that the dogmas of the faith are not remote philosophical definitions, but real, valuable supports to our own moral struggle. They apply, in a very real and precious way, to the life of each and every Orthodox Christian;

4. made it evident that the dogmas of the faith can be understood by a living experience alone and not by academic examination.

And all this is only part of it; but we hope this brief introduction will help the reader understand this book and the content of Metropolitan Antony's work, by explaining the historical circumstances which prompted it in the first place, and giving a brief outline of what the great hierarch was setting out to teach us. Through the prayers of our holy and God-bearing father Antony, Metropolitan of Kiev, may we come to love and understand these great revelations we call dogmas, and find in them the path to Paradise. Amen!

5 6 AN EXCERPT FROM THE LIFE OF OUR HOLY AND GOD-BEARING FATHER, ANTONY (KHRAPOVITSKY) METROPOLITAN OF KIEV

etropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky has been called by Mmany "the twentieth century Church father." We are inclined to agree with this. Certainly he is the most profound and truly patristic Orthodox theologian of this century. Metropolitan Antony was in the forefront of those hierarchs and theologians who strove to lead Russian theology and thought out of its three century long "Latin captivity," back into the light and joy of true Orthodox patristic thought. His theology is radiant with Christ-like love and compassion, and his real genius lies in his ability to apply the content of great and sublime dogmas to the everyday life of each Orthodox person. His ability to do this was a reflection of the qualities of his own character. Saint Antony was born on 17 March 1863 in the town of Vatagino, Novgorod Province, and baptized Aleksei. His father, a provincial nobleman, was deeply involved in social work among the rural poor. Both parents were highly educated, religious people, and Alexei's mother read the Holy Bible to her children daily. The family made frequent pilgrimages to monasteries and holy places. Under the influence of his family's pious, charitable life, and his encounters with monastics, Alexei became a true struggler early in life. Alexei Khrapovitsky completed his studies at the Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy in 1885, and was immediately tonsured into monasticism with the name

7 The Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

Antony. He then completed his master's degree and was ordained to the priesthood in 1886. That year, he was assigned to teach Old Testament theology at the Kholm Theological Seminary and, in 1889, at age 26, was appointed Rector of the Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy. In addition to his teaching and administrative duties, St. Antony, who was an outstanding preacher, delivered sermons throughout St Petersburg. He also loved to visit prisons, hospitals, and poor areas of the city, comforting and encouraging the people. In 1890, St. Antony became rector of the Moscow Ecclesi- astical Academy. During his five year tenure in this post, St. Antony changed the atmosphere of the academy greatly. It became more open, more compassionate and more sincerely concerned for the students. He promoted active theological discussions, and brought the great patristic rebirth, which was centred at Optina, to the academy. St. Antony was exceptionally popular with the students. He chose to govern the academy not by force of power or law, but by the moral influence of love and compassion. He was highly successful in this, and it had a profound effect on the students. St. Antony's close and friendly relationship with the students incited disapproval. Students were to be treated as inferiors and governed with harsh legalism. St. Antony was incapable of the required arrogant condescension, and he was so permeated with a spirit of Gospel love that legalistic harshness never occurred to him. Because of constant complaints and slander from older professors and officials, St. Antony was transferred as dean, to the Kazan Theological Academy. Here, he continued in the same spirit

8 From the Life of Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky as before and, in 1894, his first year in Kazan, he started special courses for missionaries. In 1900, Antony was appointed bishop of the Ufa Diocese, and during the two years he ruled, the number of parishes in the diocese doubled. In 1902, he was transferred to the difficult eparchy of Volhynia on the western border of the Russian Empire. His activity here was especially fruitful. He established and reinvigorated seminaries and church schools, and brought about a rebirth of the monastic spirit. His most lasting work here, aside from his own writings, was the establishment of the printing brotherhood of St Job of Pochaev at the ancient Pochaev Monastery. This same brotherhood later came to North America and settled in the Holy Trinity Monastery at Jordanville, N.Y., where it has been a great source of enlightenment and missionary work on this continent. The tireless bishop found time to compose a service for the saints and to write prolifically on nearly every theological subject. During this period, his influence upon the direction of Russian Church life began to increase tremendously, complimentary with the influence of the great Optina Hermitage. Metropolitan Antony was a leader among those hierarchs and clergy who recognized the impending catastrophe in Russia. Vladika correctly analyzed conditions and strove with all his strength to correct them. He repeatedly and insistently suggested corrections to the Synod and even to the Emperor, but these were never heeded. For one thing, the Petrine caste system in Russia automatically made advice from persons of lower ranks unacceptable to persons of

9 The Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith higher rank. Then, too, higher ranking authorities in every element of Russian society had developed a pathological attitude toward criticisms from persons of lower castes. The Fourth All-Russian Missionary Conference, held at Kiev in 1908, was predominantly influenced by Metropolitan Antony, and its conclusions and decisions were far-reaching and radically patristic. The Synod and Emperor, however, refused to apply them and, in their place, they introduced wavering, indecisive half measures which were too limp and too late. Vladika Antony remained a prophet whose voice was crying in the wilderness. He was called to the centre of Church administration when a solution had to be found to a serious question which was coming to a head. The Synodal administration, fearing the clear, decisive measures which he suggested, and offended by his sharp criticisms about the realities of conditions, pushed him aside and exiled him to the Volhynia and Kharkov kathedras. He was never allowed into the Russian heartland where he could have been of use. Indeed, even though it was predominantly through his personal efforts that the celebration of the glorification of Russian Saints was resumed, he was never allowed to attend a single glorification service for, out of sheer malice, he was not invited to them by the Synod. One incident in Metropolitan Antony's life is particularly characteristic. On 30 October 1911, an attempt was made on his life. While he was serving during a vigil, the former student, Trifonov, tried to murder him. Trifonov had completed the Yakutsk Seminary course, and was sent on a state scholarship to the Kazan Ecclesiasti-

10 From the Life of Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky cal Academy, from which he was soon expelled for incorri- gible behaviour. In 1909, Trifonov went to Vladika Antony to study in the Zhitomir Seminary. On 30 October 1911, Trifonov came to the Church of the Annunciation in St Petersburg, where Vladika Antony was serving an Akathist before the Pochaev Ikon of the Theoto- kos. As Vladika was censing the church, Trifonov shoved his way through the crowd, drew a naval dagger and raised it to strike Vladika in the heart. Several people began to scream and the porter Liulin, a man of large stature, grabbed Trifonov (a slight man) and held him firmly. Trifonov managed, however, to strike Vladika, wounding his left arm. Vladika calmly turned to his assailant and peacefully asked, "Dear child, what are you doing?" He continued to cense, but the agitation and confusion in the church continued. Vladika went to the ambo and calmly called out, "Beloved children, be calm. Let us pray and thank the Lord that He had compassion on this senseless person and did not allow him to commit an evil deed." He completed the Akathist, at the end of which, the faithful sang, "We praise Thee, O Lord!" Trifonov was brought to trial, and he testified that he doubted the existence of God and decided to test his doubts thus: he would try to kill the best bishop in Russia, and if God truly existed, He would save His hierarch. Since God did preserve Vladika Antony, Trifonov said, he once again believed in God. At the trial, it was decided that Trifonov was mentally unbalanced and so he was set free. Vladika obtained a position for Trifonov as a recorder for one of the

11 The Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith examining magistrates and showed great concern for his welfare. Telegrams soon began to pour in, expressing gratitude to God that Vladika had been spared. Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem wrote: "We raise thanks to God for preserving your precious life, so necessary for the good of the Ortho- dox Church." Vladika Antony replied by telegraph, "Despo- ta, your grateful novice kisses your hands. Archbishop Antony." In 1914, Archbishop Antony was transferred to Kharkov. In 1917, he attempted to retire to Valaam Monastery to devote the rest of his life to writing and monastic struggle; however, he was elected a delegate to the All-Russian Church Council in that same year. Vladika had struggled for many years for the restoration of the Patriarchate and the restoration of a canonical structure for the Russian Church. At the All-Russian Council, there were still many delegates who did not understand the issue, and opposed it, often out of honest ignorance. Vladika Antony organized a series of lectures on the subject of the ancient Russian patriarchate and took delegates on tours of the Monastery of the Resurrection, which Patriarch Nikon had founded. In the end, the attitude of these delegates changed and the council took the decision to restore the patriarchate. Not surprisingly, Vladika Antony was put forth as a candidate for patriarch. When the vote was taken to select three final candidates, Metropolitan Antony received the greatest number of votes. The patriarch, however, was chosen by lot from among the three top candidates. When the lot was drawn, it fell on Archbishop Tikhon, who later

12 From the Life of Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky became the Holy New Hieromartyr, Patriarch Tikhon. At the end of the All-Russian Church Council, Vladika was made Metropolitan of Kiev. He was, however, soon imprisoned for eight months by forces involved in the civil war in Ukraine. Later, he was able to return to Kiev but soon after, had to travel to Novocherkassk, in the south, on Church matters. While he was there, Kiev fell to the advancing Red Army and Vladika was not able to return. It was at this time that the Higher Church Administration was established to organize the life of those Russian dioceses which were cut off from the Patriarchal administration. The canons of the Holy Church direct that, in such circumstances, the senior bishop who is free shall take the presi- dency and organize the Higher Church Administration. Vladika Antony, therefore, became president. The Higher Church Administration moved its synod to the Crimea and, during the evacuation of the Crimea, Metropolitan Antony was evacuated, against his own will, to Constantinople. In 1922, Patriarch Dimitrije of Serbia invited the Russian Synod abroad to establish its headquarters at the patriarchal town of Sremsky Karlovtsi in Serbia. Metropolitan Antony considered it imperative to bring the Higher Church Administration back into full administrative unity with the Moscow Patriarchate so soon as the patriarch and his synod were able to function freely, without attempts by the Communist government to manipulate and use the Russian Church outside Russia. Saint Antony completed the course of his life there and reposed in the Lord in 1936, on 28 July/10 August. Saint Antony Khrapovitsky is venerated as a holy and

13 The Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

God-bearing father of the Church by many. The record of his miracles and intercessions continues to increase. Perhaps the following Dismissal Troparion and Kondakion, composed in his honour are the best summary of his life:

Dismissal Troparion, Tone 4

As a wellspring of theology, O righteous Antony, thou hast poured forth knowledge unto salvation, and as by thy words we have been given understanding, so also by thy prayers may our souls be saved.

Kondakion, Tone 7

By faith thou didst lead thy people through the Red Sea, rightly dividing the word of truth. As one equal with the ancient fathers, we beseech thee, O Antony, that thou wilt ever intercede for those who celebrate thy sacred memory.

14 MORAL IDEA OF THE MAIN DOGMAS OF THE FAITH PART ONE CRITIQUE OF IMMAN- UEL KANT'S IDEA OF AU- TONOMOUS MORALITY by Antony Khrapovitsky, Metropolitan of Kiev. Edited and footnoted by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo and a brief summary of Kant's teaching by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo. With a Foreword by Rev. Dr. Michael Azkoul

15 FOREWORD TO PART ONE OF THE ENGLISH EDITION by V.Rev. Fr. Michael Azkoul

f Vladika Antony seems to have devoted so much atten- Ition to the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724- 1804), his purpose was to counter the growing influence of Western philosophy in general, and Kant’s thought in particular, among Russia’s intelligentsia, hence, college students. He recognized the influence of Kant on Tolstoy. He must have been aware that Nicholas Lossky had translated Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der Reinen Vernunft) into Russian (1907). He knew that members of the famous Vekhi group, followers of Vladimir Solov’ev, viewed Kant’s theory of knowledge (epistemology) as conclusive. Vladika watched as professors at Moscow University rendered not only collections of modern but Latin medieval philosophical works into Russian. St Antony was particularly concerned with the influence of Kantian axiology (theory of values) on the Orthodox way of life (“piety,” “moral idea,” “the practical idea”). The implications of Kant’s philosophy—as he observed it growing around him—was the separation, if not the opposition, of life to Church doctrine; or, in the words of Vladika Antony, the efforts of Kant and his followers was “to find moral imperfections in the basic Christians truths and oppose them with teachings they supposed to be superior to the Christian Faith.” What was it in his thinking that brought Kant to this conception of moral philosophy or, as he called it, “practical judgment”? Kant was a dualist, holding that “reality” is divided into “phenomena” or the realm of the senses and

16 Critique of Autonomous Morality

“noumena” or the realm of the spirit. So far as we are able to “know” by scientific means, our bodies are phenomenal, operating in space and time, and hence subject to the laws of physics and physiology. But there is a world not subject to the laws of nature—“the things in themselves” (dass an sich). Here the human spirit is free and creative: it escapes the determinism of phenomena (causality, gravity, etc.). According to Kant, scientific or rational knowledge cannot provide any ground for the moral life. We must look elsewhere for its justification, that is, if it is to have any meaning, we must find it in the noumenal or spiritual realm which is “outside” the space-time continuum. In other words, if “the moral life” is to have any purpose, we must believe in God Who alone can guarantee its validity and immortality which alone provides its motive. Such beliefs Kant describes as “acts of faith” or “postulates of the practical reason.” Human reason — which depends on the senses for its knowledge—can never know them; and any theoretical attempt to do so must fall into contradictions and paradoxes. In a word, Kant regards human beings as “moral agents” and religion as an adjunct to it. “For what he is virtually saying,” writes H. D. Aiken, is “that the whole enterprise of traditional theology is misconceived. The essence of religion, like that of morality, does not consist in superscientific hypotheses concerning the nature and origins of the ‘created’ world, but rather in the support it gives to moral experience and conduct” (Introduction to The Age of Ideology: the 19th Century Philosophers. New York, 1960, p. 40). Kant allows no place in the historical world for divine revelation, and no reli-

17 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith gious creed may look to reason for evidence of its claims. Neither Kant’s radical dualism nor the details of philosophy persuaded all his successors; but his ideas about religion —especially Christianity—and reason provided modernity with a new way of thinking about them. From that dualism came the distinction between “the Christ of history” and “the Christ of Faith.” The first relates to what science and reason can actually tell us about the man, Jesus, and His religious agenda—rational conclusions which have been debated in academia for more than two centuries; the second is the Jesus in Whom we individually may believe (“the Jesus for me”), the Jesus portrayed in the New Testa- ment Scriptures, themselves subject to theological and literary scrutiny. Couple this distinction with Kant’s view of the moral life, and the consequences of his philosophy are understandable. Although he tried to delineate laws for the moral life (“imperatives”), the result of his philosophical vision was to privatize religion and relativize morality, that is, subjective religion and “autonomous morality”, to use the language of Metropolitan Antony. Thus it is that our contemporaries speak no longer of religious and moral truth, but only of “personal” or “family values” which, to borrow the current cliché, one may not impose on others. Since values are “postulates,” without universal validity, they are matters of personal faith and conscience. Necessarily, then, relativism is the supreme moral and religious fact of our times. If modernity (or “post-modernity”) is right, Christ is not the God-Man, not “the moral ideal,” not “the suffering Redeemer” (except “for

18 Critique of Autonomous Morality me”), then, the Gospel has no historical, no objective, no ultimate meaning. It was this terrible implication of which Vladika Antony was all too aware. He answers Kant in a way the Protestant philosopher could never have antici- pated.

19 EDITOR'S FOREWORD TO PART ONE Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

he title of St Antony Khrapovitsky's book informs us Tthat it is not a complete exposition of the main dogmas of the faith. It is not his intention to restate dogmatic theology, provide a history of dogma, to discuss homousios or theosis or to discuss every aspect of christology or soteriology. The saint informs us that he is going to discuss precisely the moral idea of the main dogmas of the faith. Saint Antony is concerned that for many, the dogmatic revelation has become little more than a formula, a philosophy or constraint. Seldom do students of theology or the faithful in general, reflect on the way in which the main dogmas of the faith impact on our daily lives, on our moral conscience. In this present work, Saint Antony seeks to correct this, while at the same time refuting the destructive scholasticism which destroyed these moral ideas in our theology. The impetus for Saint Antony's essays, The Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith, was the popularity of Immanuel Kant among students of philosophy and theology in pre-revolutionary Russia. Immanuel Kant held that the dogmas of Christianity were actually an impediment to our natural morality. Kant's opinion was based on his exposure to the Western Scholastic version of these dogmas, and in that sense, he was absolutely correct. Saint Antony realized that so long as scholasticism prevailed in Russian theology, the dogmas would be weakened in the hearts of believers and younger generations would be impelled to reject basic Christian dogmas.

20 Critique of Autonomous Morality

To those not familiar with the philosophy of Kant, some important aspects of Saint Antony's theses may not be clear, particularly in the first chapter. It may be well, therefore, to present a brief, limited and simplified overview of Kant's position as it related to this work.

21 A Brief and Simplified Overview of Immanuel Kant’s Thesis. Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

mmanuel Kant grew up in a household deeply immersed Iin the pietist movement. His earliest education came from pietist clergy who helped to form his subconscious patterns as well as his conscious viewpoints. His earliest acquain- tance with Christian dogmatic and doctrinal thought was within the framework of scholasticism as interpreted by pietism. Kant would later critique scholastic and pietistic religious dogma, but he would remain a rigid moralists and a pietist all his life. Because he had a bright, penetrating mind, Kant’s philosophical education would begin early. At Sixteen, Kant was already in university, confronted by the two prevailing philosophical schools of his day, British empiricism and Franco-German rationalism. The rationalists sought to deduce knowledge by means of reason, based on what they felt were a small number of fundamental principles innate to the mind. Empiricism strove to arrive a broad knowledge by induction from sensory experience alone. Neither of these prevailing systems appeared to resolve the question, “what is knowledge?” and “how is knowledge possible?”. Kant believed that he could arrive at the answers to these questions by forming a synthesis of both systems, reconciling and clarifying them. How this process would affect his view of faith, morals and Christian dogma is extremely important because the moral philosophy of Kant would have an immense influence on Western thought, even impacting on the Canadian Charter of Human Rights

22 Critique of Autonomous Morality and Freedoms and the American Bill of Rights. Kant felt that there was some natural construct of the human mind, active before it had any experience, that made knowledge possible. Because he was seeking this answer in the human mind prior to experience, he referred to it as a priori. Since his critique of human knowing looked at that which is above all empirical experience, he referred to it as “transcendental” or “that which transcends experience.” As mentioned, Kant’s intention was to form a synthesis between empiricism and rationalism. He suggested that the raw material of our knowledge comes from the experience of the senses (empirical) but that we could not actually have knowledge unless certain innate constructs in our minds gave form and meaning to the data our senses provided. In Kant’s view we cannot know reality in itself; we cannot know the essence of things. Our knowledge is limited to the world of phenomena so we can have knowledge only of appearances. Ultimately, however, the question for Kant was not “what we know,” but “how we know it.” He concluded that all human minds are ordered according to strict laws so as to organize like sense data into identical patterns, and this alone makes it possible for knowledge to be objective. What is significant to us in this present work is the way in which this effected1 objective values and morality in Kant’s system. Kant was concerned to demonstrate the ability of man to have an objective knowledge of values and morals which did not depend on external constraints (or heteronomos

1. not "affected."

23 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith influences). For him, values and morality did not belong to the empirical world of phenomena, but to the inner world of natural, practical reason, a “noumenal”2 world which is in a different dimension than the world of human sense perception. Knowledge of the things within this noumenal world lay within the person. Kant firmly believed in the moral autonomy of man. He wanted moral precepts and behaviour to be the product of something natural to the human mind and not something shaped by empirical experience or religious dogma. In fact, Kant felt that the dogmas of Christianity curtailed man’s moral autonomy and even hindered his moral development. The Christian dogmas were, for Kant, a set of extraneous and constraining legal propositions. Moreover, ultimately, Jesus Christ was primarily a salutary role model, but the highest morality was possible without Him (and, indeed, without the influence of a higher world). The concept of morality, moral concepts and values all had to proceed from this innate, natural construct common in all human beings. Kant surmised that the existence of this internal, universal moral structure (or perhaps, the whole noumenal world itself) proved that man is immortal by nature. As with most philosophers, Kant assumed that happiness is the highest and most natural goal for man. Since happiness is a feature of the external, phenomenal world, while obedience to the duties and obligations of the internal moral law is a feature of the internal, noumenal world, the two must be reconciled and united in order for happiness or morality to function. God, therefore, exists as a point of unity between

2. related to nous, but in no way related to noetic.

24 Critique of Autonomous Morality these two dimensions, drawing them together so that moral duty and responsibility can be united with happiness. Indeed, this may have been Kant’s primary criterion for postulating the necessary existence of God.3 Since Kant’s lens was ground in the workshop of Western scholasticism and his religious consciousness was formed in the womb of pietism, he understood religious dogma to be the product of a flawed logic which produced (or interpreted) empirical or rational arguments about the nature of the divine and about metaphysical matters. In a certain way, his pietistic reductionism was pitted against his scholastic legalism. In fact, it was actually scholastic dogma that elicited his mistrust, but I would like to suggest that Kant’s moral philosophy was very much formed by this inner conflict between pietism and formal scholasticism.4 Pietism may have been formed by a scholastic mode of thought, but pietism rejected the oppression of legalism in favour of emotional repression. Religious dogma, it appeared, was a product of the phenomenal world, whereas faith, like values and moral law, was a product of the noumenal. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant asserts that he has done religion a great favour by “denying knowledge in order to make room for faith.”5 The Holy Prophet Hosea, on the other hand, says, “My people perish from

3. It is easy to see how such a system impacted on the deism of the American “Declaration of Independence,” and why the promises of the Declaration could have been seen as applying only to white landowners, and not to black people or the poor. 4. I specify formal scholasticism because pietism is a child of scholastic thought. 5. Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Norman Kemp Smith (St Martin’s Press, N.Y., 1929) p. 29.

25 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith lack of knowledge.”6 Kant’s actual ideas or schemata of knowledge may forever be a matter of speculation. There are internal contradictions in his system and often his writing, aside from being turgid, is far from clear. I will surmise, however, that a major reason for Kant’s negative view of religious dogma arises from his idea that no concepts can be properly applied to noumenal realities. For Kant, noumenal things are “things in themselves,” while phenomenal or external things are “things as they appear.” in his system, we create the world of phenomena — the material world – by applying concepts to sense perceptions. We cannot, however, apply concepts to the noumenal world, which constitutes “actual reality.” Since God is the ultimate “actual reality,” and exists in the noumenal dimension, no concept that we can have can be applied to God. This problem is in no way related to the Orthodox concept of apophatic theology. If Kant’s system is to be at all consistent, then we could not form any beliefs about God, because any belief we have would be a concepts and concepts cannot apply to anything in the noumenal realm. At best, Kant might say we can have faith, but not belief, or at least, not “beliefs.” The fact that God has revealed Himself to us in the phenomenal world in the person of Jesus Christ does not change this “reality.”Therefore, from Kant's point of view, all religious dogma is without intrinsic value, and might even be seen as negative. Since, for Kant, the moral law is something in the noumenal realm, religious dogma cannot apply to it either, but can only form misconceptions and a stumbling block to

6. Hosea 4:6.

26 Critique of Autonomous Morality the full realization of moral behaviour and practice. Dogma applies concepts. Concepts cannot be applied to the noumenal, thus dogma obscures and clouds rather than to clarify or give meaning to anything in the noumenal dimension. It is important to bear in mind, also, that Kant's moral system, referred to as "deontology," was actually a system of the ethics of obligation or duty, and that he wanted to impose a Christian ethical system devoid of the substantiating Christian dogmatic system. Saint Antony Khrapovitsky will discuss some of the internal contradictions an indefensible conclusions of Kant’s system, but I would like to suggest that the discussion above points to real problems in the Kantian moral and ethical system which create the canvas which St Antony is respond- ing to. Let us turn, then, to the first chapter of Saint Antony’s Moral Idea of the yMain Dogmas of the Faith, and we will be taken more deeply into the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and receive a sound Orthodox refutation of it. More importantly, we will learn that the Orthodox Christian dogmas of the faith not only apply to our daily lives, but form an underpinning to our moral struggle and the inner transformation of our beings, giving real, immediate, existential meaning to these dogmas in the lives of each believing individual, and to the believing community as a whole.

27 CRITIQUE OF IMMANUEL KANT'S IDEA OF AUTONOMOUS MORALITY by Antony Khrapovitsky, Metropolitan of Kiev.

I MORAL AUTONOMISM1 AND THEISM AS REVELATION

1 FOREWORD

he dominant characteristic of Kant's theological thought Tis his attempt to preserve the practical conclusions derived from revealed dogmas while separating them from their objective basis. He attempts to find a foundation for those practical conclusions in the nature of human reason.2 The most notable result of his endeavour to maintain the

1. [Ed.Note:] “Moral Autonomism” or “autonomous morality” (self-legislated) as used in Metropolitan Antony’s work is synonymous with “deontology,” that is, the ethical nature of duty or moral obligation. We have not attempted to sort out when to translate the Russian into English as “deontology” or “moral autonomism,” but have left the wording as the Metropolitan used it in Russian. [Abp. Lazar] . 2. [Ed.Note:]It must be noted that Kant was wrestling with the great moral and metaphysical problems of Western philosophy, not the least of which was to reconcile its several theories of knowledge (See Carl J. Friedrich’s Introduction to his anthology, The Philosophy of Kant: Moral and Political Writings. New York, 1949, xi-xiv). At the same time, his intellectual tools were a legacy of the Western tradition, including its medieval stage (On Kant’s Scholastic language, see N.K. Smith, A Commentary to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.(MacMillan Press, London) 1979, pp. 73-78). Likewise, in his examination of God, Christ, the Church, man and redemption, he is biased not only by the presuppositions of his own idealistic philosophy, but by his Pietism and the entire Western system of juridical theology which he inherited. [Abp. Lazar] .

28 Critique of Autonomous Morality rule of ethics, separated from these dogmas, was that it proved to be not only unsound philosophically and scientif- ically, but the results were mutually contradictory as well. One might wonder how this could occur in the works of so renowned a philosopher. The answer is not complicated. In his relevant treatises, Kant did not begin from a central rational principle, rather he took the most important dogmas of faith one by one and then depersonalized them. It is not surprising that one does not end up building a new house by removing the roof and ceiling from an old one. Having failed to complete his own philosophy with a firm theological basis, Kant drove his followers, the rationalistic theologians, into numerous quite malignant errors. Though Kant himself distorted every Christian dogma, he did so relatively conscientiously. He knew how to abstract the practical idea of every truth almost without error. Later rationalistic and pantheistic theologians did not produce any ideas but left behind mere terminology. Even now, in the persons of Harnack, Tolstoy and others, they continue the hoax of offering a complete ecclesiastical/theological lexicon, with hardly a single viable Gospel thought—only a most unoriginal materialism. Clearly, the theological views of Kant, inherited as they are by successive schools of philosophy, must elicit the serious attention of Christian apologists. This is especially true regarding that aspect of them which results in particularly rationalistic systems which present serious dangers. I have in mind, in particular, those efforts of Kant and his followers to find moral imperfections in the basic Christian truths and oppose them with teachings they suppose to be superior

29 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith to the Christian faith.3 From this point of view, it is a matter of indifference whether or not Jesus Christ is God or whether there exist revelations given by God. In fact, for Kant, it would be better if neither of these existed. In the following pages, we will attempt to demonstrate the absolute necessity of both, from Kant's own theses which define the moral nature of human reason. Let us turn to this endeavour now.

2 THE CONDITIONALITY OF MORAL AUTONOMY

One is struck by the manner in which Kant, in his Critique of Practical Reason, subjects his deductions to a curtailment of the postulates of our moral conscience. It is in this critique that he asserts that the moral conscience of man bears within itself its own objective and absolute significance. He thus postulates the concept of the objective, moral world-view. It would seem that everything in this is directed toward the founding of theism. This theism is not only a philosophical system, but also a religious system which seeks to establish the concept of an intimate personal

3. [Ed.Note:] Kant and his followers found imperfections in the Christian Faith as they knew it, that is, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Thus, their opposition to “traditional” religion was their theological heritage, in particular, Scholasticism and the juridical dogmatics of the Latin West. Metropolitan Antony will later find himself faced with the task of expressing the moral idea of the main dogmas of the faith in clear Orthodox terms which were not even well understood by many Russian theologians, corrupted by the venom of Scholasticism. This turned out to be especially true when the saint wrote his brilliant Moral Idea of the Dogma of Redemption, which was so vehemently opposed by the fanatically scholastic Archbishop Theophan of Poltava and even in our own time by the Neo-Gnostic philosopher Fr Seraphim Rose. [Abp. Lazar] .

30 Critique of Autonomous Morality unity of moral conscience (i.e., of man) with the objective founding of a moral world order (that is, by God, since according to Kant, all moral predicates can be attributed only to being or personality). Neo-Kantians of the right arrive at similar conclusions. Those on the left, however, counter this syllogism with a not unfounded reference to Kant, who insisted on the redundancy of external motives for a moral conscience and life. If he did allow them any significance at all, then it was only a secondary one as a guide for moral behaviour and for disciplining the will in a basic, defined direction. One might well wonder what sort of syncretism could have created such an inconsistency in the system of this philosopher. He both allows and negates the objective aspect of the moral conscience. Moreover, he thereby stands in evident contradiction to the facts which convince us of the mighty moral upheaval created in people by the Chris- tian revelation which is received objectively precisely as a revelation of God. The answer to this quandary must be sought in Kant's attempt to establish a firm moral autonomism in contrast to the moral heteronomism4 of the Roman Catholic and Protestant religions. Oddly enough, Kant's

4. [Ed. Note:] hetero-nomos as opposed to auto-nomos: heteronomous indicates a lack of moral freedom or self determination (also, subject to external force or controls; along different lines of growth or under different controlling forces). I surmise that St Antony is referring to Kant's protest that the human heart contains immediate moral precepts and that the operations of another world (external force or controls) are not needed to arouse one's vocation in this world — thus Kant is opposing autonomous morality, made possible by a personal inner law, with transcendental moral perfection, made possible by heavenly intervention or, at least, direct influence. Kant would see this as "compulsion" or constraint. As I recall, there is a discussion of this by Kant in his Dreams of a Spirit-seer [Abp. Lazar] .

31 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith moral religion has less in common with those two religions than with the Orthodox ascetical teaching about spiritual perfection. Having entered too far into the consequences of his idea, however, Kant feared that he might lower its moral basis by acknowledging any form of external influence on him, even that of the Gospel revelation. Kant correctly affirms the freedom and inherent value of the moral nature of man for the beginning of the struggle toward good and away from evil. He fails, however, to pay attention to the truth that the good, which is either freely accepted or freely rejected by man, is infinitely elevated in value when it is presented to him, not as an indefinite inclination toward compassion, but as a harmonious system of truths which, coming from God, embraces the whole universe in all ages. In fact, it is evident that for our full development, our moral conscience needs an objective confirmation, an objective explanation of our struggles. We said that good is elevated in value through the objective unveiling of its cosmic significance or—what is the same—through the Christian teaching, but this in no way decreases moral autonomy, since it still depends on man whether he will accept or reject this good. Choosing the direction of a moral principle is subjective, but the aim or goal of the principle is not. This thesis stands even when, as Kant suggests, one is not manifesting love but only a cold respect which waxes or wanes depending on the moral value of the object. If we turn to the Holy Scripture, then we shall see that here, too, this truth for the expression of moral will is evident. The truths of the revelation of Scripture are not acknowledged in the conscience of man by means of some

32 Critique of Autonomous Morality coercive, heteronomic motives for accepting good instead of evil as a principle of life. It is rather by means of principles which either strongly confirm a person in one of the other accepted direction of will or, in the case of moral lethargy or wavering, arouse one to a firm moral self-definition. The Righteous Simeon said of Christ, "He is set for the rising and falling of many in Israel and as a sign that will be spoken against so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed" (Lk.2:34-35). The same thoughts are expressed by the Saviour in His conversation with Nikodemos and in several other places, most notably in the Gospel according to John (ch.5 and ch. 12 esp.). We will agree with Kant that our struggle toward good must be free, and that it has no moral value if it is produced by injunctions alone rather than by the subjective motivation of the conscience. Nevertheless, in order for the reality of its ethical value to be acknowledged (something Kant desires) it is necessary for the struggle to be correlated with its object, and empirical knowledge of the objective world- view is necessary.5 Kant is inclined to affirm that this world-

5. [Ed. Note:] Kant might desire the result, but separates logic from empiricism. He held that there can be no empirical part in logic, no universal and necessary laws of thinking that would rest on a foundation formed by experience. For Kant, such a state of affairs would not actually be logic and he desired that even the knowledge of Jesus Christ be based in logic rather than experience. In his Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant asserts, "Logic can have no empirical part — a part in which universal and necessary laws of thinking would rest upon grounds taken from experience. For in that case, it would not be logic." Critique of Practical Reason and Other Writings in Moral Philosophy(Univ. of Chicago Press, 1949)[Abp. Lazar] .

33 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith view is bestowed in our mind a priori6, but there is only a portion of truth in such a thesis—a valuable portion, to be sure—but a yet more manifest error. Let us accept, for the moment, the philosopher's idea that all theological truths that are available to human reason can be extricated by a priorism. But you see, the area of moral relationships rests, first of all, on people. If one is to understand moral autonomy in an unqualified subjective sense, then logic will force us to the absurd thesis that we know a priori not only the existence of every living person, but also about his sufferings and moral needs. Moreover, one would have to accept as coarse heteronomism the fact that rather than abiding in a constant, uniform state of a certain cosmic grief, our moral motivation arises at the sight of human sufferings and errors, our sudden impulse to help a person who is drowning, or being aware of our influence on a friend, we are moved to encourage him to struggle against some tempta- tion which has arisen in his life.

6. [Ed.Note:] The word a priori refers first to the understanding’s categories and principles; and second to that reasoning which deduces conclusions on the basis of these principles and categories. A posteriori is inductive reasoning which arrives at knowledge from the observation of facts or generalizations from the facts, that is, empirical experience. What Kant describes as “synthetic judgments” involves both kinds of reasoning. Hence, his famous phrase in the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason, “But, though our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises from experience.” The faculty of cognition is awakened by the senses. “Synthetic judgments” are a combination of concepts and precepts (“transcendental synthetic unity of apperception”) [Abp. Lazar] .

34 Critique of Autonomous Morality

3 MORAL AUTONOMY AND REVELATION

All the phenomena of life which evoke beneficent [good] feelings in us, have, in relation to moral autonomy, a completely parallel significance to the Gospel revelations which convince us that the world view desired by our moral conscience actually does exist. We are convinced that the humans who arouse our sympathy are not symbols or accidentally bonded atoms of matter, forced to decompose into their base elements, thus establishing equality between man and a pile of rubbish. A priori we can seek God and man insisting on their being, but we can only come to a conviction of their being with the help of revelation and the experience of both life and learning. The significance of moral autonomy is fully preserved here. Having come to know (from revelation, experience and learning) about the existence of God and the existence of man as an ethical being, we can make a totally free choice whether or not to accept their moral value as a moral value for our personal conscience, to either acknowledge or refuse to acknowledge them as our God and our neighbours. Kant's canon for morality which declares, "strive to act according to that rule which you could offer as a common law" is simply not able to manage without an objective empirical cognition. The believing Christian will certainly not manage without it, but this is not in any way a detriment to moral autonomy. The believer accepts the Gospel teaching primarily because of it's moral value, directly confirmed by the a priori moral conscience.

35 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

Atheism or renunciation of Christianity may prove to be an expression of an accidental ignorance, or simply a free deviation of the human spirit from an obedience to one's moral imperative, just as faith is an expression of an agreement of the will to follow the moral conscience, which has found the objective confirmation of its postulates in revelation. The Lord expressed this idea more than once, most clearly in His words:"If one chooses to do God's will, he will discover whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own" (Jn.7:17), St Isaak the Syrian expresses this idea with precision and clarity: "There is knowledge which follows faith and there is knowledge which gives birth to faith....There is natural knowledge which distinguishes good from evil, and it is called natural judiciousness. With it, we discern good and evil naturally, without the aid of learning. God placed this judiciousness into reason- endowed creatures. With the aid of education, it receives increase and supplement....With this judiciousness, we can discover God's way....By means of this, we acquire the knowledge which enables us to distinguish good and evil and to accept faith.... Natural knowledge, that is, the distinguishing of good and evil which is placed into our nature by God, and it in itself convinces us that we must believe in God Who brought us into being. But faith arouses a reverent awe in us, and this impels us to

36 Critique of Autonomous Morality

repentance7 and deeds."8 (Homily 84)

In revelation our moral conscience encounters an unfamiliar a priori content and confirms not only its objective existence, but also its infinite value for itself. It could not do this if it were not autonomously moral in potential; if, for example, it were like the conscience of "lower" animals. An animal can be obedient, but its obedience will always be heteronomistic, for it cannot assimilate the moral content of its master as something infinitely valued for its own conscience. We submit that we have now demonstrated with sufficient clarity that both moral autonomy and moral "a priorism" are compatible in man with the acceptance of revelation as a guiding principle of moral life. The most autonomistic and independent moral consciousness9 of a rationalist will not function without empiricism. Moral consciousness is, as we have said, autonomic in regard to the chosen direction of the will, in the very capability to open up toward moral inclinations, but it is not autonomous in relation to the object of its striving (i.e., God and all conscious beings), which must be revealed to a person empirically. Kant himself affirms the

7. [Ed. Note:] This is an important concept. Whether we say a "reverent awe" or a "reverent fear," it is one and the same thing. We are impelled to a repentance (metanoia, change of direction, reversals of perspective, re-thinking) for so many reasons: fear of separation from our Creator, etc. What is important is for us to remember the meaning of the word "repentance" or "mentanoia." [Abp. Lazar] . 8. [Author's Note:] In spite of the fact that some Russian writers assert that, supposedly, faith itself is born in us by fear.[Met. Antony]. 9. [Ed. Note :] or "moral content." The meaning is not clear in the original but we have chosen "moral consciousness," though either interpretation could be correct. [Abp. Lazar] .

37 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith indissoluble bond between the moral realm and personal life. Thus, even though the existence of God is an un- doubted fact for me, if He did not hear me or speak to me, then a moral relationship with Him would be impossible. Read from the Book of Job, chapters 9, 13 and 23. The sufferer is prepared to endure the most incomprehensible afflictions without explanation if he can but be assured that God sees him. At this, however, the Lord reveals Himself to Job and, instead of offering comfort, censures his disobedience. One might think that Job would have fallen into despair at this, but instead, he now reproaches his own former wavering and uncertainty: "Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that which I did not understand; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not," he says. "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee; wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job.42:3-5). There is no hope of any kind of reward here, no heteronomism, but rather that very moral autonomy which requires the idea of a self-revealing God. This is why the more theological and spiritual fourth Gospel begins with a solemn proclamation of God the Word Who revealed Himself to the world, and why this chapter is read at the most joyful feast of Christians.

38 II MORAL AUTONOMISM AND JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR

1 THE MEANS OF KNOWING THE LORD AS THE TEACHER OF TRUTH AND AS SAVIOUR

Immanuel Kant questions the Christian relation with Christ the Saviour on the grounds that we know Christ empirically rather than a priori. We have already demonstrated, however, that the knowledge of any object of a moral relationship cannot be alien to empiricism. It does not follow from this that such knowledge is not ethical knowledge, to the degree that this is generally accessible to people. We will not, therefore, agree with Kant that revelation which establishes the Lord Jesus Christ as our morally regenerating ideal co ipso lowers the followers of that revelation to the level of heteronomism and replaces moral autonomy with empirical knowledge. We will rather assert that in each encounter with every prophet of moral ideals, moral autonomy is expressed in the free act of evaluation. With regard to faith in Christ, experience demonstrates that this freedom of evaluation is manifested quite strongly. Could anyone really deny that the acceptance or rejection of faith in Jesus Christ depends on the autonomic, a priori condition of our reason?10 Historical knowledge is really empirical when, for example, it examines the genealogy of Pharaohs according

10. [Ed. Note:] Kant often distinguished empirical and a priori as two types of knowledge, but not consistently in his later works, where both are indivisibly involved in all knowledge. [Abp. Lazar] .

39 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith to hieroglyphs. In this case, the acknowledgement or disavowal of such historical facts will depend on the quantity of verifications and the empirical skills of the researcher. On the other hand, neither historical criticism nor historical apologetics can compel us to acknowledge or reject Jesus Christ as predicant of Truth. This is evident from the actions of His contemporaries, people who regularly witnessed His miracles, deeds and teaching. A broad spectrum of the population witnessed and heard the same things and chose to become either His enemies or His enthusiastic followers, depending on which moral inclinations they freely followed. This verifies the previously cited Gospel passages, and even more so the words of Christ: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, they hated me without a cause." (Jn.15:22-25). Even for one with ill will,11 it is impossible not to acknowledge the objective moral value of Jesus and His teaching. Man's freedom of will is powerfully demonstrated precisely in this ability to either accept or reject such a vast, clear moral perfection and beauty, which is so accessible to direct evaluation. Such an exercise of free will can choose to

11. [Ed.Note:] I surmise that Metropolitan Antony raises this because Kant, in distinguishing between moral good and practical good, held that good will is the only actual moral good — or at least its only volition. See, e.g., Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, in which he develops his Imperative Theory of the Will (among other places in his system). [Abp. Lazar] .

40 Critique of Autonomous Morality render the unlimitedly objective moral value subjective for oneself. What greater autonomy could Kant desire for the consciousness and will of man? What remains in common between this appraisement of a revealed truth and, for example, the empirical appraisement of the sea worthiness of a Phoenician ship, or any other historical fact? We conclude that faith in Jesus Christ as predicant of Truth (and, consequently, as Son of God, which He called Himself) is based on an ethical penetration. In this, we have come to the profession of Jesus Christ as our moral ideal or, departing from Kant's terminology, as our own Saviour, without Whom salvation and moral perfection are impossible. Kant would not reach the same conclusion, but in his very objections, the German philosopher provides us with excellent tools for establishing those Church doctrines which he rejects. First of all, we are helped by Kant's general thesis that despite his affirmation of moral autonomy as opposed to a pure categorical imperative ("you must"—without any bases), this philosopher acknowledges that every ethically gifted person draws inspiration for moral struggle from the objectification of some representation, which Kant calls an "ideal." This is important for us because it provides almost everything we need for establishing the foundation and exposition of a dogma [as a basis for moral life]. At this point, we are ready to depart from the thread of our philosopher's deliberations: "This representation which the human mind seeks as the source of moral strength, is the Gospel countenance of Jesus Christ, Who is convinced that if we will abide in Him, we will bear much fruit and that

41 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith streams of living water will pour forth from the depths of those who believe in Him. At the same time, without Him, we can do nothing, but will be like dry branches on a green tree, cut off and cast into a fire." A representation which would inspire us to moral struggle must be assessed. Kant would say that "mankind in its full moral perfection—the morally perfect man—is the primary cause, motivating God to create the world, and the final aim of all existences." Alas, such a well-known theory of evolutionary morality seeks to be guided by this foggy, contrived ideal, albeit with a broad and varied interpretation. Notice, however, how heteronomistic this idea is in the first place, and how self-contradictory in the second place—unless it is restructured and brought into accord with the dogmas of the Gospel. We will not pursue the question, "How do we know that the aim of God's creation is that which Kant asserts?" Rather, we will stand for the moment on Kant's theistic ground and ask, "Why should this goal of the Creator be obligatory for me?" Because of a feeling of grateful love toward Him? Very well, I will agree with this, but if you offer me such motivations, you must abandon your claims of autonomism and your reproaches of Christianity for its supposed heteronomism. Secondly, respond to my questions: who is this Creator who demands grateful love from me? In what manner did He create the world? How did He allow the fall of mankind? And there are many other such questions to which the Bible, though renounced by Kantian- ism, gives an answer. Perhaps, however, Kant will give a different perspective

42 Critique of Autonomous Morality on the question of the obligatory nature of the proposed ideal, a reply more in accord with his system: "The idea of a [morally] perfect mankind is a direct source of inspiration which apart from all obligation to the Creator, fills my being with vitality and compels my heart to beat warmly." Let it be so, we respond, but then acknowledge the moral-metaphysical properties proposed by the very thesis of this mankind somehow reunited in the heart of the idealist; propose for me something like a dogma of the Church (which, in fact, Kant does) and we will subject it to an analysis and prove that it is logically possible only in its traditional exposition. In any case, the discussion will be about dogma, about objective existence, and not solely about a subjective idea, as our philosopher now demands. But if the ideal is objective, then one will ask, what are the most particular properties of this ingredient of your moral consciousness? Is this a pantheistic presentation of the progress of generations where moral personality, disappearing like a wave in the sea, lies exclusively in the appearances of a means toward happiness of future fortunate people? The philosopher, acknowledging the absolute significance of this, will reply "no." Is this not the sole example of the true man for the sake of whose appearance thousands will perish? "No," Kant will reply, having consequently, completely renounced the idea of moral progress. Perhaps it is I myself who have attained, in eternity, complete holiness and now delight in it in the persons of the best people in history? Kant is silent, evidently desiring, but not daring, to give an affirmative response to such a risky recipe

43 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith of morality. It could lead only to demonic pride and to a systematic self-deception. We will, however, compel him to speak by posing a new question: Why do you tell us only about mankind; why do you agitate our hearts which have grown accustomed to the cited words of Apostle Paul [as above]? Why do you not want to be frank and just return us to the cold ideal of the stoic? Or do you fear that, for the reader of the New Testament, such an ideal would never be seen as an ideal? In that case, will you offer to us mankind in its, so to speak, moral crowning and present us with the data to prove that this ideal is actual and not a fiction of the imagination? Perhaps we will urge the wavering philosopher by stating boldly that such an idea [mankind in its moral crowning] will truly not be external to our moral consciousness; in fact it is what is sought for by our moral consciousness — but only sought for, not accepted as a given. Neither civil history nor the reality around me, nor the experience of my personal inner life, give me the conviction that my personal perfection or that of another, is such an attained greatness. Still less can I find outside the Gospel the sum of the life of mankind as a collection of moral, absolute valued personalities, and not a material truth only. I see, on the contrary, a moral inspiration that seizes a generation and then evaporates, yielding place to immorality; I see that seekers, like me, of moral perfection end their days far from attaining it. Do they find it after death? Are the sacred stirrings of departed generations made complete there beyond the grave; does the actual uniting bond exist in diverse epochs and nations—that new Adam who would serve as proof of the reality of my ideal? All

44 Critique of Autonomous Morality these are a priori questions, but not a priori theses. There is no clear answer to these questions in the nature of our own reason. An answer to them is sought outside, although without elucidations, it is understandable that this external answer will be accepted not in a recognizably empirical way but in an ethically free way.

2 JESUS CHRIST AS MORAL IDEAL

The reader probably already surmises where we are leading with these questions, but let Kant himself lead us there. Kant acknowledges the conditionality, complexity and unpopularity of his personal synthetic ideal,12 but he deliberates about it in a highly pedantic manner, striving to draw moral idealism closer to the human conscience. In order to be inspired by the representation13 of the desired moral perfection, Kant would have us present it as something already realized in actuality. We would easily be

12. [Ed.Note:] It is not clear here whether St Antony is referring to Kant's idea of synthetic judgment or whether he intends to refer to Kant's idea as simply artificial. For Kant, nothing can exist or be conceived except as it is fitted into a system which gives it meaning and decides as to its truth. To the degree that it can be studied independently of this supportive system, analysis may be used to assess it. To the degree in which it refers to its supportive system, synthetic interpretation is required. Analysis and synthesis represent difference in degree, not of kind. For a discussion of this, see Norman Smith's A Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (MacMillan Press, London) 1979, p.37f. [Abp. Lazar] . 13. [Ed.Note:] "Representation" is Kant's own expression. It has never been clear to me whether his represented ideal refers to a prototypical perfect person, to an already realized present type or to a figurative type — or to Jesus Christ as the ultimate moral ideal. [Abp. Lazar] .

45 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith inspired by this beautiful image which would then be a true salvation for each of us and for everyone. The condition of the person in whom this is realized is one that has "tri- umphed over the world and its seductions, his will has not succumbed to sin," etc. While it is true that the presence of such a person would enthuse me, this is still far from being all that is necessary for "mankind in its full moral perfection." In addition to this, we must have a valid concept of some form of mystical union or bond which unites mankind into one whole; something we will carefully seek in Kantian nomism and individualism. Nevertheless, I am prepared to concede that such an idea about a perfect holy person could offer a certain moral strength for people—provided they have a firm conviction of its reality. At this point it is appropriate to recall the aphorism of our philosopher about the real and the imaginary hundred thalers [dollars].14 The [real] Messiah who was "found" (Jn.1:45) could inspire Nathaniel and Zacchaeus, but the representation of such a person, created by imagination, will hardly be efficacious even for sentimental feelings in moments of leisure, let alone for real support in the struggle with life's temptations. The prophets and, to some degree, the philosophers, awaited such a holy man—the innocent sufferer and preacher of repentance. They sought him, but

14. [Ed.Note:] The reference occurs in Kant’s criticism of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. He maintains that the concept of the Supreme Being, God, is indeed the highest and purest concept that the intellect can achieve; but it is still a concept. To think that the possession of such an elevated concept proves the existence of the object, is no different than believing that my conception of a hundred dollars (thalers) is proof of its existence in my pocket (Critique of Pure Reason, Transc. Dial. III, 4). [Abp. Lazar] .

46 Critique of Autonomous Morality only as a real, recognizable person, not a fictitious one. Chivalrous novels could inspire a confused Don Quixote only toward struggles worthy of such novels. A contrived representation of perfection cannot arm a person against his personal passions which he has served for a long time, nor can it illumine one's heart with love for neighbours who offend or burden him, nor reconcile him with death and give him hope for a crowning after death. Playing with dolls is for children. If a wise philosopher offers us such a representation instead of genuine moral support, then we will thank him only for correctly leading to the conclusion that man cannot act in a truly moral way without the "Author and Finisher of our faith" (Hb.12:2). This pure moral ideal is impossible without Personality [or hypostasis]. Such a Personality, being holy, would be external to me, but at the same time not etheromystical. Consequently, as if genuinely entering into me, such a Personality is not given to us in our own subjective consciousness, in the form of a fact or idea, but is imparted to us as a postulation. We are convinced in its reality by Christian history which gives us the presence of a real, historic Man Who is truly holy, but not alien to me, a sinner; One Whom I can make the inheritance of my personal, inner life and say with the Apostle, "It is not I who lives but Christ liveth in Me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave Himself for me" (Gal.2:20). When I encounter this person in life or in the Scripture objectively, not heteronomistically, then my nascent moral

47 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith ideal, now confused and powerless,15 is firstly given meaning in a completely defined representation which encompasses not only my sought for perfection, but which spreads out to infinity. Thus, coming to understand all my inclinations, with Simeon I exclaim, "now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, O Master, for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people" (Lk.2:29-31). Kant suggests that reason, having created practical faith in the Son of God, also confirms its immutability. Yes, we will reply, it [reason] confirms this when it recognizes the Son of God in the capacity of an actual Personality [or, hypostasis]. Reason knows this Personality not as empirical material, not as Themistocles or Aristides, but as the long, but unclearly, sought for consolation and the present truth which fills all its essence. This Holy Personality, not an abstract idea, is what makes it possible for me, despite my early experience, to hope on my personal victory over sin.16 This Holy Personality in His Divine Truth is, for me, first of all, an inspiring example and, secondly, what is far more important, He becomes, for my conscience, as if part of my "I"; more precisely, I myself become as a part of this Personality, a participant or, in the words of the Church, a communicant of His inner life. In order to elucidate this thought, expressed above in the words of Apostle Paul [Gal.2:20], we must introduce a new notion which is not presupposed by the stern and dry Kant—though probably

15. [Ed. Note:] St Antony is not discounting the existence of an embryonic moral ideal present in all humans. Man is not at all "totally depraved," nor does he need the force of "irresistable grace" to motivate him toward God and toward moral behaviour. [Abp. Lazar] . 16. [Ed. Note:] Kantian ontology has a severe problem with personalization, and this is, perhaps, its major flaw. [Abp. Lazar] .

48 Critique of Autonomous Morality not alien to the moral conscience of the reader. This notion is love. Perfect holiness is perfect love. The holiness of our ideal, encountered in life, is near and dear to us not simply as sinlessness, but as love.17 Love is the striving toward unity, the victorious abolishing of the sinful divisions of personalities.18 The absolute unconditional holiness that I find in my moral ideal—Jesus Christ—requires that I find in Him (and I do most abundantly find it) all encompassing love. It is all encompassing and, consequently, unites Him not only to those near to Him (else how could He be a mutual participant in my life, how could He be my Saviour) but also with all mankind which could become united in Him, as the New Adam, which could mould together into one life by His love [if it would all receive Him]. The Gospel assures us that He truly loves with a vital, living love, not only His own nation and generation, but He also took all future generations into His all encompassing heart. This is proclaimed with complete clarity in His prophecies about the last days of Jerusalem and of the world, and also in His High Priestly (farewell) prayer. The Evangelist also speaks of this when he says, "Jesus should die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but that He should also gather together in one the children of God that were

17. [Ed.Note:] Concerning the significance and meaning of this concept of love, see St Antony's chapter on The Moral Idea of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity, in the second part of this work, The Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith (Synaxis Press, 1985). [Abp. Lazar] . 18. [Ed.Note:] St Basil the Great observes, "For there would be no divisions, no strife, no war among men, if sin had not made cleavages in human nature....And this is foremost in the Saviour's incarnate ekonomy: to gather human nature to itself and to Himself and, having abolished this evil cleavage, to restore the original unity, as the best physician binds up a body that has been broken in many pieces...." (Ascetical Statutes, c.18) [Abp. Lazar] .

49 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith scattered abroad" (Jn.11:51-52). It cannot be otherwise, for any limitation of His love would be a limitation of His holiness and perfection. A holy person must unreservedly love everyone — all mankind. Only in such love does mankind find a truly unifying link, for in the absence of such love, our community, as descendants of Adam, and even the likeness of nature, would be only a mental abstraction and not at all a real power. It is only in this light that we have the right to speak of mankind as an element of our moral conscience. Christ loves me and I love Him mutually, thus I enter into unity with Him, and through Him, with all mankind, which He loves, and in whom He knocks at the door of every heart. I cannot love mankind directly as the sum of human beings, because I cannot even imagine the sum. If Christ was able to do it, then it means that He, being a Holy Person, was also God. We shall return to this dogma later.19 Meanwhile, let us examine in precisely what aspect of Christ, as a holy, loving Person Who appeared (in Kant's terminology) as a moral ideal for me, that mystical union with me is recognized, in such a way that He becomes my ideal, not in the sense of an external, abstract example for imitation, but in the sense of an autonomic ideal, becoming the unifying element of my personal moral conscience. This is understood in a way which is desirable for subsequent Kantianism. Our philosopher will, because of his own integrity, respond even by cutting the ground from under his own feet when his thought, armed against revela-

19. [Ed. Note:] In the second half of this work, The Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith, (Synaxis Press, 1985) [Abp. Lazar] .

50 Critique of Autonomous Morality tion by extremes of heterodoxy, strives to abandon the path of proper deliberation in order to attempt to substantiate the ground of independent morals or religious rationalism.

3 SAVIOUR—SUFFERER

Our examination has shown that in adhering to Kantian propositions, one must acknowledge as our saviour that Holy One about Whom history testifies—it testifies of Jesus Christ. Now we will demonstrate that Jesus Christ is our Saviour not only as a Holy One, but also as a sufferer. According to our promise [that we will let Kant himself lead us toward our conclusion], we must be convinced of this by Kantian deliberations about the properties of our moral ideal. We will not pause on the ideas of Kant about the suffering of the practical ideal of the Son of God. While this thought is not useless for our conclusions, it would require novel and tiresome explanations. Let us rather cite Kant's theses which define the transformation of ma from evil to good. Based on his exquisite teaching about radical evil, a teaching which elevates this great philosopher immeasurably above contemporary western moralists, these theses also elevate him above the flabby, withered sentimentalism of the Protestant heresy, which reduces Christian faith to a mere theory. The transformation to good, says Kant cannot occur in a person without the exercise of will. A feeling of inner dissonance and a need for renewal cause a deep suffering or torment because the evil inclinations of the will which are being overcome have deep roots into the

51 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith very nature of man and have become habitual. Colliding with one another, various feelings (dismay about former sin and the joy of renewal) cause that lofty suffering about which one can only offer a representation. This is grief incomparable with any other grief. This thesis that the acceptance of a determination of the will for good beginning creates suffering is correct, and just as correct is the realization that suffering comes from the process of rebirth and forsaking evil. Suffering is the product of being penetrated with both actions simultaneously: renunciation of and departing from evil, and entering into a union with good and with God. These thoughts are elementary for an Orthodox Christian. For the West, however, which has obscured the understanding about the Christian struggle, the highest level to which its ethics have reached falls so short of realization that not only could the majority of these moralists not assimilate this truth, but they could not even grasp its existence. Only in recent years has it penetrated into the elegant literature of France—but even then, under the influence of a simplified exposition by Russian writers, not by Kant. Kant does affirm that the transformation to good is absolutely "the dying of the old person, the crucifixion of his passions and vices: it is the most heavy of all sufferings, the perfect renewal of the heart and the acceptance of the qualities of the Son of God in his own constant guiding rule." But, respected philosopher, for such a tormenting change, fiction alone is of little value for us, so allow me to bring your thought to its necessary conclusion with these words of my own:

52 Critique of Autonomous Morality

Therefore, if that Holy Sufferer Who, according to the words of the Gospel and Apostle Paul, wept and grieved over my sinful blindness, Who, by His cross and death provided me with the possibility of joyously dying to the `old man,' was not crucified and resurrected in the way Christians represent Him, if He was not God Who came down to earth, then there can be no talk of any kind of moral perfection of mankind.

Let us examine more particularly, in the light of Kant's own theses, this conclusion which he himself would find undesirable.

FIRST THESIS: there are two natures in a person, two sympathies, exclusive of one another—the old man and the new man.

SECOND THESIS: for moral perfection, a tormenting destruction of the first one is necessary.

THIRD THESIS: our moral consciousness is the motive toward that, but if I must be good only because I am being called to this voice of conscience which I sometimes acknowledge, then according to that logic, I must be evil when the old nature speaks within me.

FOURTH THESIS: I must give preference to the moral consciousness according to its objective superiority, according to its conformity to the creative plan. Therefore, we add, we are moved away from autonomia in that sense

53 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith which is incompatible with Christian dogmas.

[Metropolitan Antony adds three more theses with commentary, with a notation "ours":]

FIFTH (OURS):] if the highest rule in my nature was to conform one's life with metaphysics, then theistic philosophy would be a sufficient support for the conscience, in order to mortify the old person. We are aware, however, that even that sought for philosopher who did make use metaphysically of a definite rope to use for escaping from the pit, was fabricated by writers of fables.

SIXTH (OURS): thus, in order to experience what, according to Kant, is the greatest suffering for the self-mortifica- tion of the old person, there is not within me sufficient data, no matter how much I might be enlightened by philosophy.

SEVENTH (OURS): in order to achieve this, another life must be poured into me, which would animate a sinless new person in one and destroy the old one, i.e., which would give the power to mortify the old person. This new person is Christ and the power uniting Him with me is His love: Love toward a sufferer is co-suffering; co-suffering love pouring victorious power into a powerless sufferer is suffering in its stead and it is correctly called a sacrifice, a sacrifice of recompense. If my transformation from evil to good were not a suffering, then Christ should not have suffered, but in such a case, God's truth which separated evil from good by

54 Critique of Autonomous Morality means of suffering, would be violated and unsatisfied, and our conscience would have remained unsatisfied. Now is "fulfilled all truth." Powerless by one's self to suffer in this moral struggle, when my "I," is joined to Christ like a branch of the vine (Jn.15:8) or a wild olive tree spliced to a fruitful one (Rm.11:24), then in His being I draw upon a spring of moral strength. His suffering which He endured, grieving for my sins, by means of which He is crucified by the old sinner, are evidence for me that my sins, my moral corruption, are nailed to the tree by Him (1 Pt.2:24). Suffering, given meaning for me in His person and consecrated in Him, ceases by half to be my sufferings even as for His holy martyrs, fire and iron ceased to seem tormenting. While preserving their objective power, these sufferings lose their terror and inconsolable bitterness for a Christian. We see a weak likeness of such an engrafting of moral powers in a friendship of a depraved person with a loving friend who is not depraved. While sharing in the life of his co-suffering friend, the depraved person can find in himself the power to conquer habits, though this was previously insurmountable for him, in the correct conviction that he is doing this not only for himself but also for his friend. Instead of a single strength, there are now two. In a Christian there are also two strengths instead of one, but since Christ is beyond compare above any earthly friend, so much more superior is His strength than those of the friend in our example. Christ's sufferings were not endured by Him in a struggle with His own "old person" ( which did not exist in Him) but rather in the struggle with our "old man," which

55 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith is conquered and crucified by Him (Rm.6:6). These struggles of co-suffering love are our redemption, not in the sense of merely an encouraging example, but in the very real sense that in knowing Christ Who, because of His love toward me, wept over my sinfulness, I strive to follow His path of holiness, making Him the worthiness of my own being. I live by Him and by Him my "new man" is animated. By Him I am reconciled with my sufferings which had previously been so tormenting and which had turned me away from the path of virtues, for now, I consider this suffering to be a bridge toward a more complete unity with Christ, as the Apostle instructs me "to participate in His sufferings" and communing of His Body and Blood, to "proclaim His death until He comes again." (1Cor.11:26). Kant is actually not far from those thoughts and would have been even closer had Protestantism not distracted him from them. Here is the essence of his deliberations: while incarnating in oneself the idea of salutary sufferings in the image of the historic Person Who was both good and at the same time suffered, we will begin to look upon Him and especially on His suffering death as the single and sole means of salvation and redemption. But even without proof—Kant continues—it is evident that this is an error, for acccording to the content of this idea, we ourselves are obliged to constantly do the very same and actually die for the world and sin. Protestantism is inclined to teach, despite the cited words of Apostle Paul, that Christ's suffering and death make it possible for me to be saved without any suffering and without that cross which each of His followers must carry. We have striven to show the correctness of

56 Critique of Autonomous Morality the Orthodox teaching which requires from us a participa- tion in the sufferings of Christ and which affirms that without Jesus Christ, we would have no power to endure them, nor even to take the decision to accept them, as Apostle Paul explained, describing the struggle between the old and the new person within himself, asking, "Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" and answering, "I thank God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rm.7: 25). He was given strength to conquer the old person by Jesus Christ, Who abode in him by His co-suffering love, by His suffering for him, Christ suffers for us but not without us. He saves us (since without Him we could not be saved) but not without us. Suppose a person were drowning in the sea and someone rushed in to save him, taking him by the arm and swimming to pull him to shore. This person would be the saviour of the drowning man, but if the one being saved ceased to struggle, ceased to paddle with the other arm and stay afloat with all his available strength, if he gave up, then the self-denying friend attempting to save him would arrive at the shore with only a drowned corpse in tow. Neverthe- less, had this saviour not rushed out to help the drowning man, he would not have even had a chance of being saved, but would have gone to the bottom. Such is our relationship with our Redeemer in our struggle with evil! Because of Protestant distortions, Kant represented the Gospel and the teaching about the Re- deemer just as incorrectly as did Lev Tolstoy, who asserted that the Church teaches that Adam committed all the sins for us, while Jesus Christ fulfilled all the struggles, so that we have nothing left to do except to issue a receipt for what

57 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith has been received.

4 THE SUFFERING REDEEMER IS TRUE GOD

Kant acknowledges that the teaching about the mortifi- cation of the "old man" and the animation of the new person is the only idea consistent with the nature of our intellect and with the known facts. Having acknowledged this, he is compelled to accept all the most important dogmas of Christianity. If he wishes to negate these dogmas, then he must stand on the ground of coarse eudemonism. Let him deliberate on the theme of practical wisdom and good citizen virtue, or with the openness of Nietzsche, acknowledge self-love and vice as being desirable and necessary for the aim of the creation of the world. If, on the other hand, he desires actual virtue, unattainable except through suffering, then he cannot get by without the revelation of the Redeemer as the co-unoriginate Son of God, even though he would in no way wish to accept such a teaching. We have said already that the morally spoiled nature of man will not be moved toward the painful sufferings of moral struggle or asceticism by philosophical consideration. This motivation can only come to pass by a sincere unification with the living Christ, co-suffering with Him. Philoso- phy cannot save a person, but at the same time, a person will not come to salvation without philosophical reflection about the self and about life. One cannot be penetrated by patience in this struggle if his faith in His Redeemer's interaction with him is not united to a consciousness of the nature of his Redeemer's relationship toward that world which is inimical to virtue. Without such understanding,

58 Critique of Autonomous Morality the very interaction with Christ will be little more than a lofty and sensual dream, and not a real power. In moments of religious ecstasy such a one will obey his inclination to struggle, but in the hours of faintness and cooling of religious feelings, the inclination to struggle, being reconciled to his sufferings, can be called forth only through contemplation and reflection which clarifies to the struggler the highest sense and meaning of his sufferings. A dogma which finds its support in emotion or feeling20 is itself impoverished and completes one's thoughts of despondency and despair when it is pressed upon by suffering in the face of an inimical and powerful world with its pleasures. By what means can one, in such circumstances, revivify his feeling? By a fully convinced faith that the One "Who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world" (1 Jn.4:4) is truly God—by a firm conviction in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Without this faith, common sense tells us that His interaction with all mankind is impossible. Nevertheless, one could be seduced on this point by mystics or arcane

20. [Ed. Note:] Theology, spirituality or teachings which depend on or originate with emotions or feelings, are the source of not only delusion, but emptiness. We do have romanticists in the Orthodox Church who teach otherwise, like Rousseau with his famous La Nouvelle Héloise and others of the romantic pietists of the 1700's, but they are far from the truth. This is not to suggest that Orthodox Christian theology and dogmatics are not existential. St Gregory of Nyssa says, "Brethren, there would be nothing more unjust than our faith if it were only the sum of demonstrations which are wise and intellectual and abounding in words, for in that case simple people would remain without the acquisition of faith." Our theology is existential and derived from the living experience of the holy fathers, but it is neither encountered nor experienced by emotions or feelings. Neither is it an intellectual, dialectical or philosophical process. Orthodox Christian theology and dogma is ontological, existential and experiential. It is absorbed through the Divine Services, through the ascetical life of all Orthodox Christians in fasting and prayer, and through our experience of living within the Holy Church. [Abp. Lazar] .

59 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith thinkers who, while denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ, ascribe to Him some kind of semidivine, mythical nature; everything is possible in the realm of fantasy. For the true struggler of virtue, the grasp of the Divinity of Jesus Christ precedes with invincible clarity from the daily choice which is indispensable for him, between Christ and the world. Although Kant acknowledges in principle that the struggle of the moral struggler (podvizhnik) occurs not only with himself, but with the world which is as kindred and near to his old nature as it is inimical to the newly chosen path of becoming perfect, he [Kant] sheds little light on this. While the world does not particularly love continuous vice and evil, it does hate continuous virtue. The Greeks developed their idea of gods from the observation of the life of nature, man and society, and attributed to them all those conflicting good and evil powers which, in their understanding, direct the visible life of the world. These mytho- logical gods reflect the nature of the world in all its complexity. The world is penetrated by sin in the very basic laws of organic life, which represents a self-loving struggle for existence. In the present condition of our lustful bodies and vengeful souls, in the history of human societies and even in the condition of families: everywhere there is self- love, lust and pride. Against this bulwark of evil there stands the struggler-ascetic, himself far from pure of having found pleasure in sin. Christ, the Holy One, calls him to another joy, and His love is ready to pour into the heart of the struggler. At the same time, the world asks, is the struggler for virtue not fooled by the Gospel Preacher, as His opponents said, "He deceives the people?" (Jn.7:12). The world is so beautiful, powerful and, evidently, infinite: how will the "small flock"

60 Critique of Autonomous Morality

(Lk.12:32) struggle with it? What meaning does this "small flock" have in this principality of darkness and vice? Christ is holy and great, but are not all great people filled with errors? Men of intellect—Celsus and Porphyrios—declare that Christ's commandments are impossible and unnatural (love your enemies). True, my spirit rejoices in those commandments, but am I not deceived myself, as was Simon the Magician, who, though in the flesh, sought to rise in the air as one bodiless? For a moral struggler who has renounced the world for His sake, Christ must be higher than the world in order to "judge the world;" higher not only than the visible and knowable world, but also higher than any possible world. He must be higher than any conditional existence and for this, He must be an absolute existence; He must be unoriginate since if He has beginning, then there may exist a yet to be revealed power more ancient and complete than He, which would eventually occupy the place opportunisti- cally taken from it. He must be equal in all things and in every way to the Creator, even in His nature. Otherwise, who will assure me that God's holiness is none other than that preached by Christ, which set me in opposition to and made me a martyr to the world? Thus Christ must be higher than nature and the world; He must be true God. This is necessary so that in His name one is able to renounce and contradict this world, and yet unite this contradiction of the world with a higher, spiritual unification with it—in order to love that world which is restored by Christ. One must come to believe that the world in its present sinful state is not the true world created

61 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith by God as His temple, but is defiled and deformed by evil will; one must believe that the world was created by the Word and that without the Word nothing came to be that exists. This proclamation of John's prologue in his Gospel is clearly bound with the Old Testament teaching about the providential Word (Ps. 105, 106, Wisdom Ch. 16-18, for example). We will not go back now to an examination of Kant's three preeminent objections to the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as God. We have already refuted two of these objections: the asserted practical uselessness of the dogmas of the Church and the supposed impossibility of encounter- ing God in experience. The idea that it is impossible for One to be born and be sinless is refuted not only by the reality of His seedless conception, but also by the refutation of the idea of Original Sin. This latter objection would only have some viability if one considered a person to be in sum a complete product of his parents (traducianism). However, even such a view cannot be applicable to the unoriginate Son of God, incarnate from the Virgin. Now, since Kant wishes to refute the moral value of the dogmas of the faith, and even to see them as a hindrance to morality, let us examine the main dogmas of the Church from the point of view of their moral idea.

62 PART TWO THE MORAL IDEA OF THE MAIN DOGMAS OF THE FAITH MORAL IDEA OF THE DOGMA OF THE HOLY TRINITY

1. Introduction

hat difference does it make if you believe one way or Wanother? It is enough just to be a good person." How many of us have heard, or even spoken, words such as these? Not many people are able to respond to such questions with an appropriate answer, such as: "It is not possible to be a `good person' without Christian beliefs, unless you wish to satisfy your moral aspirations with mere civil obedience and humanity, rather than with striving toward complete virtue by crushing the passions and pride, by returning to love for everyone, and by complete chastity." One finds an objection, however, even to this reply: "I accept the moral value of the Gospel narrations and the Epistles of the Apostles, but how will my soul benefit from belief in the Trinity, from faith in Jesus Christ as God, as God-man?" Such questions have been heard for some time now in the educated circles of Russian society. In recent years, it has become ever more clearly heard in tones of a dull grumbling which finally erupts in cruel blasphemies in the "criticism of dogmatic theology" so well known abroad. It has also been raised in our own religious-cultural brochures, in which the virtue of philanthropy demonstrated by some of the ancient Christians is set in contrast to the supposedly idle theologizing of the ecumenical teachers who belaboured themselves attempting "to reconcile the unreconcilable." Indeed the holy fathers are accused of being careless in the

64 Dogma of the Holy Trinity matter of the obligations of a Christian. Preachers of Stundism1 mock Orthodoxy which, according to them, has forgotten the Gospel commandments for the sake of dogmatic subtleties. They represent themselves as restorers of true Christianity which, for many centuries, has been darkened by abstract and false dogmatization. The contrast- ing of virtue to dogmas, with claims that the dogmas are of moral indifference, has become a theme not only for writers, but also for endless conversation among young students. Both educated and simple people have begun to read the Holy Scripture with this malignant predisposition. Borrow- ing from the deductions of the Tubingen school2 —of Strauss and Renan3— which are spread by the Stundists, our thinkers and nonthinkers alike assert that there is no teaching in the Holy Scripture, least of all in the Gospels, about the Most Holy Trinity or that the Lord Jesus Christ is God-man.4 According to them, there is no exact expression of these basic dogmas of Christianity anywhere in the entire Bible, and the spirit of the Bible is alien to them, teaching us to be saved by deeds of love, preferring the repenting, ignorant publican to the Pharisee who was "well lettered in dogmas." Adversaries of the holy dogmas often like to quote Christ's words: "If you would enter into Life you must continually keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17), and the words of Apostle James, "Piety which is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit orphans and widows in their sorrows and to preserve oneself undefiled by the world" (Js.1:27). They say, "Show me how I will be more diligent in fulfilling the commandments and guarding

65 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith myself from the defilements of the world by believing in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and in the two wills of Jesus Christ rather than renouncing one of these dogmas." Missionaries attempt, in vain, to convince such antagonists that besides fulfilling the commandments, it is necessary to observe the dogmas and ordinances of the Church. "According to the Apostle, it is sufficient for me to have a pure and undefiled piety and, by this, I will open the entrance to life for myself, according to the Saviour's word," reply the antagonists, and they refuse to heed the words of the missionaries. It seems to us, therefore, beyond a doubt that until we demonstrate to them the closest bond between all the dogmatic truths of the Orthodox faith and virtuous life, until we reveal the influence of Church ordinances on the perfecting of the heart, until such time, we can by no means return these dispersed children to the Church. But where is one to search for indications of this bond between dogmas and virtue, which is so little noticed in our contemporary theological works? Foreign literature will not help us: it is itself perplexed by this question and searches for an explanation of it in our sources. There is one solution offered and curiously enough encountered in the founders of Protestantism and now developed by Ritschl.5 This solution is, however, unsatisfactory. It reduces the aim of the revelation of dogmatic mysteries to obedience, while laying a mental constraint upon one, which, they assert, must be fulfilled in order for the one seeking virtue to accept the mystical and incomprehensible truths of the

66 Dogma of the Holy Trinity

Trinity and the Theanthropos.6 Obedience is, of course, an indispensable companion of all learning: even a geometric theorem cannot be understood unless one fulfils the instructions and draws those figures which are required for it. It is natural, therefore, that the fulness of Christian truths is received originally by a newly-enlightened person precisely through a conscious and reasonable, intelligent trust either in the integrity Holy Scripture, of a living preacher (as, for example, those who heard Apostle Peter on Pentecost...). The Lord does promise to reward obedience with understanding (Jn.8:32). From this, it is easy to understand why, while requiring from us a concensus of the mind in obedience to Christ (2Cor.10:5), the Lord reveals to us only such properties of His Existence and His Perfection as can serve us "for edification." It is in precisely this vein that Apostle Paul speaks about the entire content of even the Old Testament books (Rm. 15:4). Moreover, what is the sense of Christ's words: "If any man wants to do His will, he will know whether the doctrine is of God or whether I am speaking from Myself?" (Jn.7:17) From this statement, it follows that moral experience can serve as a verification and a confirmation of the truths of the Christian faith, and it is clearly consequent that the very content of these Divinely-revealed truths are, in their essence, tightly connected with virtue. We cannot, therefore, be satisfied by Western theologians who assert that, supposedly, the aim of dogmatic revelation consists in leading Christians to an exercise in the virtue of obedience. We will do much better if we turn for an explanation of the moral ideas which lie at the basis of the holy dogmas, to the

67 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith fathers of the Church who have fulfilled the rule: "I trust (credo) in order to believe." From the history of the Church during the golden age of its theological erudition, it is well known that the best dogmatists—the ecumenical teachers— were, first of all, and pre-eminently, zealots of Christian virtue, so that only partiality and ignorance can account for those who oppose zealots of virtue to zealots of faith. Who will dismiss the moral purity, the revocation of everything worldly, and the great philanthropy of St Basil's spirit? Nevertheless, this spirit was ready to be separated from its body literally for one iota in the definition of Christ's essence. Evidently, this iota (homoousios rather than homoiousios), by which is revealed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in contrast to a like substance, is not inconsequential for the virtuous life of Christians. Further, it is well known that St Gregory the Theologian was, above all, a man with a most compassionate and love- filled heart, an ascetic and religious poet. He directed all the attention of his mind toward cleansing the conscience from even the vaguest darkness of sin, and he strove to attach to every explanatory word of Scripture, an elucidation of the path to perfection and of the motivation for ascending along it. His sole concern, both as pastor and theologian, was man's need for the care of a spiritual physician, and it is in precisely this sense that the Church contrasts his works to the scholastic rationalism of heretics, when it chants to him in the troparion: "The shepherd's pipe of thy theology conquered the trumpets of the philosophers; for since thou didst search out the depths of the Spirit, beauty of speech

68 Dogma of the Holy Trinity was added to thee..."7 And, who more than he, a most exact and persistent preacher of dogmas, had affirmed that the smallest conscious distortion of the truth about the Holy Trinity separates a person from salvation? Was it not he who, in taking leave of the flock of the capital city, in words filled with fatherly tenderness and love, bids farewell with a sermon on the dogma of the Trinity (in which he con- versed with the Trinity as with a living person)? "Farewell, O Trinity, my meditation and my glory, may You be preserved by those who are here, and preserve them, my people. Forgive me, O Trinity, my thought and adornment! May I always hear that they exalt and glorify You both in words and by their life." (Last Farewell, Word to 150 bishops). Even more eminent a preacher of compassion, love, and the purity of virginity is St John Chrysostom. A stern accuser of the great and the wealthy, he would never even begin to insist on unnecessary things merely for the sake of the preservation of churchly customs, for he courageously condemned the decorating of a church when it was done to the detriment of love of the poor. Nevertheless, this fervent defender and preacher of true dogmas and accuser of the Arians ( which are again inundating Europe and Russia), both affirms that the acceptance of dogmas without a corresponding virtue does not lead to salvation, and denies the possibility of true virtue without the acceptance of "dogmas of piety." The dogmas are an indispensable basis for virtue and only the external aspects of mercy can be fulfilled by the unbeliever or heretic, but he cannot perfect his soul . It is true that even among the fathers themselves, we do

69 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith not find a profound indication of the moral significance of every dogma of the faith, for they expounded them polemi- cally, on the one hand defending the Holy Scripture from the pretensions of the Arians and Monophysites who interpreted it in their own sense and, on the other hand, demonstrating that the Orthodox teaching about the Trinity does not contradict itself. This is why the patristic theological works do not often enter into an examination of the very content of the dogmas, but revolve in the realm of proofs and refutations. The living, love-filled piety of ancient Christians proved itself to be sufficiently sensitive to unite a deep compunction and prayerful glorification with each dogma of the faith. This is evident from the innumerable sacred hymns and prayers in honour of the Trinity and of the incarnation of the Son of God, which are so dear and exalting to every Christian heart. Even though they are not philosophers or dogmatists and are not able to express in exact concepts the edification being drawn from the dogmas, every consciously praying Christian receives spiritual fruit from dogmatic truths, which he unites in his mind with the prayerful glorification or petition. Moreover, it draws his thought toward the All-Holy Being and, by that, gives a special vivacity to religious feeling.89 This is why, for a sound Christian, even the short, compressed Symbol of Faith will always be not only a summary of dogmatic theses and a precious sign of Chris- tian Church unity, but also a prayer of glorification and a source of moral support. If there now arise doubts in the salutary benefits of dogmas, then the original cause of this is not the development of critical inquiries, but an inner

70 Dogma of the Holy Trinity alienation of souls from the Church, from common prayer, a moral self-centredness and a coldness of heart (see 2Pt.ch. 2-3 and Jd.1:1-20). Such people fall into sects or rationalism, falling not from Orthodoxy ( which they do not have) but from irreligiousness or practical paganism. True children of the Church will always love its dogmas. Nevertheless, such love is still insufficient for a full perfection in the faith. Insolent probing by unpeaceful hearts demands a revelation of the very moral content of the dogmas before they will reunite with the Church. It is not, however, for their sake alone but for the sake of the very truth of the holy and Divine revelation, that an investigation of what moral idea is contained in each dogma, will be a most worthy under- taking of Christian thought. This is not what is meant by a moral application of dogmas in our theological courses: what is mainly spoken of in those is the strengthening of the will in fulfilling given and clearly defined commandments in the sense of rules of Christian activity. When one speaks of the moral idea of a dogma, one understands a moral truth which is contained in the very essence of one or another dogma, without which it would lose its significance. For example, without the condition of freedom of the will, all significance of moral responsibility is lost. Thus did the fathers of the Church understand the salutary benefits of dogma. They restrained attempts to bring dogmatic truths under the logical and metaphysical rubrics and patterns of one or another philosophical school and precluded the devising of new properties of God not revealed in the Holy Scripture and, while preaching about the incomprehensibility of the Divine nature, they always added9 that the Lord

71 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith revealed only so much about Himself as is indispensable for our salvation, that is, for the process of the Christian perfecting of oneself. As we see, God's word teaches us that the knowledge of Divinely revealed truths procures a moral freedom for us and can be examined by the experience of a moral life. Therefore, one is convinced by that same Holy Bible that the absence of Christian virtue in a person who is not a conscious enemy of truth, can serve as proof of the fact that he does not know God: "For, he who does not love, does not know God, for God is love" (1Jn.4:8; cp. Jn.8:35 and 14:27). And so, virtue and the knowledge of God's properties are indissolubly linked with each other and, consequently, those most essential, most important properties of God which are expounded in the teaching about the Holy Trinity must contain in themselves an especially important moral idea. Of what, precisely, does it consist?

2. Incomprehensibility of The Teaching About The Trinity

Perhaps the reader is already intimidated. Perhaps he is deterred from further investigation by the though: "Is it possible to speak about the edifying nature of a teaching that is an incomprehensible mystery which, if it does not directly contradict the laws of human logic, then, in any case, there is no way that it can be brought into the categories of our thinking?" We will begin our explanation from this point of perplexity. Let us first ask why, essentially, is this truth

72 Dogma of the Holy Trinity alien to our intellects? It is certainly not in the fact that the Lord is presented as One, from one point of view, but Triune from the other; for many material objects are thus. The life of our conscience is triune and yet one. Two other similitudes are well known from antiquity: the sun which shines with light and radiates heat, and the current which is inseparably united with the river.10 One could add a multitude of such similitudes to these, and they would be quite sufficient for most believers as general explanations of the triunity of God. They become less convincing, however, when we expound the teaching of the Trinity more precisely, when we say that three Persons comprise one Being, when we speak of the three Divine Persons while insisting that God is One and that we do not have three gods. It would be easy to assimilate a dogma about the Oneness of God in which we said that there are three divine powers, or three energies, or three manifestations, or even three lives, but how is one to approach the mind and senses with the dogma that God is One in Essence but Triune in hypostasis? In our direct consciousness, a person is something absolutely separate from all other persons. Moreover, the very concept of contradiction, the very distinction of objects in general, we draw from a direct intuition of contrast between "I" and "not I."11 For me, it is not difficult to imagine myself to be a member of some collective concept: a crowd, society, academy, monastery, but the above-cited similitudes would help me very little in conceptualizing that my own self-conscious personality could comprise, together with several others, one being, in such a way that one could not say of us, "several beings," but only, "one being."

73 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

The idea that a teaching completely incontiguous to our mind cannot give edification is, in itself, correct. And truly, our mind is very far from the true teaching about the Triune God. Is it possible, then, to seek a moral idea in the dogma of the Trinity? "All this I elaborated with greater care, unveiling the objections of opponents, in order that the dogma would acquire greater firmness among us, having overcome the most difficult objections."12 With these words of St Gregory of Nyssa, we will conclude this confession of the impotence of our natural mind and turn for explanation to the grace-filled life revealed in the Holy Gospel.

3. The Gospel Similitude of the Divine Trinity

Here [in the Gospel] we find a similitude of triunity which is both exact and accessible to our mind and heart although it is, unfortunately, unnoticed or neglected in contemporary studies. From the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel according to John, we are convinced that our conscious spirit errs in dividing personality from personality, setting them in complete contrast and opposition, and we are further convinced that, for true disciples of Christ the Saviour, there is, in their own life, a certain likeness of the Divine unity in plurality, and thus their mind is freed from a sense of extreme counterposition between their own person and the person of neighbours. "...Holy Father, keep in Thy name, those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are One...That they may all be one,

74 Dogma of the Holy Trinity even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us so that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. The glory which Thou hast given Me, I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them, and Thou in Me, that having been perfected they may be in One, so that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me and hast loved them even as Thou hast loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given Me, may be with Me where I am..." (Jn.17:11; 21-24). From these words of the Lord, it is evident that His followers, through mutual love in a special action of Divine grace and the consecration of true knowledge of God (verse 19), will be penetrated by a close inner unity, such as that of the Father and Son in relationship to one another. The Lord's high-priestly prayer does not lead us to regard this unity of Christians as identical in degree with the unity of the Father and the Son, but it is nonetheless clear that in the former, the lofty similitude of the latter should be revealed, and there should also be revealed the profound opposition between the unity of the Church and the inner dividedness of the world which has deprived people of the understanding of the Divine Triunity. Only the disciples of the Word, illumined by Christ's Resurrec- tion and gifted with the grace of the Holy Spirit, will understand the significance of this great mystery. "In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you" (Jn.14:20). Let us now attempt to fathom which common and personal manifestations of Christian life contain in themselves a certain similitude of the mystery of the Trinity and

75 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith which, consequently, have it as their steadfast support, as the eternal truth of revelation. Having done this, we will strive to complete the appraisement of the moral idea of the Triunity, from the point of view of contemporary ethics. Subsequently, we will demonstrate that the deductions we have made from the sense of the holy dogmas and words of Divine Scripture do not present anything completely new but have a most integral relationship with patristic deliberations about the Trinity and, in particular, with patristic thought about nature and person, essence and hypostasis. We noted that the main obstacle to penetration by the dogma of the Trinity is the direct consciousness of self in the natural man, which divides personality from personality into evident, complete opposition. If, in accord with Christ's prayer, the society of Christians regenerated by grace is to be "one, as We are One," then, it will not be possible to accept into its members such an individualistic self-consciousness as is observed in an unregenerate person or in a person who is not yet penetrated with the grace of regeneration. Thus it is evident that a Christian, according to the measure of his spiritual perfection, must free himself from the direct opposition (contra position) of "I" and "not I," in order to receive an awareness or consciousness of his inner unity with Christ, the Father, and with brethren according to the faith (Jn.17:23; 14:20), and thus he must substantially modify the basic properties of human self-consciousness, for otherwise it is impossible for him to make himself familiar with the teaching of the Triunity even in thoughts, much less to assimilate the Divine Triunity in essence, about which the Lord prayed.13

76 Dogma of the Holy Trinity

Perhaps this condition will appear strange, will present itself as a renunciation of reason and as a sacred absurdity. If, however, we examine the matter, we will see that, on the contrary, it uncovers true human intelligence hitherto darkened by the sinfulness of our fallen nature. The mystical unity of Christians besought in the high-priestly prayer will not be an abstract, incomprehensible enigma; on the contrary, the Lord very clearly revealed the essence of this unity: it will be expressed in the mutual love of the believers — "I have made Thy name known to them, and I will make It known, that the love with which Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them" (Jn.17:26). It is this love which reaches a full intercourse of life and brings one to a readiness for sacrifice (15:13), and it is that commandment, the fulfilment of which depends on our unity with Christ (15:9-15), our abiding in Him (15:1-8), the appearance of Christ to us (14:19) and the building in our soul of a dwelling for the Father and the Son (14:23). A complete penetration of grace-filled love is a sign which sets a person apart from the natural condition of regeneration and which distinguishes Christ's disciples from the world (13: 35) — the world which, therefore, hates those who have accepted the Lord's word (17:14-17) and who love each other (15:17- 20). And so, if the mystical, grace-filled unity is revealed to believers in a mutual love and in a love toward Christ and the Father, which distinguishes them from the natural world, then it is understandable that those properties of the natural intellect or of the psyche14 which render the unity of the Trinitarian existence darkened and unclear, rest upon

77 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith an absence of love. Stated differently, they rest upon our natural self-love. These properties, as we have seen, are found in the laws of our self-consciousness. It follows, then, that this law of our personal dependence is not an absolute law, not of the first-fashioned nature, but a law of the fallen consciousness, as it is expressed, assimilated or acquired by one's self, but abolished through the grace-filled regeneration in Christian love. Such is the evident, unavoidable deduction drawn from God's word. But is it affirmed by learned experience? Can we imagine our consciousness living and functioning without this property which excludes the possibility of our participating in this type of the unity of the Father and the Son? Can we accept in a sound human consciousness, even a partial weakening of this evidently absolute opposition15 between "I" and "not I," by which the spheres of our inner world are penetrated?

4. Elucidation of Christ's Words By Examples From Life

Our answer must be sought in that reality in which the grace-filled unity in love of Christians is revealed. The higher perfection of Christian love is unknown to the natural mind. This virtue, as others also, does have a certain commencement even in the natural life. It is to this commencement that we will turn first for a reply. Truly, there are manifestations even in natural life where this exclusiveness of self-consciousness is modified, with- drawing before the power of uniting love. Such is the relationship of a mother with her children, and even the

78 Dogma of the Holy Trinity

Apostle of the Nations did not disdain to liken his love to it (Gal.4:19), nor did the Lord and Saviour, Who cited not only human maternal feelings, but also those of animals, as for example, the maternal love of a brood-hen (Mt.23:37). With a loving mother, even in the animal world, a part of life passes over into the children, and this applies not only to physical life — expressed, for example, in milk-feeding, — but also a part of the higher vital instincts. Look at an emaciated brood-hen who has hatched out a brood, gather- ing her chicks near the feed, but not touching it herself. There is not even a struggle in her with the instinct of hunger: the joy of seeing the young birds fed satisfies her body in place of real food. In case of an attack by predators, she offers her own life in their defence. What is most significant is that she does all this completely automatically, just as before she would have defended her own personal well-being. From this, it follows that the object of the instincts has changed, passing over from the individual to the family. You will see that very thing in human mothers, with that same directness and impulse, but with signs of consciousness and freedom. When she toils, hungers, spends sleepless nights, or experiences sorrow in general for her infant or children, she almost never feels an internal conflict, she does not sense a struggle, as she did not feel a struggle in her single life, looking after herself. In this sense, the object of self-consciousness has passed over from "I" to "we." In even the very theoretical act of self consciousness, the opposition between this "we" and the rest of the world is more directly comprehensible to her than the opposition between her own "I" and the infant or children. This inner

79 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith tie with the children goes much further than the conscious realm of her emotional life and, in the period of feeding the baby at the breast, extends even to physical life. In later years it foresees the inner movements of the filial life from the most general, casual, and conventional expressions, so that the proverb, "A mother's heart is a prophet," has a profound philosophical sense. With the transfer of vital interests into the souls of the children, a woman's care about herself disappears to a significant degree, if not altogether, and such a fundamental modification in thoughts, feelings, and intentions takes place, that ordinary psychical and logical positions and theses about the properties of human self consciousness and personality are substantially challenged and limited, while the dogmas of the Faith find hope of their free assimilation by the human spirit. Let us turn now from the properties of a natural human, to grace-filled Christian love. If the emotional and, to a degree, the physical nature of the mother become partially identified with the nature of the children, while preserving personality [hypostatis] and freedom, then with even greater certainty, it is possible to say of a spiritual father or those betrothed to the Church: "and these two shall be one flesh" (Eph.5:31), "no longer two but one flesh" (Mt.19:6). An integral unity in spiritual love depends on a greater simplicity and unity of the vital content of life which, in the realm of natural existence, is so complex (and this extends to all areas of bodily, emotional and social necessities). In the spiritual life, on the contrary, everything is directed toward one aim: "to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1Cor.2:2). To love spiritually means to

80 Dogma of the Holy Trinity love in Christ (Jn.17:26, etc.), to find one's unity with neighbours in Christ, like a common centrosphere of the life of each one of us. A Christian is one with Christ; he does not live alone, but Christ dwells in him (Gal.2:20); he dwells in Christ, in His love, as a branch on a vine (Jn.15: 5,9); Christ's dwelling is in him (Jn.14:23). "For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Phil.1:21). In this, the Apostle confirms that he transfers to Christ all his vital aims and feelings, thus receiving a full liberation from natural self-love: he has become in the literal sense a partaker of the Divine (Christ's) nature (2Pt.1:4). Again the Apostle says of the unity of the grace-filled nature of Christ's Church: "For He is our peace, Who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity, having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances; to make in Himself one new man out of the two, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh" (Eph.2:14-17). When, in His farewell prayer, the Lord likened the future unity of Christians to the unity of the Father and Son, He did not have in mind unity of personality [hypostasis] as the pantheists consider, but the unity of many persons by nature. Natural unity does not assume only a mutual likeness in the activity of many persons (for this would make the dogma of the Trinity "trigodly"), but designates the unity or sameness of the vital essence of many persons,16 the unity of the will, a unity as a real power acting in each person ("One power, one Divinity," in the

81 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith words of the Verses for Pentecost). We see something precisely similar to this in the cited examples from natural life and moral life. The life of a mother and infant is one life: they have one nature. The life of Apostle Paul is Christ, since there is no other life in him. In order to understand this, let us more clearly review the moral features of any one of the saints. All the lifely or worldly cares which, for ordinary people, are spread into thousands of varied trivialities have, with the saint, been concentrated in Christ, in the assimilation of His perfection to himself and spreading it upon neighbours. The struggle between various inclinations no longer comprises his life's struggle: he has risen above that, he has even forgotten it completely. All his inner nature is so deeply penetrated by a single striving that in itself it rouses him to acts of love and renews in him a pious feeling toward God, a co-suffering and love toward neighbours. He has literally fulfilled the words of the Apostle: "And having been set free from sin, you have become the servants of righteousness....For as you yielded your bodily members as servants to impurity and iniquity, so now yield your bodily members once for all as servants to righteousness unto sanctification" (Rm.6: 18- 19). If people did not fall, but preserved and restored in themselves the angelic purity, then such a unity of nature, as a real active power, would spread upon all humanity while preserving the personality and freedom of each person; the fall consisted precisely in a self-loving individu- alization (disobedience), and its consequence was a distortion of the natural unity beyond all recognition. Self-love

82 Dogma of the Holy Trinity

(pride and sensuality) has become the content of our life, and only through displacing it with Christian asceticism can a person recreate his unity with the new Adam and with neighbours. How will you define that second grace-filled nature, that positive power which now cooperates with the free will of a righteous one, as formerly, sinful nature had opposed it? The answer is simple and short: the content of a grace-filled nature, from the aspect of disposition, is love, and the power which gives it life is Christ, to Whom a Christian turns in all his thoughts and feelings; not, however, in personal individualism, as with Protestants, but with all His mani- fold body of the Church (1Cor.12:12-27), like a single grapevine with many branches (Jn.15:1-6). In this manner Christ's high-priestly prayer for the unity of believers, in likeness of the unity of the Father and Son, is fulfilled upon Christians. From this, it is easy to understand that the fact that the consubstantial "unconfused Trinity of persons are one Divinity," is, for the children of grace, a most reasonable and intelligent sacred truth and a "great hymn." The transformation of our self-loving and divided nature in the nature of the Church, this reunification, so to speak, of human personality with Christ and neighbours (within the Church) into one nature of the Church becomes one of the foundations for praying for one another, and especially for the reposed, for the intercessions of saints and for baptizing infants according to the faith of the godparents. The words of the Acts about "the company of believers was of one heart and one soul" (4:32) have the most integral contact with like understanding.

83 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

5. Definition of the Moral Idea of The Orthodox Dogma of the Trinity

It is worthy of special attention that the Church places the manifestation of the Trinity as the very foundation of such a union of the regenerated: "When the Most High came down and confused the tongues, He divided the nations, but when He distributed the tongues of fire, He called all into unity; therefore, with one accord we glorify the All-Holy Spirit" (Kontakion of Pentecost). This is easy to understand. The moral imperatives of the New Testament have, in our nature, in our inner consciousness, an awareness corresponding to them (Rm.1:19-20). However, our nature is, on its own, so weak and impotent that these moral imperatives are unrealizable for human strength without the grace-filled revelation about Christ, the future life, about the corruptibility of everything worldly, about the Comforter and the general judgment. By means of these revelations, the moral imperatives are given stability and perseverance in our minds and hearts, and there is hope of their fulfilment. With all this in mind we ask: will one be able to fulfil the command to love neighbours as oneself while he has nothing with which to oppose the direct voice of his nature which says to him that his "I" and every other "not I" are opposite beings? Is it not so that a neighbour is precisely "not I," and thus to love him like oneself can be done only in isolated bursts, but never as a constant disposition of the heart? Here one is enlightened by the dogma of the Holy Trinity, which assures man that the very Creator of man's

84 Dogma of the Holy Trinity nature is free from such exclusiveness, for being One in Nature, He is Trinity in Persons. Thus, the divided consciousness of mankind is a falsity, the consequence of a sinful fall, which has been overcome now by the Son, Who came from the Father but does not become separate from the Father, and Who calls us into grace-filled unity with Himself, which unity is already given a foundation in reality through His Incarnation. Morover, everyone can commune in this consciously through a gradual transformation of his self-loving and proud nature into a humble and loving one. The Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity is an ontological basis and support of the moral imperative of love,17 in the same manner that the virtue of patience is strengthened and supported by the teaching of reward beyond the grave, and so forth.

6. Dogma of the Trinity and Current Morals

If it seems that the tie between the first two ideas is less firm than between the second ones, that it is too abstract to manifest a real influence on the will, then I hope the reader will reassess his doubt when he investigates contemporary conditions in the area of theoretical morals. We will insistently affirm that the Orthodox dogma of the Holy Trinity and the concomitant understanding of the high-priestly prayer is the sole solution of this contradiction (antilogy) from which contemporary independent morality cannot be extricated, wavering as it is between the rhetorical nomism18 of Kant and the fatalistic pantheism of the

85 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

German idealists, and French and English evolutionists.19 The contemporary position of science in relation to morality is truly lamentable: having renounced Christian foundations, this science, in the systems it has built, either sews for itself Trishka's kaftan,20 chews its own tail as the fox of the fabulist, or becomes like the crow which got its bill stuck in the mire, and while pulling it out, tilts backwards and sinks its tail into the mire, and having freed the tail by tilting forward, again sinks in by the bill. Is the axiom not clear indeed that morality is impossible without free will, without an independent significance of personality?21 Is it not verified by the direct testimony of our consciousness which has refused to acknowledge moral value in constrained, unfree conduct? In fact, in the aphorism of Kant that "we cannot call anything good or evil except for a living personality," every person acknowledges the response of his own personal spirit. No matter how simple or irrefutable these axioms are, however, contemporary morality wishes to be based not merely outside them but even upon their direct negation. One may ask: what incites it to such an absurdity, to such a foolish intent? Your amazement will know no bounds when you hear the reply that the motive for this is the desire to preserve the very content and higher aim of moral life, the so-called moral ideal. It is precisely that love toward neighbours which, although it comprises a real content and a higher aim of the Gospel teaching, is completely diminished and almost lost in the moral theology of Latins and older Protestants. This is so precisely as a result of their particular teaching regard-

86 Dogma of the Holy Trinity ing an independent significance of the personality and free will (individualism and indeterminism) by virtue of which the aim of human life is conceived as being the happiness of the individual personality (individualistic happiness beyond the grave and permissible pleasures in this life here on earth). The teaching about love is not the content or aim of the inner life in scholastic morality but is rather contorted into a whole mass of external legislations which merely limit human self-love, so that the righteous and sinner, equally following the aims of personal life, will differ only in that the former attains them by permissible paths and the second by impermissible ones, and thus moral life returns to the Old Testament law (nomism) and, by that, reveals the insolvency of its foundations.22 One must acknowledge that these essentially incorrect objections against free will are justly applied to Western scholastic morality and to the morality of Kant. This concept of morality, though connected with the concept of self-valued personality and freedom, is like the dry virtue of the Latins, which returns to the concept of a cold law and duty, neglecting the feeling of love as something sensual, alien to a free spirit and the self-valued personality [hypostasis] of a person, and which is guided by a pure consciousness of responsibility.23 Moralists, degenerating from the concept of personality as an existence which is absolutely self-contained and free, cannot in fact affirm a true virtue, cannot place Gospel love as the highest crown of morality. Because of this, it is not surprising that their opponents who desire unsuccessfully to base their morality on sympathy and compassion, strive to present the very revelation (i.e., the Gospel) which is alien

87 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith to indeterminism) as a pantheistic and fatalistic teaching. Lev Tolstoy, the Russian pantheistic interpreter of the New Testament, is guided by precisely such motives, as a consequence of which the majority of his views coincide completely with the representatives of the Tubingen school which is guided by the very same fatalistic and pantheistic ideas.24 One would not be mistaken to think that at the basis of the criticisms by Strauss, Renan, Hartman,25 Tolstoy, and others, lies a purely negative anti-religious striving to destroy Christian belief. The unforewarned reader can easily be deceived into thinking that all these false teachers wished to give a positive elucidation of the Gospel narrations and events in the sense of pantheism and fatalism (by which everything supernatural and miraculous is abolished). This striving comes out with special clarity in the later works of, for example, Hartman and his follower L. Tolstoy, both of whom substituted everything personal in the New Testament with ideals,26 or the Dutchman Scholten27 who presented an outline of a whole system of New Testament exegetics and dogmatics as a complete negation of free-will. The latter considers freedom of the will to be a prejudice which he supposes submerges a person into exitless self-love and pride and thus is most pernicious for true religion.28 Such a usurpation of the teaching of love (altruism) by a form of pantheism, renouncing hypostasis and freedom, has so penetrated contemporary European thought that even the positivists and neo-Kantians, who negate all metaphysics, unconsciously turn to pantheistic and deter- ministic concepts. They simply renounce freedom of will.

88 Dogma of the Holy Trinity

In counterbalance to the cold and impotent call of the scholastics for a fulfilment of a moral duty placed upon us externally, the positivists and pantheists hope to secure the perfection of human struggle. The concept that one's "I," for the sake of which one has violated the demands of virtue, is not his individual personality, but all humanity. In this concept, the good of all humanity, not one's personal good, is the ultimate aim of self-love, regenerated in us and correctly understood. Self-love, which scholasticism correctly considers to be the main enemy of virtue, is supposedly transformed here into a strong motivation toward morality. The morality of all schools which negate freedom and personality (hypostasis) come to this formula of utilitarianism or eudemonism, and thus destroy themselves because a self-loving and unfree conduct or action ceases to be moral; an expanded self-love cannot influence moral vivacity in a person's heart, and without freedom of personality, morality exists only in books, but not in life.29 In transitioning from ancient nomism into pantheism, ethics, in order to preserve its content, has lost that spirit which gives a certain action a moral or anti-moral character. Virtue is rendered impotent in both an absolute idea of the individual as a self-contained existence, and also in a negation of eternal life and freedom of personality. Pantheism and absolute individualism do not have a worthy place for virtue in their systems of existence. And here, to help solve this, there appears the Holy Trinity, that Most Blessed and Most True Existence, where the freedom and eternity of Persons (hypostases) do not shatter unity and nature, where there is a place for freedom of personality, but where there

89 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith is not an absolute personal self-containment. The teaching of love is there (an inner law, and not an external duty) and the love of persons for one another is not self-love, so that it fully preserves the significance of moral love. Human nature is also one although each person always remains a free and self conscious personality. The sin of self-love and the plurality of lifely aims (a darkening by vanity) have developed, in this pantheistic consciousness, an individualism to such a degree that the unity of nature appears as only an abstraction to the carnal mind, a numerical sum, but not an actual existence. But then the Lord has come and taken on our nature except sin (that is, without this self-loving individualism and vanity) and thus, so to speak, penetrated Himself into the inner essence of all humanity; He has entered up to the door of our heart (Rev.3:20), expressing this assimilation [or, adoption] by co-suffering love, and thus each person who opens to Him becomes one with Him while not losing personhood and freedom, in a likeness of an infant with a mother (Mt.23:37). By this, one is freed from an absolute self-centredness of existence, from an exclusiveness of self consciousness. One's "I," makes way for the better "we." Thus, in a likeness of the undivided and unmixed Trinity, a new creature is formed. This new creature is the Holy Church, one in nature but plural in persons, having Jesus Christ as its Head, and as members, the angels, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and all those who have repented in the faith, having shaken off the darkness of self-loving blindness, those who have become dead to sin and restored to Christ, to Whom be glory unto ages, with the Father and Spirit. For this reason, our Divine Teacher

90 Dogma of the Holy Trinity revealed to us the teaching about the Most Holy Trinity, so that we have in this "construction of His Body" (Eph.4:12) something miraculous and incomprehensible to the 1self-loving world, a constant affirmation of a better existence, an eternal and unchangeable Divinity. By contem- plating the Holy Trinity, we conquer fear before this hateful divisiveness of the world, which is yet reflected in the heart of every Christian who is still imperfect. Without this faith in the Trinity, the struggle with oneself and with the whole world in its past, present, and future would be a baseless fantasy. Without this holy dogma, the Gospel commandment about love would be impotent, and thus to oppose the dogma of the Holy Trinity to the commandment about love is absurd; it can only be done by one who does not understand and does not wish to understand the truth.30

ENDNOTES:

1. [Ed. Note:] STUNDISM: A sub-denomination of the Baptist sect, with a fluctuating system of rationalistic teachings. This German sect was spread mainly in the Ukraine after 1817 by German settlers. 2. [Ed. Note:] TUBINGEN SCHOOL: The 19th Century Protestant Tubingen School was associated with the University of Tubingen, Germany. Its foremost leaders, Strauss (fn.3), Baur, von Zeiler, etc., were inventors of speculative systems, following the trends of German idealism and historical criticism. They were so-called “de-mythoiogizers”. (There was an earlier Latin Tubingen School, also based upon German idealism). 3. [Ed. Note:] David Friedrich STRAUSS (1808—1874): German theologian and philosopher who asserted that the Brble history is myth. Joseph Ernest RENAN (1823—1892): French philologist and historian; a leader of the French school of critical philosophy. 4. [Ed. Note:] God-man: (Bogocheiovechestvo; Theantropos).

91 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

5. [Ed. Note:] Albrecht RITSCHL (1822—1889): German Protestant theologian; founded the Ritschlian school or movement, emphasizing the ethical-social content of theology and holding that Christian theology should rest mainly on an appreciation of the inner life of Christ. 6. [Ed. Note:] The incarnation of God-the-Word as true God-man, "Theanthropos". 7. see his Word on the Observance of Good Order, Pt.1, pp.155 and 185. 8. [Author's Note:] “Brethren, there would be nothing more unjust than our faith, if it were the sum of only [theological] demonstrations which are wise and intellectual and abounding in words, in which case the simple people would remain without the acquisition of faith, as without gold....”

(WORD of St Gregory, vol.3, p. 156, WORKS — Rus. edn.) 9. [Author's Note:] see, for example, St Gregory the Theologian, Homily 32, esp. from p.151 [1844 Rus. edn.] or St John Damascene, Concise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Ch.1 [Rus. edn]. 10. Similitude, not analogy. Orthodoxy allows no analogies of the Divine with anything created. 11. [Author's Note:] This intuition is the original source of the logical law of contradiction and of the excluded third. 12. [Author's Note:] part 4, p.121 [Rus. edn.].

92 Dogma of the Holy Trinity

13. [Author's Note:] Here one can clearly apply the teaching of Apostle Paul about the incomprehensibility of Divinity to the unregenerate spirit, but that It [Divinity] becomes comprehensible In a certain way to those regenerated by Grace. “But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God: for they are, to him, foolishness: nor can he know them, because they are discerned spiritually (because one must assess these spiritually). But he that is spiritual judges all things” (lCor.2:14—15). Just previously, the Apostle says that no one knows the things of man except the man's own spirit within him, so also no one knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God experiencing the things of God's depths. It is this

Spirit which is from God — not the spirit of this world — that we have accepted in order to know which is given to us from God (see lCor.2:10—16). Besides, the preaching of these mysteries is given, according to the Apostle, not to children, but only to those made perfect in the faith (v.6). In these words of the Apostle, it is made completely clear that God's truth Is attained [or, reached and understood] (although, of course, only in part, as “in a mirror darkly”) in no other way than by means of a gradual perfectionment in faith and virtue. Consequently, this knowledge Is essentially connected with our inner regeneration; with the divestment of the “ancient man” and becoming clothed in the New One (Col.3:9). Thus, there is nothing astonishing in the assertion that we must alter our self—consciousness for the demanded similitude of our unity of the Father with the Son. 14. [Ed. Note:] literally “dushevnovo chelovek”, translated here as “psyche” in the sense of the inner man — i.e., the mental, emotional life of the person, or the principle of mental, emotional life. 15. [Ed. Note:] ABSOLUTE OPPOSITION: or, complete oppositeness not in the sense of aggressive opposition, but of individual separateness, etc. 16. In Orthodox Christian theology, essence indicates that which all have in common, while hypostasis refers to that which is unique to a specific person. 17. [Author's Note:] The Church sees a revelation of the Trinity as the basis of a new life, in that event when the godless arrogance of the Babylonian emperor was despised by the three prophets of the true faith: the Trinity is opposed to worldly impiety, as a basis of true holiness (7th Irmos or “Key Hymn” of the Canon of Pentecost; compare 8th Irmos of the Elevation).

93 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

18. [Ed. Note:] NOMISM: religious legalism; the view that moral conduct consists in the observance of the law. 19. [Ed. Note:] EVOLUTIONISTS: Metropolitan Antony is referring to those who made evolution a philosophical school, and were often ludicrous in their assertions. This would refer to such philosophers as Huxley, Haeckel, Sir Thomas Wyville Thompson and Sir William Dawson of Canada. The humorous Bathybius—Eozoon scientific scandal of the 1880's is an example of Met. Antony's reference in the following endnote. We will note here that this reference is not to sound and honest science, but to the speculative philosophers with predisposed ideas to prove. 20. [Ed. Note:] TRISHKA'S KAFTAN: A Russian fable in which Trlshka finds that the elbow of his kaftan (great—coat) is worn through. He solves this quandary by cutting off a quarter of his sleeves and using the material to patch the elbow. When people comment on his shortened sleeves, he corrects this complication by cutting off the bottom of the kaftan and using the material to lengthen the arms. Of course, the kaftan is now no longer than a jacket, but Trishka remains blissfully ignorant of the self—defeating foolishness of his solutions. 21. [Ed. Note:] See Metropolitan Antony's dissertation, “Psychological Data in Favour of the Freedom of the Will and Moral Responsibility” (vol.3, Complete Works, in Rus.)

94 Dogma of the Holy Trinity

22. [Ed. Note:] If this text seems a bit confusing, it is because of the close comparison between two ideas of the same subject. Mankind is gifted with free-will and individual responsibility and existence in life. Each person is a unique hypostasis who always maintains his personality and personhood, and who must be permitted responsibility to excercise his free will. But his goal is unison in the corporate body of the Church. This not mean that his personhood is extinguished and lost in some corporate nothingness, but rather that the person, while maintainng his "hypostasis," enters into the "new nature" which Christ has provided. We can look at the recently created Protestant doctrine of “Christ as your own personal Saviour,” which sounds good on the surface, but upon examination, reveals a division and separation of believers. Compare this with the Scriptural teaching about Christ as the Saviour of the Church (e.g., Eph.5:25, etc.), which calls everyone to a renunciation of personal goals and gains and even of egoistic “personal relationships” with God as opposed to the Scriptural ideal: a personal relationship within the framework of a joint communal relationship with Christ, Who saves the Church as a unified body of believers. One is saved by being truly united to that Body which is being saved. For a further discussion see Freedom to Believe, Synaxis Press, 2001. 23. [Author's Note:] To the stern scholastics of the middle ages, a person of love was not acceptable, while the indeterministic individualism of Kant deprived all feeling of moral significance, except the feeling of cold respect, having assigned all other feeling a carnal character, characteristic of the lowest natures. Compare Snegirev, “On Love,” in the annual journal, FAITH AND REASON for 1892. 24. [Author's Note:] see Tolstoy's “What my Faith Consists of,” and also his “On Life” and “Confession.” 25. [Ed. Note:] Edward von HARTMAN (1846—1906): German pessimistic philosopher and opponent of Christianity. 26. [Author's Note:] For some reason, for the Saviour—Son of Man, they understand not hypostasis, but a pantheistic idea, the so-called Intelligent Consciousness. They accept immortality in the sense of the immortality of ideas, etc. 27. [Ed. Note:] Jan Hendrik SCHOLTEN (1811—1885): Dutch Protestant theologian; leader of the school of critical theology in the Netherlands. 28. [Author's Note:] From this point of view, he strives to develop a teaching about Grace in opposition to the ancient law

95 29. [Ed. Note:] see Metropolitan Antony's article, “How the Service of Social Good is Related to Care About the Salvation of One's Own Soul,” Works, vol.2, p. 49Sf (In Rus.).

30. [Author's Note:] If anyone wishes to take up this study, we would advise him to read the treatises on the Trinity by St Cyril of Alexandria and his interpretation of the Gospel of John, St Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity, and also St John Cassian, Coll.10, Ch.7, and St Basil the Great (5; 389—390) in Rus. Edn.1, and especially St Gregory of Nyssa who repeatedly affirmed the unity not only of the Divine Nature, but also of the human nature.

96 II MORAL IDEA OF THE DOGMA OF THE INCAR- NATION

Lev Tolstoy had categorically declared that the Ortho- dox dogmas and the Symbol of Faith not only lack any significance for moral life but, on the contrary, contradict the principles of the "Sermon on the Mount," which has expounded the teaching about Christian virtue. As a consequence, we have undertaken to offer a feasible answer to the question, "What significance does faith that Jesus Christ is God have for moral life?" Tolstoy notwithstanding, every enlightened Orthodox Christian acknowledges what benefit he derives from his confession of Jesus Christ as true God, and he considers this confession to be one of the conditions of his salvation. Salvation is given to those who fulfil the commandments (Mt.19:17). Thus, if one cannot be saved without faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and in the Holy Trinity, this means that without these beliefs it is impossible to fulfil the commandments, it is impossible to build the Gospel perfection in oneself and to struggle against sinful passions. Nevertheless, certain intellectuals appear to be confused about that unbroken inner unity between dogmas and virtue. We often hear such light-minded expressions as, "I consider Jesus Christ as my ideal and I respect His teaching no less than you do, but I can never acknowledge Him as

97 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

God." Let such people have the courage of their convictions and openly renounce that teaching which Christ Himself proclaimed to be God's word. They do not wish to do this openly and honestly, but if one begins to question them on individual commandments, they will renounce the majority of them: Do you acknowledge humility? No!: Do you acknowledge repentance? No!: Do you consider meekness to be obligatory? Not always; Do you demonstrate real concern that your soul hungers and thirsts for truth? I must admit, never, and so forth. Some of these commandments of the Lord are renounced even as a principle by contemporary or Western society. The commandments about humility and chastity are examples, and the same rejection is applied to those words of Christ which teach us to have a personal relationship to God and to Him. Truly, when one has renounced His Divinity, what moral application can one make from the parable about the prodigal son or the ones about the publican and the Pharisee, the sower or the rich man and Lazarus? How will he apply to his own soul the Lord's conversation with Nikodemos about regeneration and faith in Him, the words about the resurrection of the dead (Jn.Ch.7), the good shepherd, the last judgment and the farewell conversation with the disciples about the personal relationship of the faithful with Him and His perpetual presence with us as Saviour? All that is left is narrations about Christ's miracles. But those who deny Christ's Divinity have either entirely renounced these events or given them strained and incredible interpretations so that they must understand the frequent references to our

98 Dogma of the Incarnation

Saviour's miracles as fables. A significant part of the Gospel, therefore, is directly renounced by those who do not believe in the Divinity of the Son of God. His other commandments, although viewed sympathetically, are treated as something unfulfill- able, as an unattainable ideal, something suitable for artistic contemplation, but which one is not obligated to fulfil. They accept as worthy of fulfilment only the words and acts of forgiveness and condescension of the Lord to repentant sinners; but they purposely forget the conditions for forgiveness—that is, repentance, and they cultivate a light- minded attitude toward sin. In a word, the Gospel has no more significance for such people than a sentimental poem or edifying fable.

Those who do not accept Christ as true God [but still wish to honour Him] try by every means to obscure the fact that in renouncing His Divinity, one is led to consider the Saviour as only a dishonest deceiver, an idle dreamer, something like Mohammed; and yet they strive to preserve an image of Christ as a perfect holy man. Lev Tolstoy, for example, while striving to convince readers that the majority of Christ's miracles were invented later and those events which the apostles considered miracles were natural events, nevertheless does not want to present Christ as a deceiver. Still, according to Tolstoy, the man who was born blind was not at all blind, but an ignorant, stupid man, whom Christ made intelligent; the paralytic, in his opinion, was

99 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith merely a lazy fellow who lolled about at Bethesda. The Saviour did not actually heal him, but only exhorted him to work. According to the Tolstoyan Gospel, we do not see any evidence that Jesus Christ had inhibited a false understanding of His healings or that He attempted to divert the concept of His own Divinity. Toward the end of his exposition, the author has already forgotten his intention of presenting the Saviour as a perfect man, and he cannot refrain from accusing Him of fear before the Pharisees' guardsmen and of a desire to defend Himself by force of arms. Nevertheless, shallow, careless readers are prepared to accept all this as exalting: the idea that it is possible to respect the Gospel while rejecting Christ's Divinity, thus reserving the right to select from it only that which they like. It is all the more seductive that such writers do not refrain from referring to Christ as Saviour and Redeemer, hailing Him as a living example for imitation. Although our own Tolstoy acted in such a manner, Ernest Renan1 was especially successful at deluding our public with similar words. One often hears Russian women gushing, "I was brought to love Jesus Christ by no one else but Renan with his book." And the men add, "Even though Renan does not accept Jesus Christ as God, he has rendered Christianity a greater service than all the theologians in presenting the Saviour as a perfect man and thus compelling everyone to respect Jesus." When such ludicrous words are be read by the children of a Christian, rather than a European, culture, then they

1. Joseph Ernest RENAN (1823—1892): French philologist and historian; a leader of the French school of critical philosophy

100 Dogma of the Incarnation will come to the conclusion that in the 19th Century much was written and printed in a state of delirium tremens. Indeed, no one convinces us more than Renan that one must either confess Christ as truly God, or else acknowledge Him to be a pitiful deceiver. We said that people who do not believe, but honour Christ with their lips, accept from the Gospel only that which, through false interpretation, can indulge their passions. This was made especially clear in Renan's book. He noticed two facets of Christ's preaching: (1) mercy toward the repentant and, (2) stern warnings to sinners who remained in iniquity; (1) a teaching about a joyous reconciliation with God and with one's conscience and, (2) a teaching about a cross, about self-sacrifice, about enduring the hatred of the world. Having observed both the comforting and the sorrowful aspects of the Gospel teaching, how was Renan able to reject the latter and assert that only the former constituted the true teaching of Christ? Very simply: he decided that our Saviour censured and demanded struggle, not from His convictions, but because of His irritation with headstrong listeners who would not acknowledge Him as God's envoy and as the fruit of an unsatisfied self-love. In Renan's view, Christ's true convictions consist in rosy sentimentalism, enhanced by picturesque Galilean land- scapes. Thus, for Renan, the only words of the Gospel which have significance for Christians are those which speak of reconciliation with God, the universal significance of truth and the forgiveness of fornicators and publicans. On the other hand, for Renan, everything which was said about martyrdom for the truth, about reward, regenera-

101 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith tion—all this can be written off as words evoked by inciden- tal irritation. For this soiled concoction, Renan is hailed as a great interpreter of the words of Jesus Christ, and his Christ, clothed in the disgraceful mantle of a self-loving deceiver, is preferred over the immaculate image of purity, love, humility and Divine grandeur of the Christ Who is in- scribed in the pages of the Gospel of the Church. Is it not clear that those who deny Christ's Divinity cannot preserve a concept of His holiness, and that this dogma [of the Incarnation] which was so zealously guarded by the Church fathers and teachers is not in vain? Let us suppose that even if I did not acknowledge the truth about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, I could still perceive Him as a most perfect person. What moral strength would I then be able to draw from Him? What reason would I have for calling Him my Saviour? German pantheists reply to this with boring and foggy deliberations about the idea that Christ assured people of their consubstantiality with God and by that delivered us from the fear of death by teaching us that [death] leads us into oneness with Divinity, blending in concepts of Nirvana. Tolstoy did not go so far as did the German writers in emasculating Christianity, but strove, despite his own logic, to preserve a teaching about life as an inner struggle, and to maintain the thought that Jesus Christ, as a truly holy person, is the most worthy object of imitation in difficult cases in the life of each person, since He affirms for us the possibility of living in a holy manner. It is in this sense that Christ is the Saviour of people.

102 Dogma of the Incarnation

In this case, other moral heroes who can serve as examples of virtuous life must be called saviours and guides to life, for example, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, the apostles and saints. Tolstoy had no objection to adding the first three to the number of saviours; he only stipulates that Jesus Christ justifies this title in the most perfect degree. If we follow this chain of thought, however, it is possible that in the contemporary state of high mindedness, one or even several people will appear who seem better than Jesus Christ and would have an even greater right to take the title of saviour and redeemer of mankind. Tolstoy would have no basis to deny this. From all this it is clear that Jesus Christ can be our Saviour only if we believe in Him as true God. Without this faith, His moral significance hardly exceeds the significance of any moral hero, and can even be less than certain other heroes, for example those whose situations and conditions of life are closer to our own so that we can more conve- niently use them as objects of imitation.

The moral significance of the dogma is clearly demonstrated from this negative approach. This negative approach is, however, far less significant than the positive approach of examining the conditions of our moral development, struggle and perfection, which is completely inseparable from living faith in Jesus Christ as true God. In order to avoid describing our moral life according to its own essence, rather than demonstrating the influence of faith in Jesus

103 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

Christ as God upon it, we will expound its principal conditions with the words of Kant. Immanuel Kant was a thinker who had denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the significance for virtue of this dogma of the Incarnation. Kant is, however, the most impartial of the philosophers. Kant sought to demonstrate that the Gospel can bring just as much benefit to those who deny Christ's miracles and revelation as to believers. In fact, he failed to prove this, but his arguments were incomparably more convincing than those of any of his contemporaries. Incidentally, his religious views—in a significantly morally debased form—lay at the basis of the Tubingen rationalistic school, which spawned Renan and Tolstoy. This school could not completely reject Kantian perspectives on the Gospel teaching because, of all of them, only Kant strove to maintain the height and purity of the Gospel commandments. Moreover, having vastly higher moral standards than all his contemporary followers, Kant retained the concept of the absolute opposition of good and evil, and of the necessity of an internal struggle between these two principles and concepts: freedom of will and moral responsibility. In referring to his teaching on redemption and salvation, we will describe what Kant believes to take place in a person when he decides to dedicate himself to attaining moral perfection. I hope that we will then be able to see without difficulty that this is possible only with a living faith in Jesus Christ as true God, as an absolutely holy, sinless Redeemer Who suffered for us. We have already discussed this in the first section of our book, but let us consider the briefest summary here. Kant says, "The transformation to good cannot take

104 Dogma of the Incarnation place without pain. The feeling of an inner discord and regeneration causes suffering which is all the more tormenting when those evil inclinations of the will which are being destroyed have put down deep roots in the nature of a person and turned into habit. Various feelings (revulsion at the former sin and the joy of renovation) colliding with one another cause that greatest suffering, which one can only express in a form of representation." This is a form of grief which can be compared with no other grief. It is correct to say that the acceptance of a firm resolve of the will to make a new, good beginning creates suffering, and it is an equally correct thesis that suffering comes from the process of regeneration and turning away from sin. "Suffering is caused by the simultaneous movement of the two" [the withdrawal from evil and union with the good, with God]. These ideas are merely elementary for Orthodox Christians, but for the West— which has a darkened understanding of the Chris- tian struggle—this is the very highest goal to which its ethics have reached. For the West, it is so high that the vast majority of its subsequent moralists not only failed to assimilate this truth, but could not even become familiar with it. Only in later years has it somewhat penetrated into the elegant literature of France and, even then, under the influence of a simpler exposition of it by Russian men of letters rather than by Kant. The latter, however, affirms that the transformation to good is inevitably "the dying of the old person, his crucifixion with his passions and vices: like the suffering of an illness, it is a complete renovation of the heart and the acceptance of the disposition of the Son of God as its personal, constant guiding rule."

105 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

Where can we find a constant impulse not only toward working on our own perfectionment, but also toward being reconciled with those sufferings which are linked with it? Suffering is repulsive to a natural person. Almost all his life consists in applying solicitude to solicitude in order to avoid suffering. But then the Apostle tells him that he rejoices in sorrows, that he glories in them. The Gospel blesses those who are banished, dishonoured, or beaten, calling everyone to follow a narrow path which few travel. It demands that one renounce oneself, that one despise one's life. The Gospel foretells woe to the wealthy, the satiated, those who laugh and are spoken well of by all men. In order to follow such teaching, we must defy our self-loving nature. What will rouse us up to this? Kant says that there are the principles of another spiritual nature within me—one which corresponds to truth and good. Assuredly so, but if I act according to truth only for the sake of obedience to this voice when I hear it, then by that very same logic, I must submit to depraved passions when their demands run upon my conscience. This evil nature, which can be overcome only by crucifying oneself, is much stronger in me than the moral nature, and thus a natural person will not follow the good nature — in fact, he cannot. "In order to be inspired by that image of true, moral perfection," says Kant, "we must imagine that it has already been truly realized; and then, without difficulty we will be inspired by this beautiful image which will be for each of us, and consequently for all of us, a true saviour." See how easy it is to be saved in the fantasy of the German philosopher;

106 Dogma of the Incarnation it is sufficient merely to find an inspiring example. But one is left to be amazed that there are so few who are being saved when hundreds of millions are acquainted with the life of the Saviour.

It is true, that the moral countenance of Christ touches and elevates my spirit. It is, however, one thing to admire and another to imitate. When, in order to imitate Him, I must go against my own nature, against society and history, and go onto a cross then, for one who does not confess His Divinity, the sanctity of Jesus Christ begins to grow dim and appears as something conditional—perhaps proper for Jesus of Nazareth Himself, but completely irrelevant to the arrangement of contemporary life. Jesus may be holy, but how will He, with His genius and morally gifted nature, convince a sinner like me that I too am obliged to follow the path of this moral purity? Orpheus could tame wild beasts with his singing, Socrates amazed the "gods" with his mind, Alexander—with bravery, Achilles—with speed; but if an ordinary person such as I conceived a desire to pursue all the geniuses, then would I not be as ludicrous as the frog which puffed itself up thinking to become an ox? It was not in vain that the wise Nikodemos said to Jesus that it is as difficult to be regenerated as to enter again into the mother's womb. Perhaps He was holy, but to think that a similar holiness is accessible even to me: does it not mean to be deceived, as was Simon the Magician who sought to fly in the air? What if Christ calls me to Himself, summons me to

107 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith a struggle with the world? The world also lures me with its delusions, and moreover it is natural and more innate to me than is the Gospel. Truly, besides his inner struggle with himself, a Chris- tian is compelled to choose daily between Christ and the world which is inimical to the chosen path of perfection. Actually the world does not appear to love continuous vice and malice, but it does hate continuous virtue and seeks to slay its followers. This is why the Greeks—who had invented for themselves gods based upon their observations of nature, man, society and life—represented their deities as not too good, not too evil, but ascribed to them all those forces of good and evil which clearly govern the visible life of the world, the human soul and societies. The world is penetrated with sin, even in the basic laws of organic life, which present a self-loving struggle for existence. Self-love, lust and pride are present everywhere in the order of our lustful body and vengeful, proud soul, in the history of human societies and even in the order of family life. [In Kant's system], one who wishes to struggle for perfection, still far from being free of cooperation with evil, must stand against all this force having nothing but the mere example of Jesus Christ and His comparatively few followers (who, incidentally, did believe in His Divinity). It is not certain that such a person, wavering between the world and Christ, will go against the world, will "condemn the world" unless he comes to believe that Christ is higher than the world, in accordance with the word of the apostle: "Who is he that can overcome the world, except he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1Jn.5:5), and applies the words of the

108 Dogma of the Incarnation same apostle, "...greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world" (1Jn.4:4). Christ must not only be higher than the visible and known world, but higher than all conditional existence: for He must be an unconditional existence, and one without beginning. For, if He had a beginning, then perhaps there exists and will be revealed some more ancient power which will occupy the place opportunely taken away from it and will expel everything inimical to it — something by nature equal in everything to the Creator!2 Or else, who will believe me that God's holiness is nothing other than that preached by Christ, which made me an enemy and martyr of the world? Thus, in order to be our Saviour, Christ must be higher than nature and the world, He must be true God. This is absolutely necessary in order for us, in His name, to renounce this world, to contradict this world; and yet to experience the highest spiritual unity with the world, to love that world which is renewed by Him, one must believe that the world in its present sinful state is not His true temple created by God, but is defiled and deformed by the evil will of mankind though it was created by the Word, and nothing of it existed or began without the Word.

Taking into account the conditions of our inner

2. [Ed. Note:] Another reason why it is so important for us to pay attention to the Divine Services. In the Vigil for the Eve of the Meeting of Christ in the Temple, it is so clearly and profoundly revealed to us that Jesus Christ is "The Ancient of Days," seen in Daniel's vision.

109 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith perfectionment, we must acknowledge that the significance of the example and words of Christ is effectively extended only to those of His followers who confess Him as God. But even so, this effectual significance is not sufficient to elevate one onto the cross of life and give one the strength to bear this cross patiently. In order to achieve this it is necessary to accept and fulfil the teaching of Christ as Redeemer. Perhaps when I contemplate the sufferings sanctified by the Son of God, I will love them and conceive the determination in my heart to bear them, but will I actually benefit from bearing them? Kant correctly reasons that moral perfection is the stripping off of the old depraved nature and clothing oneself in the new; but from whom will man assimilate this new nature? Who will deliver him from this body of death? (Rm.7:24). Is not the word of the Gospel true, that grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles? (Mt.7:16). Examples of asceticism which strives to extract good feelings and deeds from itself convince us of the pernicious- ness of this path, since it consists in one passion crushing another. Thus, Buddhists who have conquered sensuality fall into pride, those who have conquered malice fall into indifference, for they cannot raise themselves up to passionlessness and love. Such is classical and contemporary European morality; it is based on vanity, it is dry and dead. Such also is the morality of Islam which consists of a regular enjoyment of sensual pleasures and the expectation of such in the life to come. Even those completely Orthodox and self-denying ascetics, who became carried away by the

110 Dogma of the Incarnation strength of their own spirit and placed their hope of further perfectionment in themselves rather than grace, were soon ruined by proud or sensual blindness. Thus, teachers of asceticism always reminded their disciples that the source of their spiritual strength was bestowed by grace, as the apostle says: "Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who makes things grow" (1Cor.3: 6-7), and in another place, "But I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was within me" (1Cor.15:10); "...struggling according to the work of Him Who works in me mightily" (Col.1:29).

If God's word and the observation of the ascetics are somehow remote and abstract to our consciousness, let us turn to the more prosaic phenomena of daily life. Have you ever observed a person who has substantially changed his life and become more virtuous after a life of vice? What are the reasons for such transformations? They are almost always religious, and for the most part they are associated with experiencing serious shocks which have subdued or weakened the old nature of the sinner. If these circumstances were not of a negative character, but positive, then they were related to the fact that the depraved person had acquired a pure, loving and wise friend who had become sincerely kindred to him. Similar good changes take place, for example, after marriage or after returning to the home of loving parents. In the friendship of a depraved person with a virtuous one, we see not a simple imitation, but a

111 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith direct assimilation—a grafting of moral strengths from one onto the other. While living in a bond with a loving friend, the depraved person finds in himself the strength, hitherto nonexistent, to conquer evil habits which earlier seemed insurmountable to him. Now it rightly seems to him that his soul struggles against evil, not alone but together, in union with the soul of his friend: instead of one source of strength, he has two — a double strength. Under what conditions, with relation to the good friend, can this mysterious fusion take place? When the friend truly co-suffers with one. Indeed, anyone can be convinced even through daily experience that neither the mind, nor rhetoric, nor even the good example of a teacher can in itself change one's evil will. The secret of this spiritual action on the sinful soul is that co-suffering love which so filled the blessed apostle, who cried out, "My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..." (Gal.4:19). This love which is so familiar to grieving mothers, profoundly experiences in its own soul all the falls of a loved one. Whoever possesses such co-suffering love is, according to the words of the apostle, a co-worker in God's wheat field. (1Cor.3:9). And if this is so, then the true worker, the true good shepherd, is Christ God, Who has co- suffered with every individual person, Who reaches out and embraces everyone, saying, "How often would I have gathered your children together even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings!" (Mt.23:37). It is He Who has promised to abide among His faithful unto the ages; He Who said to the Theologian, "Behold I stand at the door and knock: if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I

112 Dogma of the Incarnation will come in to him and dine with him and he with Me" (Rev.3:20). In the garden of Gethsemane the Lord demonstrated the ultimate degree of co-suffering with the sins of every person, when He began to be oppressed by them to such a degree that He asked the heavenly Father to deliver Him from the agony. "And was heard because of His reverence" as the apostle says (Hb.5:7), as an angel appeared and strengthened Him.

How can I benefit from the Saviour's grief over people's sins, in the way that a corrupted person's soul is filled by a friend's co-suffering love? Only if I am convinced of the certainty that I too, I personally, as an individual, was and am encompassed in the heart of Christ Who grieves over my sins. Only when I am aware that He beholds me, stretches out His supporting hand toward me and encompasses me with His co-suffering love: only then is He my Saviour, pouring new moral strength into me, He "Who teaches my hands for war" (Ps. 17:34) against evil? This is possible only when He is not foreign to me, not a historical example of virtue, but a part of my being or, more correctly, when I am a part of His being, a participant of the Divine nature, as Apostle Peter says (Pt.1:4). It is obvious that only the all-knowing and all-good God could encompass in His heart each and every individual human. Thus, we again see that the Saviour of man could only be God Who has joined Himself to our nature, that is, the God- man, the sufferer Who has co-suffered with us. If my

113 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith transformation from evil to good were not by means of suffering, then Christ ought not to have suffered. But in that case, if a person could so simply pass from being a malefactor to being holy, God's truth— which divides the good from the evil by means of sufferings—would be unsatisfactory; our conscience would also be unsatisfactory. It was the Lord Who willed such laws of existence and spiritual life that the transformation from evil to good is possible only by means of the sinner's suffering. These sufferings, however, remain unbearable and fruitless when they do not unite one with the personal co-suffering of the most holy Son of God, Who having received sorrow not for His own sake, but for our sake, suffered for us as a sacrifice of reconciliation and became the Redeemer of those who participate in His sufferings (1Pt.4:13). He was totally free of "the old nature" and had no need to struggle as we do; but our sins, our "old person," were conquered and crucified by Him (Rm.6:6; 1Pt.2:24). His suffering for my sins is my redemption; His long- suffering is my salvation (2Pt.3: 15). This is not so merely in the sense of an encouraging example. It is realized in the very real sense that I, knowing Jesus Christ, Who through love for me wept over my sinfulness, make Him the inheritance of my existence by struggling to follow His path of holiness. I live by means of Him and through Him I give life to a new person within myself. I thus become reconciled with my sufferings which before were so tormenting, because I now honour them as a sacred bridge to unification with the Lord. I was taught by the apostles to participate in His sufferings, or by the holy martyrs who, in spiritual joy

114 Dogma of the Incarnation in Christ, felt neither fire, nor iron, nor beatings with rods, nor the laceration of their bodies into pieces.

Divine revelation clearly assures us that this constant, progressive unification with Christ, a unification of faith and love, a bond with Him which is much more substantial than the union of the souls of friends or spouses, is the main condition for spiritual perfection. It is this which leads one to disdain all the temptations of this life and accept all sufferings. Such a spiritual perfection makes it possible for one to bring spiritual good not only to his own soul, but also to his neighbours. Thus, the Lord Himself calls the faithful to such a union with Him, and His apostles, especially John and Paul, confess the very real and active realization in themselves of this grace-filled unity. Let us cite several passages, and with them we will end our article. Here are the words of the Lord: "Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit from itself, unless it abides on the vine; neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, brings forth much fruit, for without Me you can do nothing. Unless a man abides in Me, he is cast forth like a branch, and withers; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned....As the Father has loved Me, so have I loved you. Remain in my love" (Jn.15:46,9). "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you" (Jn.6:53). "He who believes on Me, as the scripture has said, living

115 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith water shall flow out of his depths" (Jn.7:38). "My sheep hear My voice...and I give them eternal life; and they shall never perish, nor shall anyone seize them out of my hand" (Jn.10:27-28). And here are the words of the apostles who realized Christ's commandments: "Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ...the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1Jn.1:3, 7). "And now, little children, abide in Him; that when He is manifested, we may have confidence, and not be shamed before Him at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who does righteousness is born of Him" (1Jn.2: 28- 29). The degree to which this penetration occurs is testified to by another apostle: "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Gal.2:20). "For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. For if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour; yet I do not know what to choose. For I am torn between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better: nevertheless, it is more needful for you for me to remain in this life" (Phil.1:21- 24). "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for Whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them but rubbish, so that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own, which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ..." (Phil.3:8-9).

116 Dogma of the Incarnation

Finally, several more passages which point out the significance of the nature of Christ for a Christian society: "For I have wed you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2Cor.11:2). "For as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ....Now you are the body of Christ, and members in part" (1Cor.12:12, 27), so that "speaking truth in love we may in all things grow up into Him Who is the Head, even Christ: For because of Him the whole body joined and firmly knit together by the joints with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, grows to maturity, building itself up in love" (Eph.4:15-16). Therefore, the teaching of the Gospel in particular and of the New Testament in general, about our personal relationship with Christ, Who said; "I am the first and the last: I am He Who lives, and became dead; and behold I am alive to ages of ages, amen" (Rev.1:17-18) — this saving teaching not only leads all its sincere followers to sanctity, reconciling them with heaven, but it also reveals to them the life of society in a completely new light; a light of love and hope. By love it may grow up unto Christ in all things, as the apostle says. You are a part of Christ's body; those for whom your soul aches, can come to repentance and join this saving unity, the Church. In it there is neither the impersonal merging as among the pantheists and Tolstoy- ites, nor that heavy despair which an ordinary person feels. Faith and co-suffering filled with love, unite everyone in Christ. "For He Himself is our peace, Who has made both Jews and gentiles one and has destroyed the barrier...in

117 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith order to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace; and that He might reconcile both in this one body unto God, through the cross, by which He put their hostility to death" (Eph.2:14-16).

118 III MORAL IDEA OF THE DOGMA OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

The Christian teaching about the Holy Spirit is not presented in a manner sufficiently clear for everyone to grasp the moral content which is expressed in this dogma. It is true that enlightened Christians know that the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the source both of the grace-filled illumination of the prophets and apostles, and of every grace-filled gift given to Chris- tians in the Holy Mysteries, especially in the mysteries of chrismation and priesthood. One must, nevertheless, acknowledge that we express the very properties of these grace-filled gifts in a rather uncertain manner. Moreover, it remains completely unclear what significance there is in that aspect of the dogma that the source of grace is not Jesus Christ but "another Comforter," as our Saviour calls Him (Jn.14:16). This obscurity even gave cause for our untiring accuser, L. Tolstoy, to insist that the Church obscures the significance of the personality of Jesus Christ with a teaching it has contrived about the Holy Spirit to such a degree that the Orthodox faith incorrectly appropriates the name "Chris- tian" when it should be called "Holy Spiritist." The author tells us that Christianity is, above all, a known moral world view; but Orthodoxy, in his opinion, is a conscious depar- ture from this understanding of life, replacing it with a mystical teaching, transforming a vital struggle into a system of religious sorcery, called Holy Mysteries, while condoning the most anti-moral basis of social and personal

119 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith life. The teaching that the Holy Spirit is the main force of religious development is, according to Tolstoy, that contrivance of Orthodoxy under the cover of which it substitutes the moral teaching of the Gospel with idle ritualism. In response to such an accusation, and even independently of all accusations, the enlightened Christian must give an account to himself and to everyone who asks concerning the reason for his hope (lPt.3:15), about why he cherishes the truth, revealed to him in the teaching of the Church, concerning the properties and actions of the Holy Spirit, and he must clarify to himself the moral content of this dogma. The teaching about the third Person of the Most Holy Trinity was revealed with the greatest clarity in our Lord's farewell conversation with His disciples. No prejudice can destroy the clear truth that the Lord understood "the Comforter" to be not some kind of impersonal power of God, but a living Person, distinct from Him and from God the Father — precisely "another Comforter." The quality of being of the Holy Spirit as a living personality is made known in the fact that although the word "spirit" is, in Greek, in the neuter gender (JÎ B<,L:") the pronoun replacing it is rendered in the masculine, "He will glorify Me" (+6,\<@ ,:¥ *@>VF,4) (Jn.16:14), etc. What concept is contained in the name of the Comforter which for the first time reveals this dogma with all clarity? At first, it could appear that the Holy Spirit was to comfort the apostles in their separation from Jesus Christ but such an interpretation is refuted by His own words, "It is profitable for you that I go; for if I do not go, the Comforter will not come to

120 Dogma of the Holy Spirit you; and if I go, I will send Him to you. And when He comes, He will convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment" (Jn.16:7-9). Obviously, comfort in a loss cannot be valued more than the lost object itself. Thus, the explanation of this name must be sought in further words: the Holy Spirit will comfort the followers of the Lord in their struggle with the world, the hatred of the world toward them; and truly, the related words of the Lord reveal clearly the significance of this heavenly Comforter. When the world reviles the preachers of the Gospel, hates them and seeks to drive them away, even considers that killing them will be pleasing to God (15:17-21; 16:2), then at this very time, the Comforter, abiding in the apostles, will strengthen courage in their fainting hearts. The Holy Spirit, convicting in them this terrible proud world of the sin of unbelief, instructs them in all truth and righteousness. The Comforter calls to mind and explains to them the sayings of the Teacher which they had not comprehended, and reveals to them the future destiny of the world (16:9-14). Thus, in place of fear before the power and might of the world, in place of grief over the abasement of Christ by the world, the Comforter will instil into the hearts of the apostles, by means of Christ's truth, that source of moral satisfaction1 which will teach them to celebrate amidst persecutions. This clearly did take place soon after Pentecost, when the apostles — abused, dishonoured and imprisoned — raised exalted prayer to God and, by their prayer, the place where they were gathered shook, and all were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke God's word with audacity (Acts 4:31).

121 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

Such an interpretation of the word "Comforter" in the sense of a comforter of confessors of Christ's truth in their struggle with the world, in the sense of a giver of inner moral satisfaction in external sufferings and shame, will be confirmed when we discover that the source from which our Lord took this name is the realm of religious-moral imagery well-known to the Jews of that time. Then, we will follow the actions of the Holy Spirit in the life of the apostles and in the eternal order of Christ's Church. First of all, however, let us pause on the circumstance that such a gift of victorious, joyous patience is possible only from another Comforter, and not from Jesus Christ Himself. The abasement in which Christ's deeds and His followers always abide on earth will gradually tempt the followers with that depressive doubt into which His disciples fell when they had not yet believed the news about His resurrection, and said of Him, "And we had hoped that He was the one to save Israel" (Lk.24:21). Although the disciples were not prepared to call Jesus a deceiver, they were ready to reckon Him as a self deceived man, as today's Jews look upon Him. Thus, it was necessary for another Witness to come after Jesus, as the Forerunner had come before Him; another Comforter, giving confessors heavenly joy amidst their sorrows, and testifying about Jesus (Jn.15:26), that He ascended up to the Father and that the prince of this world is condemned (16:11). With this Comforter, it was better for the apostles in their preaching than with Jesus Christ Himself. For, being illumined by His heavenly teaching and the testimony about Jesus, they drew nearer to Him than they were in life when they could not comprehend His

122 Dogma of the Holy Spirit words, which now the Holy Spirit calls to their minds and clarifies (16:12-13), so that they do not fear the Cross but glory in it (Gal.6:4). And while judging the world, they fearlessly fulfil the words of the apostle, "Jesus suffered outside the gate in order that He might consecrate the people through His own blood....Let us then go forth to Him outside the camp, bearing His shame" (Hb.13:12-13), i.e., for His sake, let us go outside the laws of society which are guarded by the world, accepting the condition of shameful castaways, not fearing this condition for Christ Himself endured it. How can we bring such an action of "another Com- forter" within the grasp of our direct understanding? It would seem that many people have experienced something similar to the following in their sufferings for Truth. When we must accept abasement and hatred for a perfectly just and holy cause, sometimes even from dear and respected people, our soul falls into a dark, hopeless condition. God, our Creator and Providence, having allowed this, seems to us to be a punisher rather than a Protector; our condition is close to despondency. Then, however, we encounter a comforter in the form of an ordinary person, but one who is pure and convinced, filled with a joyous vivacity. Then, it is exactly as if a flame begins to burn in our heart; suddenly those very circumstances which had crushed us with grief, now begin to animate us with a heroic ecstasy; such is the power of the comforter. In the history of the sufferings of holy martyrs, similar phenomena took place very often. In order to shore up their firmness, other comforters were needed. When the way of Christ's cross was

123 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith subjected to tempting trials in their exhausted souls, an external witness and comforter was necessary just like that angel who strengthened Jesus Christ Himself in Gethsema- ne. Such are the comforters, people and angels, and the even stronger comforter, the Holy Spirit, for those who suffer for Christ. It is evident that Christ's faith acting in sufferers cannot be such a comforter; one is needed who gives assurance in his very action in those hours of grief, a special one, equal to Christ, another Comforter, not less than Christ Himself, Divine, but not identical with the testing Father. This is what comprises the high, holy significance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit: while bestowing upon the confessors of Christ's truth a supernatural joy in the face of sorrows and an inner spiritual victory over the untruth of this world, crowns the struggles of the saints. Thus, this is not a contrivance of mysticism, not a substitution of the struggle of life by a system of religious sorceries, but precisely that highest consecrating power which made the faint-hearted fishermen audacious victors of the universe through word and the struggle of life. Now let us examine such significance of this truth through the Old and New Testaments and the life of the Holy Church. The Lord called the Holy Spirit a Comforter in the sense of a source of the moral satisfaction and self- assuredness of sufferers. Such an understanding was not foreign to the sacred books of the Old Testament, on which were based the moral concepts of His listeners, and from which were drawn all the theological definitions of the fourth Gospel,2 such as Word, Life, Path, Truth, grace,

124 Dogma of the Holy Spirit

Light, etc. Is there a concept of comfort, comforter in the Old Testament, in the sense of moral satisfaction? There is, and in the perfectly identical set of ideas found in the farewell words of the Saviour. "Again I saw," says Ecclesiastes, "all the oppressions that are practised under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of them that oppressed them was power; but they had no comforter: and I held as more fortunate the dead who had already died..."(4:1-2). According to the words of Ecclesias- tes, the sufferings themselves are not so terrible as the absence of a comforter in them and of an understanding of them. Here, the word "comforter" is designated in the Greek scripture by the same term as is used in the New Testament, Paraclete, the Hebrew Menakhem, from the verb nakham. This word precisely designates satisfaction (appease- ment), e.g., in the words of the Lord in Prophet Isaiah, "Ah, I will satisfy Myself over My opponents" (1:24). From this verb is derived the name of Noah, that foremost bearer of grace and righteousness during the pre-flood era, and accuser of the sinful world (Gen.6:8). When he was born, his father "gave him the name Noah, saying, ‘He shall comfort us in our work and the toils of our hands because of the ground which the Lord God cursed' " (Gen.5:29). In other places where this word is encountered in the Old Testament, it likewise designates a reconciliation with sufferings, an inner satisfaction, that is, or an appeasing of the good or the accusation of the evil. Therefore, the Jews also called Nathan the accuser "Menakhem." Ecclesiastes awaited such

125 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith a Comforter of the grieving and, not finding him, concluded that every good effort of man is powerless and fruitless because the crooked cannot be made straight (1:15), and every right work and success will create only envy (4:4) and, on earth, there is one fate for the righteous and the unrighteous, the good and the evil alike (9:2). If the fate of the righteous and the sinners is one and the same and, moreover, the righteous expect the cross and persecution sooner than the lawless, then what will restrain them from falling into sin and despondency? Precisely that Comforter will restrain them, Who was not yet revealed to Ecclesiastes but was sent down from the Father by the Lord Jesus Christ. What are His activities for those who struggle with the world or with personal sin? Precisely those that were promised by Jesus Christ, so that Christians continually referred to that victorious joy in sorrows, steadfastness, and the spreading of Christ's faith as a comfort of the Holy Spirit, as we read in Acts, "the Church...in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, was multiplied" (9:31). Throughout the New Testament, the words "comfort" and "to be comforted" designate this inner satisfaction (e.g., Mt.5:5; Lk.6:24; 16:25), and that, above all in the sense of comfort in sorrow and grief endured for the sake of God's work in the struggle with the world or with one's self (Acts 20:1-2; Rm.15:4; 2Ths.2:16). This holy disposition, accessible only to Chris- tians, was and is and will be a gift of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. These gifts are varied, according to the sense of the Holy Scripture, but they all have for their aim, spiritual perfection, and they do not at all replace this latter despite the interpretations of contemporary false teachers. First of

126 Dogma of the Holy Spirit all, the assimilation of the Holy Spirit by believers changes them into a new man: "I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance," said the holy Forerunner, "but He Who is coming after me is mightier than I, Whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Mt.3:11). This second baptism took place on Pentecost after the Ascension, according to the Lord's word, "John baptized with water, and in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5). Everyone knows how much the apostles changed after this wondrous pouring out of the Spirit. In the Epistle to the Corinthians, we find an enumeration of those spiritual perfections that are imbued through the assimilation of the Holy Spirit: the gifts of wisdom, faith, healing, prophecy, etc. (lCor. 12:8- 11). In other apophthegms of the New Testament, these gifts are spoken of separately. Thus, first of all, the Holy Spirit cleans man's conscience, gives it a higher and undis- puted assurance in its directions, "Truly I say in Christ, and lie not, my conscience testifies to me in the Holy Spirit," writes Apostle Paul. This is why, according to the words of Apostle Peter, the Holy Spirit descends with special strength into those who endure sorrow for the sake of obedience to the conscience: "If you are abused for the name of Christ, blessed are you, because the Spirit of glory, the Spirit of God is resting on you. On their part, He is blas- phemed, but on your part He is glorified" (lPt. 4:14). If one is brought to trial for Christ's truth, then the Holy Spirit provides the righteous one with a reply at the trial: "Take no thought of how or what you will say....For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in

127 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith you" as the Lord assures His apostles (Mt.10:19-20). Truly, when members of several synagogues entered into an argument with Stephen, "They could not oppose the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke" (Acts 6:10). Sin against the Holy Spirit is that conscious opposition to, the conscious renunciation of, the testimony of the conscience, which thus cannot censure (and guide) man as long as he remains in such voluntary obduracy. As the enlightener of our conscience, imbuing with a disdain toward danger, the Holy Spirit is for us, as well as for those (outside the Church), a constant witness of the truthfulness of Christ's path, a witness of His Divinity, as the Lord promised in His farewell talk. This promise was fulfilled very soon, for in a few weeks the apostles said, at their trial, "We are His witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Spirit, Whom God has given to them that obey Him" (Acts 5:32). The Holy Spirit assures us of the fact that Christ abides in us (lJn.3:24) and that we are God's children (Rm.8:16). Thus, He bestows upon us not only patience, but also hope with love (Rm. 5:5), and this love bestows on us a constant joy in the Holy Spirit (Rm.14:17). Such joy is not at all a fruitless poetic ecstasy, but a love toward everyone, which is why the promise of Christians, according to the Apostle's word, was a promise about the Holy Spirit (2Cor.13:14); it is precisely the Holy Spirit Who places the overseers of Christ's flock to feed the Church of God as the apostle says (Acts 20:28), and Christ the Saviour depicted this gift of instructorship as a gift that gushes forth enthusiasm and love, in the following words: "Whoever believes on me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. This He said of the Spirit Whom they that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified" (Jn.7:38- 39). Has the Church preserved such an elevated teaching about the activity of the Holy Spirit, about His gifts? It

128 Dogma of the Holy Spirit could not do otherwise, for the divine services are composed, like a mosaic, from the words of the Holy Scripture. Examine the service for Holy Trinity day, examine the antiphons for all eight tones: you will find in them precisely those thoughts about the Holy Spirit which we have set forth. Or examine the Church's prayers said during the celebration of those things in which, above all, the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed, i.e., the serving of the Myster- ies; or examine the content of that prayer to the Holy Spirit, the Heavenly King, with which the good child of the Church begins every action; and you will see that everywhere in these there is the thought about moral purity, about clarity of conscience, about unity with God and Jesus Christ, about the communion of love with everyone. Therefore, if Tolstoy calls our faith "Holy Spiritism," then this would designate such a faith which teaches fearlessness before external dangers, self-denial, chastity, love, hope and patience. The unsteady teaching about grace, alien to moral purification, which is inherent in Khlysts and other sectarians, compels them to depart from the Church and to hate it, as darkness hates light. A somewhat more external, mechanical representation of the bestowal of grace on man is characteristic of our dear false wisemen, of Protestantism and Catholicism; but glory to God, it cannot be grafted to the religious practice of the Orthodox although it strives to show influence in scholastic literature. The Orthodox divine services are so strongly penetrated with the teaching about faith, purity of heart, sincerity and humility as the main conditions for our drawing near to God, that no external influence is capable of suppressing or clouding the conscience of Orthodox Christians who have been enlightened by them. Tolstoy claimed that the piety of the Ortho- dox Church consists in telling one's sins to the priest and swallowing Communion from a spoon; but in his own

129 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith stories, he describes how great a moral struggle and inner work is fulfilled by a person in approaching the mysteries and what a change one feels in oneself after receiving it. It is also correct that our Russian people love our ritual, but there is not a single rubric which, in their eyes, is not by its very essence an expression of one or another moral truth. Let our faith be as much Christ's as the Holy Spirit's; let us for a moment, grant Tolstoy his error, that he has Christ's faith, but without the Holy Spirit. But then the difference between our faith and his faith would be precisely that which distinguished the intelligent and self-denying faith of the apostles after Pentecost, from the faint-hearted, senseless faith, not alien to self-love, which they had during the life of Jesus Christ on earth. One might ask, "Your Orthodox faith is holy according to its own teaching, but how is this realized in the conscience of its present bearers?" In this vein, Tolstoy slanders the very teaching, mocks the lofty truth about the Holy Spirit in its dogmatic definition. If, however, we look again, then we shall see that Orthodox people never lose the conscience that God requires from them first of all, sanctity, that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are gifts of an inner sanctification. This striving towards spiritual purity, this constant contrition for one's spiritual impurity, is not only the fundamental mood of our faith, but also of our believing society and believing people, which always understands piety as a self-denying and even a suffering struggle for Christ's truth, that struggle in which the Holy Spirit confirms Christians. To Him be glory with the Father and the Son unto the ages.

130 Dogma of the Holy Spirit

ENDNOTES:

1. [Ed. Note:] Moral satisfaction: literally Udovletvoren4e the expression includes the fullness of the word satisfaction, especially, "to fulfil completely," "to give consent to," "to compensate, appease and atone," "to make up for all deficiencies," "to fully reconcile," etc. The full meaning of both the Russian and English words is identical. The idea expressed here is that the Holy Spirit grants a complete understanding and reconciliation with the sufferings to the righteous so that they are fulfilled and internally completely united with the moral purity and grandeur of their sufferings, being assured in the comprehension of them and the sure hope of eternal reward. 2. [Author's Note:] Rationalistic criticism did not notice this but sought these definitions in Philo (The Platonist Jewish philosopher) and even in Plato, but such a misunderstanding could arise only on the soil of specialization where the learned sit for ten years at a time over one scriptural book and do not know the other sacred books.

131 III MORAL IDEA OF THE DOGMA OF THE CHURCH

FOREWORD

When an author offers his readers an explanation of Chris-tian dogma, then if he believes in an Orthodox manner, he reckons least of all to introduce any kind of new truth into the consciousness of the Church. On the contrary, he is convinced that the fulness of the truth is a permanent attribute of the Church's consciousness. If, for example, before the 4th century, the concepts of essence and hypostasis had not been elucidated, or if before the Seventh Ecumenical Council no dogma of the honouring of ikons was defined, this does not in any way mean that the early Church did not know the correct teaching about the Trinity or vacillated between the veneration of ikons and iconoclasm. In these cases it was not the content of the faith which received a supplement in Christian consciousness, but rather the enrichment of human thought consisted in the fact that certain human concepts or everyday occur- rences were explained from the point of view of true Christianity. Even before the 4th century, the Church knew from the Gospel and Tradition that the Father and Son are one, that we are saved by faith in the Holy Trinity. But how to relate these truths to the human philosophical concepts of person and nature [or, hypostasis and essence] (particularly with regard to what place these concepts have in the being of God) was taught to people by the fathers of

132 Dogma of the Church the First Ecumenical Council and those who followed them. In exactly the same way, if any contemporary person, for example, a simple, humble Christian such as Khomia- kov, starts discussing the truths of the faith in seemingly new terminology, while remaining in agreement with Orthodox theology and without any contradiction of Church Tradition, then he does not reveal new mysteries of the faith. He only elucidates, from the point of view of eternal truth, new questions of contemporary human thought. The contemporary reader, seeing in the author's words a long awaited answer to his perplexities in faith, is prepared to proclaim such an explanation as a "new revelation." Another, a stranger to such questions, a devotee of scholastic reference books, hesitates, with distrust and ill will, to agree with the author and stubbornly searches for heresy in him, not wishing to be reconciled with the fact that the subject is apparently explained better than in the established textbooks. This is true of Khomiakov who had said nothing contrary to the textbooks. An evaluation of the comparative worthiness of his exposition with that of the standard texts depends not upon the explanation of that eternal content of faith, which he in no way strays from, but primarily upon the elucidation of the changing questions of contemporary thought. One of the most persistent, most clearly defined questionings of the modern age concerning our faith is the moral content of its dogmatic truths. This content was never estranged from the consciousness of the Church. For obedient and enlightened children of the Church, the Symbol of Faith has always been, and always will be, an exultant hymn of praise. Almost every prayer of the Church ends with the remembrance of the Holy Trinity, precisely as the source of all moral treasures. But contempo-

133 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith rary theology, as a science, is in want of a clearly expressed and consistent formulation of precisely what moral concepts are contained in the truths of the faith and how the first are defined by the second. Thus, it is natural that those re- searchers who know Christianity only as it is expressed by scholars or in textbooks, being strangers to a direct experience of the whole of Church truth, are perplexed as to why our faith demands so persistently that its followers accept numerous apparently purely theoretical dogmas, whereas its Founder stated only: "If you wish to enter life, keep the commandments." We said, "are perplexed;" unfortunately, however, our presumptuous contemporaries refuse to be perplexed but, just as Krylov's rooster,1 prefer confidently and stubbornly to negate and defame what they do not understand. It is these perplexities that we are seeking to answer, both in this present article about the Church and the previous ones: about the Holy Trinity, about Redemp- tion, and about the Holy Spirit.

1 The Significance of the Dogma of the Church In History and in Contemporary Studies

Of all dogmas of the faith, the dogma of the Church is subjected to the most intense attacks from sectarians2 in particular and the strongest hatred by all rationalists in general. With a special zeal, our hopeful liberals circulate translated works about the inquisition and the struggle between culture with Papism, in the not unfounded hope that the Russian reader will himself be able to relate all the evil said of Papism to the Orthodox Church. At the same

134 Dogma of the Church time, however, Russian "westernizers"3 also stress the fact that the enticing grandiosity, consistency and power of conviction of the Papal system (all that Papism can really boast of) is foreign for our Church administration. If the authority of the Church does interfere with our liberals, it usually acts passively, without flair or rhetoric. Thus, it is not surprising if its apostates do not think of it even as a powerful dark force, as did L. Tolstoy, but rather as a dreary old grumbler. Yes, our modern age has just such a pitiful picture of that greatest sacred treasure of Christian teaching, without which this teaching would have remained a truly abstract, lifeless dogmatism, without which there would not have been that essential transformation in life which our faith has brought about in the universe. If, at the present time, false liberals consider the teaching about the Church to be a hindrance to their faith, then why do they not want at least to ponder over the fact that it was precisely this truth about the Church which was the main force for attracting the newly enlightened peoples and nations to Christ? True, even without the dogma of the Church, Christianity is rich in lofty ideas and compunctious images (including the events of the Gospel story). But all these would have been left impotent for moral regeneration had they not been again and again incarnated in the personal life of Christians and if this life had not been the constant expression of that spiritual unity, that tender mutual love and mutual solicitude. These things could not have been instilled into Christians either by faith in the future life, or by love for the Saviour, or by remembrance of His sufferings. This

135 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith could have been accomplished only by His words and those of His apostle concerning the Church: that He granted His truth and His grace not to each believer individually, but to their oneness in the Church, which is like a body, brought to life by the Spirit of God, uniting its members into one living union of love, that they might live by means of this unity and die spiritually if they should but fall away from it. Ancient Christians understood this most important condition of their spiritual life and it was in it that they found strength for the fulfilment of the most difficult task in life: to love one another. Our contemporaries no longer understand this and they are in need of a theorematical4 explanation of the significance which the dogma of the Church possesses for the spiritual perfection of the individual. It is just such an explanation that we wish to offer. The indicated teleological5 aspect in the interpretation of the dogma of the Church is not just coincidental, relevant only to contemporary ways of thinking. The most authori- tative dogmatist of Orthodoxy, St John Damascene, says that God revealed to us all of His properties and His providential decrees that are needed for our salvation and concealed all that does not have a direct relationship to this purpose. In particular, not only is the truth about the Church revealed to us for this aim, but the Church itself is established solely for this purpose. Who is unaware of the words of the apostle about Christ: "For because of Him the whole body [the Church], joined and firmly knit together by the ligaments and joints with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly grows to full maturity,

136 Dogma of the Church building itself up in love" (Eph.4:16). The purpose of the Church is clearly set forth and defined: it consists in the spiritual growth of Christians. Yet, as the consequence of some sad misunderstanding, it is precisely this essential aspect in the definition of the Church that is omitted by all contemporary theological writers. They are evidently completely oblivious to the fact that the definitions cited by them suffer from a logical incomplete- ness which strikes the eyes of the conscientious reader. The majority of textbook definitions of the Church begin thus: the Church is a society which is established, united, etc. But, you see, the principal definition of a society is contained in its purpose, its aim, and almost nothing is said about this in the textbook formulation of the dogma. Not long ago there appeared in print a different definition of the Church as the body of Christ, which provoked a whole polemic. Moreover, those who were arguing said almost one and the same thing or even exactly one and the same thing, even though they reproached one another with ample vehemence. The above-cited words of the apostle served as the main basis of such a definition, but for some reason no one considered it necessary to read these words through to the end, and the sacred quotation was discussed from every angle except from its central idea. If we are to examine the truth of the Church from the point of view we have set forth, then we have to set the following thesis at the head of our deliberation: for man's salvation or, what is the same, for the spiritual perfection of man, three elements are necessary: man himself, God, and the Church. This third element is usually not considered to

137 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith be at the basis of our salvation, for in European theology this theme has been explored pre-eminently by Protestants. But we know that the kingdom of God which our Saviour brought to earth is not merely a sanctification of man's personal life through the direct action of the Being of God on him, but is also the basis on earth of a new existence, a new principle, and it is only on this basis that our Lord enters into relationships with the human individual. This existence, this principle, is the Church. It is noteworthy that even in that exceptional case when, after the foundation of the Church, the Lord called the persecutor Saul to Himself directly from His heavenly throne, even here He did not leave him outside the most intimate direction of the Church, that He did not reveal His will to him directly, as He had formerly done to Elijah and the other prophets, but sent him to Ananias for instruction, for the reception of the grace of God in the Holy Mysteries, and for the healing of the blindness of his eyes. Here the Lord revealed that He does not know His servants outside the Church. Even earlier, when He was teaching only the basics of His revelation, in the majority of His parables He contrasted the new spiritual life not only with the sinful, hypocritical personal life of the individual man, but even more often to the unharmonious divided condition of human society. In His new kingdom, people will unite not only in friendly brotherhood, strangers to division according to nationality, social class and wealth, but they themselves will constitute a certain new unified existence which will grow as dough leavened by a housewife, as a tree which attracts everyone into its shade, as a grapevine in which the vine is Christ and

138 Dogma of the Church the branches are the Apostles.

2 The Main Thought in the Dogma of the Church

Finally, when the Lord had already told His disciples all that He had received from His Father,6 He raised His eyes to heaven and offered a prayer to the Father for the fulfilment of the purpose for which He came on earth. That prayer was about nothing other than the ordering on earth of the new, unique existence of the Church, an existence which at the present time is alien to mankind divided by sin, an existence which had been only prefigured by the Old Testament Church. This existence has its likeness not on earth, where there is no unity but only division, but in heaven, where the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit achieves three Persons in a single Being, so that there are not three Gods, but a single God, living a single life. In precisely the same way this single new existence, the single new human being, is achieved on earth from the formerly inimical society of Jews and pagans.7 However, the aim of this new existence on earth consists not in itself, as a whole, but in its relationship to each of its component parts, i.e., to the human individual. "I will also," says the Lord, "that those whom Thou hast given Me be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me...that the love with which Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them."8 Such is the ultimate goal regarding its members of the Church founded by Christ. But the

139 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith intermediate goal, the immediate goal without which it is impossible to attain the ultimate goal of our existence, consists in the constant spiritual perfecting of the individual in the Church — in the sanctification of the Christian by the Truth of Christ: "for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth."9 The Church is, therefore, a completely new, special and unique existence on earth and it is impossible to define it with precision with any concept taken from earthly life. If those thinkers who, in their theological arguments argued that their definition of the Church as a society was superior to its definition as the body of Christ, thought they were providing a true definition of the Church while their opponents were offering only a comparison, then we assert that their claims are altogether unfounded. Every society on earth has so many facets which bear no resemblance at all to the life of the Church, and so few qualities in common with Her, that we would prefer the "comparison" to such a supposedly formal "definition." Such a comparison is authorized by the Holy Scripture when the relevant words of the apostle are examined in their fulness, without the omission of their main thought. This main thought ("For the building up of oneself in love") already contradicts the image of the body, which knows no love, and once again points out that the concept of the Church is a concept of a unique existence which is contrary to everything earthly. We shall pause for a more detailed description of this existence. At some point afterwards, we shall point out its practical manifestations and thus try to resolve the most abstruse of the questions in the reciprocal argument of the

140 Dogma of the Church

European denominations: where and how is one to search for the true Church? We have seen, from the words of Christ the Saviour cited above, that the Church is a likeness of the Trinitarian existence, a likeness in which many personalities become a single essence. Why is such an existence as that of the Holy Trinity novel and incomprehensible for the "old man"?10 Because in natural self-awareness, the personality is a self-enclosed existence in radical contradistinction to any other personality. Let us now leave the language of abstract definitions, which by necessity is dry and terse, and let us examine the practical influence of this law upon our will. First of all, we see that this law of our natural existence (which is recognizable in our direct self awareness) radically contradicts the moral law of the Gospel, which demands of its followers self-denial and love of one's neighbour. It is true that this law is not completely alien to human nature, which is inclined to love; although it is also inclined to the same extent to preserve its own "I," in feelings of self-love and vengefulness. And so, as long as man sympathizes with Christian law only so far as his own natural inclinations go, he will never accept the fulness of Christian love, will never become a true Christian: he will love some persons, even fervently, but he will hate others; love and self-love which are expressed in hate, will thus remain in him like two irreconcilable enemies. "But is this not an incessant contradiction in the soul of man?" we are asked. Of course, we reply; natural man is an incarnate contradiction and nowhere does the inner contradiction of his nature show itself with such force as in the

141 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith feeling of natural love. In sexual love, for example, love and hatred blend into one strange, monstrous process where reproduction is often accompanied by murder. Or take the highest manifestation of natural love, maternal love in animals or natural people: even here passionate fits of tenderness towards children constantly take turns with passionate fits of angry rage against the children themselves, if they are slow to comprehend the mother's desires. A hen which has led her chicks out will hardly cease for a minute to maintain a threatening appearance; the cow, which is ordinarily so meek, can become more terrifying than a beast of prey when a newly-born calf is near her. We know how strongly this internal contradiction of love and hatred is increased in people from constant observation of life and from the skilful representation of them in literature (e.g., Egyptian Nights by Pushkin, The Gentle One by Dostoyevsky, Mother by Nekrasov, and many others). Human thought has not reconciled this contradiction but has rather strengthened it. When they took the concept of individual freedom as their basis — the single concept upon which they can base the lofty requirements of strict morals — then together with the teaching of justice, chastity, and honesty, they began to preach a haughty and cold, legalistic and formal relationship with one's neighbour. Such is the teaching of the Stoics and of Kant who completely negated the virtue of love and proposed to replace it with a principle of respect for one's fellow man. The moral teaching of the scholastic theologians also revolved around concepts of formal duty, and since it was impossible for them to negate that love towards one's neighbour which is preached by the

142 Dogma of the Church

Scriptures, they limited it with a contrived teaching about love for oneself.11 And many legalisms, and contrived norms drawn from Roman and feudal law were introduced not only into their teaching about the relationship of people with one another, but also into their teaching about God and the Redeemer.

3 The Absence of this Concept In Contemporary Morality and Philosophy

Both the latest humanistic morality and the Protestant morality of a rationalistic bent, arrive together at the conclusion that in order to strengthen the principle of love, it is necessary to break away from "scholastic" concepts regarding the individual, of freedom of the will, and of rewards. In place of these concepts, which preserve egoism, they wish to establish the contrary view of existence as something singular: a single divine life diffused in creatures and striving to blend once again into one blessed fulness. It would follow from this, that the principle of unity and love must be the single principle of thought and of life. Thus spiritualism is replaced by pantheism, a principle which has priority in contemporary European philosophy and rationalistic theology. We shall suggest that the main basis for the development of such a world view is not so much humanism as Protestant predestinarianism, which negates the significance of moral struggles of the will, and antinomianism of philosophical morality—in short: a decline of morality which has been concealed by the mask

143 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith of humanism. Let us take only the positive side of this world view (pantheism), without penetrating into its concealed meaning. In it, the partition between individuals would seem to be demolished, the contradiction between "I" and "not I" destroyed; there is no place for a haughty self-exaltation of the non-entity which is called man. But in destroying freedom of the will, the difference between good and evil, and man's moral responsibility is destroyed. Together with this, the attractiveness of the moral struggle of love and its moral obligatoriness are also destroyed. Thus, for the critics of such theories, Apostle Paul for example, only one conclusion would remain: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." The contradiction between haughty, sensual egoism and the principle of love, which is a contradiction present in (fallen) human nature and life, is not resolved by the searchings of philosophical thought as long as this thought is based on one or another principle of natural life. It does not matter whether this basis is the principle of the freedom of the individual or the principle of natural humanism: in the former instance a legalistic formalism is established, and in the second — pantheism. It is evident that both abstract thought and real life postulate an initial concept in which a reconciliation could be established between a free self evaluation of the individual and the principle of self denial and a life for others — wherein these others, this "not I," would not be somehow the opposite of me, of my "I"; wherein the freedom of each individual could be combined with a metaphysical unity of their existence by some other means than pantheism. The Church represents just such an

144 Dogma of the Church initial concept in those definitions which we gave Her above on the basis of God's word. And indeed, we see that the individual who develops in the Church combines the fulness of self denying love with a high degree of individual will. The most typical representatives of this combination are found in the categories of holy martyrs, ascetics and hierarchs of the Church from ancient times until now. In all three of these categories, though they are extremely different in the conditions of their lives, we find an identical harmonizing of these two opposite qualities, which neither natural life nor pagan or western philosophy could provide. All these three categories are giants of will with an extremely sensitive awareness of their moral responsibilities, but at the same time they are completely estranged not only from coarse worldly egoism, but also from even the faintest self exaltation or any pretension at all to individual rights. The first two categories live and die wholly for the Church brotherhood and the glory of God, while the third considers his highest task in life to be the renunciation of his own will before God and the authorities of the Church. The Christian truth about the Church12 frees man, not only in thought but also in life, from the natural contradiction between the self-consciousness of the individual and self-denying love as a principle of life. Why is it this subject in particular that must be explained? We have said that the definition of the Church must be drawn not from concepts of earthly life, but from the teaching about the Triune Being of God, as the Lord taught us in His parting prayer.13 God is one in Essence and in Life, but Trinitarian in Persons. Likewise the Church is one in essence but multiple in the

145 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith persons who compose it. What is this singular essence of the Church and what is its relationship to natural man?

4 The Church and the Individual

In the Holy Scripture and Tradition of the Church, it is often said that the Lord came to earth to restore man to what he was before his fall, and to restore in mankind His image, which had been darkened in it by passions. If we now say that this image was an image of the Triune Divin- ity, and that it is precisely such an image that Christ is restoring in mankind, through the ordering of the Church, i.e., the image of consubstantiality in plurality of persons, as it is said in the high-priestly prayer (Jn.17), then, perhaps, the defenders of textbook theology will accuse us of being free thinkers. We will silence them, however, with a single, completely clear pronouncement of Holy Tradition, if they do not wish to be convinced by either the Gospel or the words of Paul concerning the new man whom Christ creates from all — Greeks and Jews who have come to believe (Eph.2:15). First, however, we shall clarify our thought about the consubstantiality of the Church, which is a restoration of the unity of human nature, a unity which was destroyed by sin. In relation to God's Essence, theology defines the concept of the single Divine Nature as the spiritual nature of Divinity, those spiritual powers and characteristics of divine life which are brought into action by the free will of the Divine Persons. The same concept is understood by the

146 Dogma of the Church

"nature of mankind" and by the "nature" of each separate individual. This separation of person and nature in us is not something incomprehensible and abstract, but a truth which is directly affirmed by self-observation and experience. Recognizing an independent personality [personhood] and freedom of will and action in oneself, each person clearly understands that this independence, this freedom, consists solely in the directing of the energies and properties of the nature shared by all men, each in its own area of specialization, in the development of certain innate inclinations and the destruction of others, while choosing between conflicting inclinations, etc. But we all understand clearly that every man must think according to the four laws of thought, pass through a certain sequence in the transition from any habit to its opposite; no one can walk on air, stop breathing, etc. In short, we feel ourselves endowed with a certain nature, both physical and psychic, with a partially known psychic content. Our freedom can effect various alterations only in certain areas and even then with significant limitations. It is this psychic nature of ours, this subconscious will, common to all men and inevitably present within us, which is the human nature. So far, with regard to the definitions accepted in contemporary theology, we have said nothing new. But if we limit ourselves to what we have just stated, then we must understand the single human nature not as an actual essence, but as a sort of abstract, general concept. Such a concept cannot provide the basis for an explanation either of redeeming grace through which, according to Scripture and Tradition, it is precisely the human nature that is sanctified, and not

147 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith simply each human individual taken separately. Having lost this concept of human nature as an actual essence, the [Latin] theologians of the Middle Ages were obliged to explain ancestral sin solely by means of hereditary rights, to ascribe to the Creator a concept of hereditary vengeance, which is even beneath the dignity of man, and place this concept at the basis of their explanation of the Divine ekonomy of our salvation. Nevertheless, these medieval theologians and, still earlier, Plato, vaguely sensed that certain general or generalized concepts exist which are not just abstract observations of the properties common to certain objects, but which have a real, autonomous existence. (The argument between the nominalists and the realists was over this very question). Among such concepts as these is the concept of a single human nature. What actual and real existence does it have? In the existence of God, this existence is as actual as the existence of each Divine Person. Even more so, in fact, because we do not speak of the existence of three gods, but of one God, although we also confess the existence of the Father, the existence of the Son, and the existence of the Holy Spirit. We know that these three Divine Persons live the single life of the Divine nature — a nature that is holy, good, entirely just — even though They are permeated with this single life through Their personal freedom, as the Lord said, "I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love" (Jn.15: 10). If people had not fallen, had not been filled with the spirit of opposition and divisiveness, if they had not thus weakened that unity of their own nature, then with the same force, there would be revealed in their hearts also the

148 Dogma of the Church life of that common Divinely created human nature, the nature which was "very good" (Gen.1:31) and which God "made as an image of His eternal being" (Wis.2:23). It would remain only for each separate human individual freely to comply with that well-spring of love, virtue, reasonableness and joy pulsing within him. While studying the exquisitely beautiful creation of God together with the Creator Him- self, and delighting their heart with mutual love and joy, people would become more and more imbued with the consciousness of their unity, and it would be difficult to speak of the actions and thought of Peter, Paul, and John, but one would have to speak and think simply about the actions of man. Nevertheless, this uniting of all into one would remain infinitely foreign to that pantheistic nirvana of which contemporary philosophers have become so enamoured. It is precisely this unity, this community of human thoughts, feelings, and actions that would constantly be established and built up by the free will of each separate individual and would thus safeguard the moral value of its being. This is what would distinguish it from that unity of movement of different parts of a well-ordered machine or from the unanimity of the irrational ants or bees, which are guided in their tireless toil by instinct which is blind and knows no freedom. But our forefather interrupted this blessed life of human nature by self-loving disobedience, and his descendants ruined it more and more by new sins. Eventually, even human self-consciousness lost it almost completely, reaching such a degree of individualism that the distinction between "I" and "not I" has become a starting point of human

149 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith thinking, while the triunity of God, in Whose image our nature is, has become an almost unfathomable mystery for the natural mind. For philosophers rooted in their own self-love, such a unity is even a logical absurdity. But behold, the Redeemer restores this single life of human nature, lost by our forefather, like the one which all people would have if they did not fall. This life is the Church which He founded. It is like the life of our first-fashioned forefathers, but differs from it somewhat, in that now it is built not on the easily accomplished free compliance of each individual with its own unspoiled nature, but on a compliance which is now full of struggle with the old (fallen) nature, which we must crucify. How- ever, before penetrating into the further examination of this life or, what is the same, of the dogma of the Church, let us cite the promised quotation from Holy Tradition. Here is what St Basil the Great says in the eighteenth chapter of the Ascetic Rules, describing the unanimity, humility, love and obedience of a monastic brotherhood:

"Those who live in common (i.e., monks) eradicate in themselves the sin of the forefather Adam and renew the original goodness, because there would be neither division, nor strife, nor wars among men if sin had not cleaved nature asunder. They [monastics] are exact imitators of the Saviour and His life in the flesh. For, just as the Saviour, after composing the group of disciples, made even Himself common for the Apostles, so with these.... They [monastics] rival the life of angels, for like them, they observe the community in all strictness.

150 Dogma of the Church

In advance they seize on the goodness of the promised kingdom, in a well disposed life and communion, representing an exact imitation of the life and condition there. They clearly express in human life how many good things the Saviour's incarnation has obtained for them, because, according to the measure of their strength, they lead human nature, which has been cut up into a thousand pieces by sin, back into unity both with itself and with God. For this is the main point in the saving ekonomy in the flesh: to bring human nature into unity with itself and with the Saviour, having destroyed the evil cleavage, to renew the original unity, just as the best physician, by applying treatments, again binds together a body which has been broken in many places."

It is clear, then, that we said nothing of ourselves. St Basil the Great says, first: that human nature was one before the fall; second: that it was cut apart by the fall, or by sin; third: that angels who had not fallen into the sin of self-love and disobedience preserved this unity of their nature unharmed; fourth: that the Saviour came to restore this unity in fallen mankind; fifth: that this restoration is expressed in the freeing of people from self-love, strife and stubbornness, and the restoration of the love of Christ and of obedience in their hearts and, sixth: that contrary to textbook philosophical systems, divine redemption consists primarily in the restoration of this newly grace-filled unity of people in love and obedience with God, with the Saviour and with each other. Now let us continue our consider-

151 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith ation.

5 More Particular Definitions of the Church

We said that the Church is this unity of the nature of believing mankind which Christ restored. The original unity of nature created by God was not an abstract understanding, but a real, living force which constantly manifested itself in the human heart, in a multitude of holy inclinations that were filled with love. So also the Church is not simply the sum of a multitude of separate people, nor is it a legalistic or governmental institution. It is first of all that grace-filled and holy life which was established by Christ, and which will exist inviolably and unfalteringly on earth up to His second coming, encompassed from without by certain definite forms, and manifesting itself, above all, in the holy and compunctious manifestations of faith, repentance, spiritual joy, purity, and love which every person who has received grace finds in his heart, not as fruits grown in his personality by his own will power, but as characteristics of another nature given to him from without — of the nature of that New Man, in Whom he arrayed himself by baptism. His further task consists in preserving and multiplying these holy first fruits of salvation, given to him from God — this life of the renewed nature, this life of the Church — by the moral struggle of the freedom of his individuality, while crucifying and banishing the adverse life of the old man. This moral struggle is infinitely more difficult than the

152 Dogma of the Church one which faced a mankind that had not fallen. With this understanding of the matter, it becomes completely comprehensible to us why the martyrs, monastic saints, and hierarchs mentioned above, while being giants of will, at the same time strove constantly to crush all affirmation of self- centredness, self-love, every assertion of the "I" within themselves. From this we can understand why even Paul, who, according to his own assurance, laboured more than all the disciples of Christ, says that it is no longer he that lives, that he has crucified himself, and that Christ lives in him, that it was not he that toiled in the Church, but the grace which was in him. Still, our elucidation of the true Church is not yet finished. We have pointed out its characteristics which link the concept of the Church with the concept of the human nature originally created by God, but we have not clarified the difference between these two concepts. This difference consists in that the life of the human essence or of human nature in each person would be expressed directly and without impediment had there been no fall. Christ's life which He gave to the Church and which flows into the soul of each individual is different. This instilling of a new nature (Grace) into the soul of every Christian is a more complex phenomenon. It does not come to pass so spontaneously as the development of the human personality of the innocent Adam on the fresh soil of human nature, but first of all through a conscious assimilation of Christ's life or of Christianity; and then also through a mysterious penetration of the newly grace-filled nature of the Church into our personality. The Lord and the Apostles point to both this and something else as being equally necessary means of a

153 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

Christian's acquisition of grace. When they speak of the rebirth or cleansing of our nature through the word of teaching, they mean the conscious penetration by the new life expounded in Divine teaching. On the other hand, everyone knows the Lord's parable about the unconscious and secret growth of the grace-filled seed of new nature in the soul of a believer. It is as if a man threw seed on the field, and then spent his days in leisure, while the sun and rain nurtured the plant and ripened the grain, without his effort; it is like the leaven which rises in a dark oven. Like the place of the birth of the wind, according to the Lord's words to Nicodemos, it is not apprehensible. Therefore, the Church is neither simply a school of Christian law, nor only an unconscious good energy mysteriously transferred by Christ into human hearts but, in particular, an energy such as is contained and spread by a conscious principle. From this, one can fill the usual lacuna in the definition of the Church as a society or as a body: that lacuna concerning the mission of the Church, which we noted above. In every definition of the Church, it must be pointed out that the mission of the Church is first of all to guard unharmed the conscious content of the newly grace-filled life, i.e., the divine teaching, and then to pass it on to individual persons quantitatively and qualita- tively or, what is the same thing, second, to spread divine teaching amidst unbelievers, and third, to lead believers to complete permeation by this life, or to full spiritual perfection. The comparison of the Church with a living body, cited by Apostle Paul, encompasses fully this mission of the Church.

6 The Church Militant

Some reader might well say, "But I do not see here either

154 Dogma of the Church the teaching of the Church as an organized society, or an indication of the sense in which the earthly as well as the heavenly Church is called holy and sinless. If you define the Church as the whole of the nature restored by Christ, of the newly grace-filled humanity, then where is your sinless authority of the earthly, militant Church? Are you not abetting the Protestants who hope only on the heavenly Church and are deprived of the Church in this life?" "This is a reasonable question," we would reply. The basis for its solution, however, has already been given in our preceding discussions. Truly, that grace-filled life which animates the Christian who gives himself up to struggle, is the life of the new Adam. And the more worthy a Christian is of his name, the clearer, more joyous and more actual is his awareness of his constant intercourse with the saints of past ages, and the more vividly he is penetrated by the Symbol of Faith which has been set forth for us, by the belief in the final judgment and the life of the age to come, as St John taught us in his Revelation (ch.21). Here, we already have a primary refutation of Protestantism which has abolished prayerful communion with the saints and prayer for the deceased. We have already said, though, that the life of the Church is a struggle against the life of the world. The world acts like both a known, conscious and a partially unconscious, force in each generation of mankind. Each generation of people must live through its own moral-historical task, must bring its talent to God and deposit its victory into the treasury of the Church. This is why the newly restored grace-filled nature of the Church — which increases in the Kingdom of Glory until the time when the number of the chosen will be fulfilled (Rev.6:11) — must have, in each epoch of the earthly struggle, a manifestation which is known and adequate to itself. Here on earth, amidst the struggle of Christianity with the world, the struggle between the

155 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith implanted new Church nature — this new Adam headed by Christ14 — and the old nature, the quantitative fulness of Christ's gifts to the Church must live and act (i.e., the incorruptibility of its conscious content or, a pure Ortho- dox Christian teaching). Secondly, the mystical energy for good (the holiness of the Church) which is given to the Christian soul in addition to its consciousness, as grace-filled gifts must also be seen to live and to act. And as the Life of the Divine Persons is a single Life of the whole, simple Divine Nature, so too the force of the grace-filled life of Christ, acting on earth, proceeds from the fulness of the Church, so that the entire Church culture on earth is holy and sinless, and not merely a separate branch or some sort of local authority, as the Papists wish to believe. It is not within the scope of this presentation to demonstrate this last statement in detail on the basis of divine revelation, since the authority of the militant Church is sufficiently well set forth in textbook theology. Nevertheless, we will point out to the reader that the majority of the Lord's parables about the Kingdom of God concern the militant Church. It is precisely to the militant Church that the Lord promised the fulness of His grace-filled gifts and to it are directed His words during the Ascen- sion: "I am with you always even to the end of the ages." This is exactly how the Book of Revelation depicts the struggle of the grace-filled kingdom of Christ on earth with the world, revealing Christ as the Leader and direct Head of the militant Church, as in the first vision of Him among the seven lamp-stands. The same is clear in the revelation of the future course of the Church.

156 Dogma of the Church

7 Theses

To believe in the Church means to believe that: First, Jesus Christ, in Himself, reestablished in those who enter into the flock of His disciples, the unity of human nature lost by man through the fall of Adam and the sins of his descendants. Second, this unity is not an abstract concept, but a living moral force, poured forth into the hearts of His disciples and acting in them as a source of good dispositions and intentions, and especially in their love toward God and each other. Third, this force, this Church life, will, according to Christ's words, always exist on earth and it is the sole means through which God leads people to salvation, i.e., to holiness and unity. Fourth, people living this Church life comprise, together with Christ, one spiritual being, directed by Him as Head. And, according to the measure of their becoming perfect on earth — but totally in heaven — they so strengthen this unity that it resembles the unity of the Divine Nature in three Divine Persons. Thus it fills each human personality with blessedness and holiness, the beginnings of which it gives to each from the very moment of his entry into the Church. Fifth, since the people of each generation, in their struggle with the world, begin to build on earth their spiritual perfection in Christ, the fulness of Divine gifts is

157 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith preserved at all times in the culture of people militant for salvation. Sixth, this culture or Church Militant is designated, first of all, to preserve unharmed the source of divine life, i.e., the divine teaching and good energy of the newly grace-filled life. Then, to transmit it both through teaching and prayer (especially the prayers through which the Holy Mysteries are accomplished): both to its own children for their perfection in the grace-filled life of the Church, and to those ignorant of Christ, for their entry into this life. Seventh, the task of each person wishing to be saved is, above all, to bring himself into accord with these holy dispositions of heart (granted to this individual from without by the truths of faith) with this life of the Church. Eighth, since one's personal life, when it encounters the Church, is a life which has a certain quality about it, a life already filled with sin, then this free accord with the newly grace-filled life of the Church must be more exactly called a free obedience. Ninth, since this is so, then life in the Church is encountered by the life of each individual as a principle to which submission is required. This life of the Church is a guide in a person's free, internal struggle. It is, therefore, essential that the life of the Church have certain defined external forms so that manifestations of Church life and Church discipline might exist. The general bases which define this external order of the Church were given by the Saviour in the Gospel and by the Apostles in the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, while the more particular development is left by Christ to illumined Church pastors. These more particular

158 Dogma of the Church aspects of Church order comprise an object of Holy Tradition, expressed for the most part in the canons [of the Church Councils]. Tenth, all the external conditions which define the manifestation of grace-filled or Church life on earth, and likewise the Church's guidance of Her children, are filled with that same spirit of grace-filled divine life, in which the essence of this life is contained. It is the spirit of love and holiness. Therefore, if we call these conditions external, it is not in the literal sense of this word, but in that they must somehow be visible in order to guide the inner life of our souls with the help of certain external means. Such is the content of the dogma of the Church. Is it necessary to say that such beliefs comprise the one, irreplaceable moral force for the Christian giving himself up to struggle, that without such beliefs his life is aimless, his struggle is deprived of any vital Foundation?

ENDNOTES:

1. [Ed. Note:] The Rooster of Krylov: A rooster in one of Krylov's fables who disdained a pearl in favour of a piece of grain. 2. [Ed. Note:] Tolstoyites, in the original. The Tolstoyites were the most vociferous of the Western style sectarians in Russia at the time of Metropolitan Antony's professorship in the theological academy. 3. [Ed. Note:] Westernizers: A political/philosophical group which was ashamed of Russia's past and present, and sought solutions to her problems by imitation of the West. They contrasted with the Slavophiles, who sought to solve Russia's problems by a return to what they believed to be the true (Orthodox) traditions of Russia. (See The Decline of Imperial Russia, H. Seton-watson, London, 1952.)

159 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

4. [Ed. Note:] Theorematical: A systematic explanation of something which is a demonstrable reality, but which is not always readily self-evident. “Teoreticheskom” in the original, which could also be translated as “theoretical” (but this rendering could confuse the meaning, especially in the American dialect of English). 5. [Ed. Note:] Teleological: An interpretation in terms of the purpose of a thing. Here, it refers to the fact that Metropolitan Antony is explaining the dogma of the Church from the point of view of its moral purpose. 6. Jn.15:15 7. Eph.2:14, 15. 8. Jn.17:24, 26. 9. Jn.17:19. 10. [Ed. Note:] “The old man,” in the sense of Cot .3:9. 11. [Author's Note:] In setting forth this false principle, the citing of the words of Scripture is completely wrong. Namely, two texts are quoted which taught love for oneself: the Saviour's words “love your neighbour as yourself” and the Apostle Paul's, “no one ever hated his own flesh,” and so on. But neither of these citations contains any teaching of love for oneself; they merely point to the fact that people do love themselves and nurture their flesh. Life's experience clearly tells us that insofar as a person is strengthened in love for his neighbour, to Just such an extent is he liberated from love for himself. 12. [Author's Note:] In advance, we shall lay down the condition that the moral strength of the Orthodox teaching concerning the Church does not end with this indication of its general significance. In addition, the Church is an irreplaceable guide for the Christian even in the future moral struggle of his life, which is again and again in need of the truth which is given by this teaching — both in the perfecting of one's faith and in the matter of attaining moral perfection. In order to understand this need clearly and beyond dispute, one must bear in mind one indubitable property of all moral and moral—cognitive activity of man in general and of the Christian in particular. We have in mind the law of life, which is forgotten by Western theologians: that attaining Christian perfection must be considered not as a free, unimpeded development of more complex phenomena from less complex ones, but as a constant, intense struggle which is filled with sufferings.

160 13. i.e., Jn. Ch.17.

14. [Author's Note:] In the Scipture and Tradition, both Christ Himself and the Church, headed by Christ, are called “the New Adam,” or “the New Man” (Eph.2:15; lCor.12:12; St Gregory the Theologian, Sermon of Theophany; St Isaak the Syrian, On the Merciful Spirit, e.g.).

161 IV THE MORAL IDEA OF THE DOGMA OF REDEMPTION

ONE Background Discussion Of Scholastic Errors

For the last thirty years, this basic dogma of our faith, that is, its formulation, has been the subject of constant reformulation. More exactly, it has been subjected to attempts at restoration. These attempts have been undertaken with a gratifying difference to all other such efforts in our creativity-impoverished theological science: this reformulation is directed not against Orthodoxy (or in deviation from it) but, on the contrary, toward true Orthodoxy. It has been undertaken with a desire to free the theological science which is taught in seminaries, and the school catechisms from heterodox contaminations. Just as in other cases, the negative aspect of this reformulation, that is, criticism of the interpretation of the dogma of redemption accepted in our schools, is pursued much more thoroughly — in a more detailed and convincing manner — than the positive aspect, that is, the matter of replacing the corrupt teaching with the correct one. No one has yet given a clear, direct answer to the question of why Christ's incarnation, sufferings and resurrection are saving for us.1 The reader ought not to think that we are trying to impose our resolu- tion of the matter upon anyone as if it were beyond refutation: let us allow for the possibility that it is incorrect. Still,

162 Dogma of Redemption we maintain that this is the only direct and positive answer yet made to the given dogmatic question. Other authors have either limited themselves to criticism of scholastic teaching (and, in truth, such criticism is often highly valuable both in the depth of its thought and by the wealth of erudition) or, they have offered, in answer to the given question, a general, very poorly defined speculation, for example: "Jesus Christ redeemed us not so much by His suffering as by His very incarnation — and only that." We will, incidentally, return to this consideration but, meanwhile, let us remain within the general boundaries of contemporary criticism of the catechistic and theological teaching on this dogma offered in our schools. At the present time, our theological research has sufficiently ascertained: (1) that this [juridical] teaching is borrowed entirely from the non-Orthodox, Roman Catho- lic teaching as formulated by Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas and Peter of Lombardy;2 (2) that it is not found in the Holy Scripture, nor in the holy fathers, for in neither do we encounter the terms merit and satisfaction, the juridical concepts upon which contemporary scholastic teachings about redemption wholly rest; (3) it has been demonstrated that this teaching cannot be brought into accord with either the doctrine of Divine righteousness or with the doctrine about His mercy, although it lays claims to introduce both these Divine properties. For those interested in the first two points, we refer to a brief, but valuable article of Archpriest Svetlov, An Analysis of Anselm's Teaching `Cur Deus Homo' (Why God Became Man), and also to the master's dissertation of

163 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

Archbishop Sergei: The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation, and the candidate's dissertation of Hieromonk Taras Kurgansky: Moscow and Kiev Theologians of the 16th and 17th Centuries (Missionary Survey,1902).3 In this work, he demonstrates how little the works of the Kievan writers, who borrowed from Roman Catholic sources, resemble the works of the Moscow theologians, who wrote in an atmosphere free of the influence of Western theologians.4 The comprehensive dissertation of Archpriest Svetlov; The Significance of the Cross of Christ's Work, as well as his other works, are also well-grounded refutations of the scholastic theory from the various aforementioned points of view. The third point of view enumerated above, the immoral aspect of the Western doctrine, has been expressed most emphatically by a professor of the ecclesiastical academy, Archimandrite Ilarion [Troitsky].5 In one introductory lecture, he urged his listeners to take up a campaign against the expressions (and the very ideas): expiatory merits and satisfaction to God's justice, as being completely alien to the Church, even though they litter our textbooks.6 The teaching about redemption proffered in our school courses and catechisms (I shall never call this a Church teaching) gives occasion to the enemies of Christianity to raise coarse, but difficult to refute, mockeries. Tolstoy, for example, says that, "Your faith teaches that Adam committed all the sins for me, and I must, for some reason pay for him. But, on the other hand, Christ has fulfilled all the virtues in my behalf, and all that remains for me to do is to fill in a receipt for one or the other sum." Japanese pagans

164 Dogma of Redemption object to our missionaries that: "You preach the most unreasonable faith, that God supposedly was angered at all people because of Eve's one act of foolishness. But then he executed His totally innocent Son and only then became soothed." I first spoke out against the excesses of this teaching of satisfaction in an article titled, Reflections Upon the Saving Power of Christ's Passions.7 A few days later, in the reception room of Metropolitan Isidor, the late Bolotov,8 in his usual raspy whisper, complimented me for the "new perspective in dogmatic theology." When, in explaining my boldness to him, I observed that the theory of satisfaction is taken by the Roman Catholics not at all from Divine revelation, but from Roman law, he responded, in his raspy whisper, "That is correct, but to be more exact — from the law of feudal knighthood." And indeed, scholastic dogmatic theology asserts thus: God was offended by Adam and had to be satisfied by someone's compensatory, punitive suffering, by someone's execution. This principle is taken from Roman and feudal ethics and, moreover, it successively penetrated all the laws of feudal society. An offended knight was considered to have lost his worthiness ("honour") until such time as he revenged himself. Moreover, the revenge had to be obtained in a precisely defined manner. First, it had to be obtained of a nobleman or knight of the same order and rank, even though the offender was but one of the servants of the neighbouring lord; second, the revenge had to be obtained by the shedding of blood, even if it did not prove fatal. These irrational principles, unworthy even of that epoch when the worth of people (who in this case, were

165 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith semi-bandits) was measured not so much by their virtues as by their prowess in battle — these undesirable remnants of paganism among the Roman Catholics of the middle ages passed down as the basis of the principles of the duel.9 Medieval and later scholastic theology resolved the matter of salvation in such a barbaric manner. It strove to explicate the very redemption of mankind by Christ's sufferings from the point of view of a duel. God, the Supreme Being, was offended and insulted by Adam's disobedience and the failure of the first people to trust in the Divine injunction concerning the tree of knowledge. This is an exceeding offence, and it is punished by the damnation of not only the offenders, but also of their descendants. Nevertheless, the suffering of Adam and the agonizing death which befalls his descendants are insufficient to wash away that terrible offence. In order to accomplish this, the shedding of blood is required, but not the blood of a servant. This could only be accomplished by the blood of a Being equal in rank with the outraged Deity, i.e., the Son of God Who voluntarily took upon Himself the penalty in behalf of man. In that manner, He obtained forgiveness of man from the angered Creator, Who had received satisfaction in the shedding of blood and death of the Son of God. In this, the Lord showed both His mercy and His justice! It is reasonable for skeptics to object that if this interpretation corresponded to revelation, then this conclusion would be stated, on the contrary: in this, the Lord showed mercilessness and injustice. Scholastic theologians attempt, nevertheless, to object to this with a reference to the voluntary nature of Christ's

166 Dogma of Redemption sufferings, and to convince their readers that not only did the Divine Son manifest love in accepting the crucifixion, but so did the Father Who subjected Him to it. "The Son's love is crucified, the Father's love crucifies." This is, however, a most unconvincing sophism, a mere play on words. What kind of love is it that crucifies? And who needs it? We do not doubt for a moment that it would have been impossible for people to be saved if the Lord had not suffered and risen from the dead, but the bond between His passion and our salvation is something altogether different. It is evident that this juridical teaching about the redemption diverges greatly from that of the Church, from the fact that the adherents of the juridical teaching are unable to find a place in the work of our salvation for that event of the Redeemer's life which, in the liturgical consciousness of the Orthodox Church, is considered to be the more salutary for mankind, and which constitutes the object of the feast of feasts and universal spiritual ecstasy. More consistent supporters of the juridical theory, i.e., the Roman Catholics, by whom it is embraced not only academically, as with us, but also in their church life itself, have demoted the very feast of Pascha and placed it lower than the feast of Christ's Nativity. Concerning the Russian Orthodox academic theology, the salutary significance of Christ's Resurrection, so profoundly assimilated in the Church consciousness and by the liturgical poetry, was first elucidated systematically by Professor Nesmelov, for which may he have honour and glory. Honour from the time he first read a lecture about the Resurrection (about 1898) and glory, it would seem,

167 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith only in the future period of our theological studies, which for the past half century have treated all creative thought with amazing apathy, while playing about with treatments of learned material (which, is occasionally useful) and on the compilation of feeble, inept German monographs (which is an almost useless activity). Let us suppose, now, that some reader will respond to me: "What right do you have to assert that the juridical theory is alien to the Holy Scripture and to Sacred Tradi- tion? Do we not find there that the Lord and Saviour is called a sacrifice, a purification; His blood is called redeeming; we are purchased by His blood; ransomed by His sacrifice? Moreover, certain of the fathers asserted that the sacrifice was offered to the Father, while others — that it was offered to the devil who had held control over us?3 Does the apostle not say that our sins are nailed down (and consequently abolished) to Christ's Cross, that the Heav- enly Father did not spare His Only-Begotten Son for the sake of our salvation, etc., etc.?" We will be told by those readers who are better informed in the Revelation: "While it is true that there are no expressions in the Scripture such as `satisfaction of God's justice' and `redeeming merits of the Son of God,' did not the scholastics who created them merely summarize those thoughts about the redemption

3. [Ed. Note] Saint Basil the Great, in his Great Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy gives the Orthodox Christian respond: the ransom was “offered” to death itself. But of course both ransom and redemption are metaphors, not Latin legal expressions. Both words refer to one who is held in bondage illegitimately. “Man was held in bondage by Satan through the fear of death, as Paul tells us in his letter to the Hebrews. The destruction of the power of death was at the same time redemption from bondage to the Evil-One and from death itself; thus from alienation from God. Theosis now became possible for us. Thus, the Orthodox Christian dogma is expressed as “ransom and theosis.”

168 Dogma of Redemption which are to be found in the Scripture and the fathers?" Such questions were put to me at one of the gatherings of the Kharkov religious instructors [catechists] when I expounded my ideas about the dogma of redemption, which were received with great sympathy. Nevertheless, those ideas so startled some of the highly educated instructors by their unexpected character that, being convinced by them, they said, "We will have to give up all that was crammed into our heads during fourteen years of study in the paro- chial schools, seminary and academy." Here, however, the conversation was about merit. But concerning the expressions of the Holy Scripture and fathers just cited, God forbid that we should dare to demote their significance: on the contrary, we will strive not only to bring our further interpretation of the dogma into full accord with them, but also to remove seeming contradictions between the fathers of the Church (e.g., sacrifice offered to the Father or sacrifice offered to the devil), which are so maliciously emphasized by the Protestants and their Russian admirers, but this is a subject for later pages of our work. Let us now pass on to a positive explanation of the dogma of redemption.

TWO A More Detailed Discussion Of the Sources of the Juridical Heresy

It is not an easy task to offer a positive explanation of this dogma, especially when it is offered for readers who are theologians. It is difficult, not because its exposition requires

169 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith some kind of extremely abstract dialectic, but because the consciousness of the readers or listeners who have been theologically trained, is so saturated with the juridical theory, that even its opponents such as Svetlov and Nesmel- ov, could not free themselves from its influence. This was demonstrated in the fact that Professor Nesmelov, while refuting the principle that God the Father received satisfaction through Christ's sacrifice, nevertheless maintains a similar significance, that is, a satisfaction of the conscience of the redeemed humanity who, supposedly, cannot accept the idea of reconciliation with God without some real means of vengeance. Professor Svetlov practically evades altogether the question of why Christ's sufferings are saving for us. He asserts that the primary significance for our salvation belongs not so much to Christ's sufferings, as to His incarnation, a significance which Saint Athanasios the Great clearly set forth.10 Archimandrite Ilarion [Troitsky] develops these same ideas, but does not come to a clear answer to the given question. When Fr Svetlov was defending his dissertation, in 1892 or 1893,11 I served as a challenger, and pointed out that no conclusion was reached concerning the relationship between Christ's sufferings and our salvation. He responded to the effect that this relationship was not subject to theological definitions, but only to the apprehension of the heart. Such respected professors as P.P. Ponomarev and Archpriest N.V. Petrov likewise do not follow through to a definite reply to this question. The highly competent and diligent Professor Skaballano- vich of the Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy, was so deeply

170 Dogma of Redemption convinced that this relationship between Christ's sufferings and our salvation could not be apprehended by reason, that, in his 1908 lectures in dogmatic theology, which I audited in the capacity of inspector of the academy, he supported his position by a negative reference to the fathers of the Church. To be precise, he pointed out that the fathers, who had not neglected to present logical demonstrations in the elucidation of the loftiest dogmas — about the Trinity and about the theanthropic nature of Christ — nevertheless, did not attempt to explain why Christ's sufferings are saving for us. He was quite taken aback when, in the corridor after the lecture, I expressed the converse opinion that the contemporaries of the fathers understood the redeeming grace so clearly that there was no need for an exposition of it. As an example, there is no present need to explain to village parishioners what humility, compunction and repentance are, though the intelligentsia are very needful of an explica- tion of these virtues from which they have long been alienated. Educated Christians who, since the Middle Ages, have been bogged down in juridical religious concepts, have likewise been deprived of that direct consciousness or spiritual awareness of their unity with Christ Who co-suffers with us in our struggle for salvation. Early Christians preserved the awareness of this unity so vividly and fervently in their hearts, that the commentators on the dogmas and words of the New Testament never encountered a necessity to explain what everyone apprehended so clearly. I became convinced, about four years ago, of how necessary and difficult it is now to provide this explanation. In a lengthy conversation with a certain affable candidate of

171 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith theology, of the seminary orientation, I expressed in some detail the essence of what the reader will encounter on the following pages. I realized that my collocutor was unable to comprehend the matter, although when I discussed this topic with senior-secondary school students, who were less saturated with the juridical theory, they easily comprehended it. One might understand this if the juridical theory had at least a vague appearance of being logical, but exposing its internal contradictions has already become a commonplace. Even Levitov,12 a recent advocate of this theory,13 refutes it himself, in his own process of "eliminating its extremes," after which elimination, nothing remained of the theory. We have expressed our dissatisfaction with the view according to which the crucial power of our redemption is transferred from the event of Christ's passions to His incarnation. It is laudable, nevertheless, that the authors whose ideas follow this direction have extended the concept of Christ's redeeming struggle to include the whole of his earthly life, as St Basil the Great expressed it in the Ana- phora Prayer; but they do not express the essence of their thought. The Lord accepted our nature and became like us, but why is His holiness imputed to us? Because His incarnation makes it possible for us to imitate the Perfect Man, Who became like unto us? This is true in part of course, but the cited Orthodox scholars were not satisfied by such a sosinian [unitarian; Arian] explanation. In precisely what aspect of Christ's incarnation and sufferings do we find the very cause, the very acting strength (causa efficiens) of the fact that we are made more

172 Dogma of Redemption perfect in personal suffering? Ought we to consider Christ's incarnation saving for us only because He manifested in the person a demonstration of perfection? This is salutary and glorious only for Him, but why for us? "In Him was human nature sanctified!" Undoubtedly so, but, as a matter of fact, it was sanctified only insomuch as it was expressed in His person; why then do we derive a sanctification and im- provement from this? You see, if any compassionate king were to conceal his rank and go to live in person with the prisoners, and endure all their toils and deprivations, it would be only his own personal moral struggle14 and not that of all the prisoners. Of course, they are influenced by his example and words of admonition, but we have already determined not to reduce the mystery of redemption to the example of the holy life of the Saviour and the regenerating power of His teaching. They say, "He received us into His nature," but by precisely what means? What thought, action or sentiment of Christ's can we indicate as an answer to this question posed in the instrumental case? We did not find an answer to this question in the cited authors, nor did we find it in Archbishop Sergei's15 excellent dissertation, The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation (now in its fourth edition), although it must be noted that his theme does not raise the question. We mention this book in view of the immense indirect service which it has rendered to the correct interpretation of the relationship between Christ's struggle and our salvation. Resting wholly upon the fathers of the Church, whose words are copiously cited by the author, this work affirms the simple truth, lost by the scholastic theologians

173 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith of the West, that our salvation consists in nothing else but our spiritual perfectionment, the subduing of lust, the gradual liberation from the passions, and communion with the Godhead. In other words, Archbishop Sergei's dissertation completely frees the concept of our salvation from those immoral juridical conventions by which the Latins and the Protestants (although in different ways) deeply debase the very aim of Christianity, expressed in the words of the apostle: "This is the will of God, even your holiness" (1Ths.4:3).16 How deeply this deviation, which we could call "moral monism," from the lofty principles of the Gospel has taken root in our academic consciousness, is evident from the following incident. During Archbishop Sergei's defence of his dissertation, the late Professor Muretov amicably, but forcefully, objected to the author that salvation is far more complex than the concept of personal (subjective) holiness and communion with God, for we must add to this the concept of justification, that is, the condition of discharge from the punitive sentence laid upon Adam since, without this, even personal holiness will not attain to the heavenly kingdom. As I recall, at this point, I too entered into the discussion and asserted that in the New Testament, and particularly with St Paul, the concept of justification does not at all have such a specific significance, but it really signifies righteousness, i.e., blamelessness, passionlessness and virtue, which concept is expressed by the Greek word *46"4@FÛ<0 which is synonymous with "(4TFÛ<0; `"D,J², etc. This was corroborated by the talented and highly erudite Professor Kliuchevsky (a historian rather

174 Dogma of Redemption than a theologian) who stated that he studied many ancient Greek juridical transcripts and documents and he could state that the concept *46"4@FÛ<0 has, in every case, a moral significance and never a juridical sense, which is expressed in Greek by the word *\60.17 The conversation among the four of us about the terms "righteousness" and "justification," that is, about the ethical (moral) and juridical understandings of redemption, took our opponent (M. D. Muretov) by surprise. Subsequently I observed that there were, on our side, incomparably stronger arguments than the simple interpretation of texts within the context of this conversation. The fact is that even in the Russian version of the Bible, which bears the marks of Protestant influence ( which can be observed in almost all the words set in italics in the New Testament, i.e., the conjectures of the translators, and in the preference of the late Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, to the correct, Septuagint), the word, "justification" is forced into Apostle Paul's mouth only seven times, while he uses "righteousness" sixty-one times. Moreover, of these seven instances, "justification" [Opravdan\e] is introduced erroneously three times instead of "righteousness" [Pravednost]18, as both the Greek and the Slavonic texts read. Not once does the Slavonic text render the word *46"4@FÛ<0 as "justification," but always as "righteousness."19 The Slavonic translators rendered as "justification" only the Greek words *46"\TF4H and *46"\@:" terms whose concepts are the opposite of condemnation or accusation, and which were used by the apostle in precisely this context, in contrast to these (i.e., condemnation or accusation) (for example in Rm.4:25; 5:16,

175 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

18; 8:4). To top it off, even the Slavonic translators erroneously render the Greek terms *46"\TF4H and *46"\@:" as "[juridical] justification" where these terms actually signify "law," "regulation" (for example, Rm.1:32; 2:26; Hb.9:1,10; also Lk.1:6; Rev.15:4).20 From all this, it is quite evident that the Pauline term *46"4@FÛ<0 ("righteousness")21 received its juridical character among our scholastic theologians,22 not from Divine Scripture, but from Lutheran theology. This theology, during the entire four hundred years of its existence, has directed all its energy toward undermining the moral spirit and the spirit of moral struggle in Chris- tianity, seeking to replace it with a doctrine of a carefree tranquility of the heart in the Redeemer, and the complete superfluousness of moral struggle, and the struggle with evil in one's soul and one's life. We have dwelt on the theses which were discussed at the conversation described above, in order to facilitate our further explanation of the dogma of redemption, for, we are led to the following conclusions from it: in order to answer the question, "Why are Christ's sufferings and resurrection saving for us?" we must bring out the relationship of these sacred events with our longing for perfection, with our inner struggle between good and evil; we must answer the question, "How does Christ's passion help us in this, and why are we unable to attain holiness and communion with God without it, since as is well known, this communion with God is given to us in the measure that a person has attained to passionlessness and holiness?" Inasmuch as these subjects have been sufficiently covered in the works of Archpriest Svetlov, Archbishop Sergei and

176 Dogma of Redemption other authors, we are freed from the duty of proving (1) that the juridical teaching about redemption came to us from the Latins, and not from the holy fathers, and (2) that redemption is nothing else but the gift of grace which bestows the capacity to work out our own salvation, and that salvation is spiritual perfection through moral struggle and attainment of communion with God. Concerning other expressions and dictums of the Holy Scripture which give an imaginary basis for juridical theory, we shall speak later, but now it is time to pass on to the main thesis of this work.

THREE Juridical Vengeance or Co-suffering Love A More Positive Exposition for the Moral Content of the Dogma Of Redemption23

In order to provide a completely Orthodox interpretation of the dogma of redemption for people interested in theological questions, it is necessary to produce a feasible work in which the interpretation of this dogma is the central thesis. Therefore, we will present our treatise in the same order as we have presented it in public lectures and class discussions, that is, by observing what constantly occurs before our eyes in life. The assimilation of redemption by faith is regeneration, despite the notions of scholastic theology, which separates one from the other. The attentive observer of life will have seen cases of spiritual regeneration more than once, or may even have consciously experienced it in himself, if his piety

177 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith was not innate, but was acquired after a temporary rejection of God and His commandments. Lutheran and even Russian theologians like to demonstrate regeneration by the parable about the prodigal son; but in this parable we are shown only the first step in regeneration — (with Lutheran theologians, the matter ends with this). The matter was accomplished more fully before the eyes of Christ's apostles in the person of Zacchaeus, who not only came to repentance, but also undertook the struggle of a decisive change of his life, for which reason the Lord said: "Today is salvation come into this house." This example is of special value because the regeneration of Zacchaeus took place under the direct influence of our Redeemer. Some readers, especially priests, will have certainly witnessed similar actions of grace in the life of some person, but these events probably did not take place so suddenly, rather the person went through a lengthy struggle with repeated falls. What are the conscious influences under which such a struggle as this is accomplished? (By "conscious" I mean someone's deliberate effort to bring reason to one who has fallen, or to bring an apostate to the path of truth). There are three types of such influences: admonition, example and something greater, about which we will speak later. A person who is not deeply corrupted, who believes and still prays, but who has gone astray, is sometimes brought to reason simply by exhortation and good example, but these means can help only such sinners as have not yet lost God's grace and can still stand up for themselves. Where, however, these means have shaken someone's soul very

178 Dogma of Redemption deeply (as for example the prayer of the traveller which the harlot Eudoxia heard through the wall, and because of which she later became a holy martyr) this is not accomplished by their own power, but by a power which is placed into them. This power is the force of regeneration, and by this power Christ has redeemed us. "What?" the reader will exclaim, "You are ascribing redeeming power to mortals? Is there not only one Re- deemer?" Of course, there is only one Redeemer, but by grace He grants a certain portion of this power to His servants and especially to His priests. You would not dare to reproach Apostle Paul when he says, "We are co-workers with God, and you are God's husbandry and God's building" (1Cor.3:9). And who does not remember these words of his: "Though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers: for in Christ Jesus, I have given you birth through the Gospel" (1 Cor.4:15). So the apostle calls himself a worker of — more exactly, a participant — of the regeneration of the believer, and not only of their regeneration, but also of their salvation: "I have become all things to all men, that I might in any case save some" (1Cor. 9:22). We must first ascertain what is the inner power of a spiritual shepherd by means of which he works, or rather, mediates, the regeneration of a believer — for it is wrought by Christ and the Holy Spirit — so that we can answer the main question of our research: by precisely what means does the Lord redeem and regenerate us? Let us turn again to life around us, since it is easier to find among men like us a similarity to the apostle than similarity to Christ. St Paul's

179 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith words, "Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ" (1Cor. 11: 1), apply equally to the servants of God today. Zealots of piety have not vanished and there are still found men and women whose deeds are in harmony with the apostle's words which have special reference to the moral influence which godly men exert (cp. 1Cor.10:33). A word of instruction is good, and still better is an edifying example, but what is incomparably higher than these? What would we call that third force which we delayed to define for a time? This power is co-suffering love, this power is the suffering for the sake of another person, which sets in motion his regeneration.24 This mystery is not so far from us: it is often fulfilled before our very eyes, and sometimes even through us ourselves (although we do not always comprehend it yet). As a power of regeneration, it is constantly spoken of not only in the lives of the saints and biographies of righteous shepherds, but also in stories of secular literature, sometimes with extraordinary depth and accuracy. Both speak clearly of the active, revolutionary and sometimes insuperable power of co-suffering love, although the first do not explain its relationship to Christ as our Redeemer, and the latter do not even understand it. As an old proverb says, "words instruct, and examples persuade," but co-suffering love pours out a new life-giving power into a sinner's heart if he does not purposely push it away. In submitting one's will to the co-suffering love of one's mother, one's friend, a virtuous wife or a good spiritual shepherd, or of the Chief Shepherd Himself (1Pt.5:4, as did Zacchaeus), the sinner suddenly finds in his soul, not the former hopeless debility and the indestructibly deep-rooted

180 Dogma of Redemption vices against which he has perhaps struggled so frequently, but in vain, but an influx of new strength, a new, enthusiastic vitality or a holy indignation. That which had formerly seemed attractive to him becomes vile, and what had seemed burdensome and tedious now becomes beautiful and sweet. The former curmudgeon and robber exclaims: "Behold Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I will restore him fourfold" (Lk. 19:9). We are, for now, pointing out the fact and we will offer the explanation of it later; but the fact — more exactly the law — of psychologic interaction [reciprocity] is present before us. Without a doubt, the co-suffering love of one who perceives the fallings of a neighbour with as much grief as if he himself were the sinner becomes a powerful force of regeneration. Sometimes it is expressed in admonitions, sometimes in tears or fervent prayers, sometimes in supplications to the one who has fallen. In all its forms, however, the effective cause is measured by the power of co-suffering love. This is always verified by experience. When, for example, you reprimand an unruly young person, your pupil or child, he stands there with a blank look, having only one thought: "I have to listen to this lecture!" You threaten him, but either he does not take the threat seriously, or he becomes angry. Realizing that reasonable arguments or threats are futile for moving his will, you either become angry (in which case, your cause is lost) or you are moved to compassion for the youth who is walking the path of corruption. You imagine yourself to be in his place and you are horrified at the fate that awaits him:

181 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith expulsion from school, venereal disease, perhaps prison, social contempt and even suicide. Your heart has become filled with compassion and sorrow, and having fallen silent for a moment, you begin to speak in a different tone. You tell him of your own personal wavering, of the heavy toll of internal struggle you had to pay to correct your own errors, how embarrassed you are at recalling the coarse words with which you insulted your parents in your own youth. And then, the countenance of your listener changes. His obduracy is shaken, he is moved to compunction and tears, and makes promises of self-correction in response to your benevolent words. If you will always maintain the ability to treat the young person with such angerless, compassionate love, putting away self-love from your soul, then the Lord will say to you, "You have gained your brother" (Mt. 18:15). He will gradually be completely regenerated and his acquaintances will marvel, thinking that he seems to be a completely different person from the one whom they knew to be a disorderly, lazy, dishonest debaucher. Some reader will object, "Permit me to ask what this has to do with grace, regeneration and redemption? You are telling us what takes place in secular life." We reply that this phenomenon may occur even in the lives of secular people, but in secular life, only the first glimmer of such a manifestation of God's regenerating grace is encountered. The more or less lasting and profound effect of such grace is brought to pass only by those who constantly pray to God and call on His all-powerful grace in all their dealings with their children, pupils or neighbours, banishing from their own hearts all vanity and worldly objectives.

182 Dogma of Redemption

It is difficult to reconcile this with the usual conditions of life in this world. That great Russian writer [Dostoevsky] who creates pictures of the spiritual regeneration of sinners in all his works, introduces in his novels such loving and compassionate people, not only from secular society (though some occupied secular positions, such as Prince Myshkin and the father of The Adolescent) but also he presented the schema-monk elder and the self-denying novice in the fulness of the grace-bearing nature. Dostoev- sky went to lengths to prepare his readers to turn away from their prejudices against monastics, and in his earlier works, he focused attention not upon those who serve in the mystery of regeneration, but upon those upon whom it was bestowed, usually under the direct influence of Provi- dence, that is, by means of disappointments, suffering, illness, impending death, and the like. On the other hand, in his last novel [The Brothers Karamazov], he portrayed the characters of two such examples of brotherly love — a youth and an old man in whom everyone who drew near to them experienced if not a transformation in soul, then at least deep moral stirring. And this was so for no other reason than that each one felt that he was dear to Elder Zosima, that the elder was, so to speak, entering into his soul and endeavouring to drive all evil out of it, and call forth every good thing to life. Here is how this is expressed in the Prologue for 29 May:

The elders have said that every man must do for his neighbours whatever he can. He must, as it were, put on his neighbour's flesh and carry his entire weight; he must

183 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

suffer and rejoice and weep with him in every circumstance, or, in a word, he must be with him as if he shared the same body and soul. If some affliction befall his neighbour, he must grieve for him as for himself. For, it is written, `We are one body in Christ,' and again, `the heart and soul of the multitude of those who believed was one.'

If this is so, a reader may ask, then where is man's free will? Alas, it is present in all its potency. To be precise, the inner stirring just aroused can only beckon the soul toward a better life, giving it the hope of possible regeneration. The acceptance or angry rejection of this call depends on an action of free will. The inevitable and unavoidable influence of grace-bearing co-suffering love lies only in its leading the soul out of a condition of moral indifference, distraction and incomprehension toward a definite decision, to be with God or against God. Thus the righteous Symeon foretold of the Redeemer on the fortieth day of His earthly life: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel...so that the mind of many hearts may be revealed" (Lk.2:34-35). Christ's words to Nikodemos have this same sense: "This is the judgment, that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light" (Jn.3:19). The words which follow are especially significant: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin...now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father" (Jn. 15:22, 24). Thus, contact with regenerating grace does not destroy

184 Dogma of Redemption one's freedom, but brings one to a decisive self determination to follow the path of good or evil, one's own justification or condemnation (see 1Pt.2:7, 8 and 2 Cor.2:15). John the Baptist, burning with zeal for the salvation of mankind, impelled many to a sudden decision to change their lives, and they asked, "What may we do [to be saved]?" (Lk.3:12). The same was true of Apostle Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:37). Others, on the contrary, who heard the desert dweller preach, were filled with hatred toward him and roused up Herodias to cause his execution, to which the Saviour Himself bore witness (Mt.17:12). About thirty years ago on Mt Athos, the great elder Jerome gathered about 2000 monks in the previously desolate St Panteleimon Monastery. He was distinguished by boundless meekness and compassion toward human weakness, yet all those who sinned or were heading toward sin felt that the elder's spirit was in some manner blocking their path and, at the very thought of him, they were brought to repentance and went to him for confession. But this was not always the case. Once, the elder was peacefully sitting near the monastery gates when suddenly an enraged monk ran up to him, seized his beard and began beating him. "What is wrong with you?" the elder inquired peacefully. "You do not let me live!" exclaimed the monk, who was wrestling with some secret temptations. "But I do not even remember your face," the elder said. The monk, however, was already at the blessed man's feet, in tears of repentance. The great Russian writer Dostoevsky masterfully portrays for us this action of co-suffering love which divides

185 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith people into those being regenerated and those being condemned. Unbelieving visitors of Elder Zosima were so moved by his meek appearance and words that some of them were filled with repentance whereas others were so filled with malice that for no evident reason they would violate all rules of decorum. One ought not to be disturbed by the fact that, in explaining the sacred dogma, we make use not only of Sacred Scripture but also of examples from secular literature, the very mention of which creates an aversion in many spiritual readers. But what else can one do when there are so many readers who, only under great constraint, will read or listen to extracts from the sacred writings. Christ the Saviour Himself explained His teaching with parables drawn from everyday life and St Tikhon of Zadonsk wrote a whole book titled Spiritual Treasure Gathered From the Secular World. And so we confirm the truth divinely revealed to us and confirmed by observation and the experience of life, that the principle and strength of moral regeneration is the power of co-suffering love. To a certain degree, it is found even in the nature of unregenerate persons, as in maternal love. But a deep and decisive regeneration of a beloved one can be produced only by one who lives by Christ and depends on His power to bring about this regeneration. Such a disposition of co-suffering love is a grace-bearing fruit of a godly life and of nature (the love of a Christian mother, for example). It is accessible to lay people who live in God, but usually only in relationship to certain close relatives, to a pious, trusted teacher or to comrades in

186 Dogma of Redemption activity or fate (Nekrasov25 takes an example from life in penal servitude); but in relationship to all people, the earnest of this gift is imparted in the mystery of ordination, something which our scholastic theologians have overlooked. St John Chrysostom, however, clearly expressed this in his precious words which completely convinced me that my "innovations" which I introduced as a professor of pastoral theology (1893-1900) coincide with the teaching of the Church and that I was not proceeding "as one beating the air" (1Cor.9:26). He says:

Spiritual love is not born of anything earthly; it comes from above, from Heaven, and is imparted in the mystery of holy Orders; but the assimilation and retention of the gift depends on the aspirations of the spirit of man.

The later Church father St Symeon the New Theologian agrees with Chrysostom in considering one worthy of priesthood:

... who so loves God, that on merely hearing the name of Christ, he is consumed with love and sheds tears, and who, moreover, weeps over his neighbour, reckoning as his own the sins of others, sincerely regarding himself as the chief of sinners, and who, knowing the frailty of human nature, puts his trust in the grace of God and the fortitude which comes from it, and who, inspired by its fervour, undertakes this task [the work of priesthood] because of his zeal — disregarding human considerations

187 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

— and is ready to lay down his very soul for the commandment of God and love of his neighbour (Twelve Homilies, ed.1869).

FOUR BEARERS OF CO-SUFFERING LOVE MINISTERS OF REDEMPTION

So far we have spoken about the action of co-suffering love, but now let us direct our attention to its bearers: in what feeling, in what experience is it expressed? It is evident that it is found in inner suffering for others, in co-suffering. And so we have come to the concept of redemptive co-suffering. The door is now open before us to a feasible understanding of the redemptive power of Christ's sufferings. The Church clearly teaches those who would partake of the Holy Mysteries that the grace of regeneration is given from the co-suffering love of Christ the Saviour. This is expressed in the words of St Symeon the New Theologian, in the seventh prayer before Communion:

Neither the greatness of my offenses nor the multitude of my transgressions surpasses the great longsuffer- ing of my God and His exceeding love for man, but with the oil of co-suffering [compassion] dost Thou purify and illumine those who fervently repent, and Thou makest them to partake abundantly of the light and to be communicants of Thy Divinity.

188 Dogma of Redemption

These are precious words which explain the mystery of redemption and expand the significance of Paul's words: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to co-suffer with our weaknesses" (Hb.4:15). The fourth antiphon of Great Friday Matins clearly says that Christ's sufferings were His co-suffering for mankind: "O Thou who dost suffer for and with mankind, glory be to Thee." Speaking of himself as a servant of regeneration, Apostle Paul clearly expresses the truth that co-suffering (compassion) which is filled with love and zeal for the flock is a regenerating power, which gradually instills spiritual life into those hearts where it had not previously existed, just as a child receives life in the birth sufferings of the mother: "My children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ is formed in you" (Gal.4:19; Jn.16:21,22). In another place, the apostle writes that the spiritual life of the flock increases according to the measure that their teacher dies physically in his pastoral suffering: "Thus death is actively at work in us, but life in you" (2Cor.4:12; cp.1Cor.4:10-16). In the prayer for accomplishing the mystery of the consecration of bishops, the successors of the apostles, the regenerating power of their service is also described as suffering (that is, co-suffering with the sinful flock), in which the hierarch represents, to the people, Christ the true Teacher and Redeemer:

As it is not possible for the human nature to bear the Divine essence, by Thine ekonomy Thou hast appointed teachers for us having a nature like our own, subject to passions, who stand before Thy throne...make this

189 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

appointed steward of the episcopal grace an imitator of Thee, the true Shepherd, Who has laid down Thy life for Thy flock....May he stand unashamed before Thy throne and receive the great reward which Thou hast prepared for those who have suffered for the preaching of the Gospel.

The co-suffering love of a mother, friend, a spiritual shepherd or an apostle is operative only when it attracts Christ, the true Shepherd. If, however, it functions only in the sphere of human relations, it can, it is true, evoke tender attitudes and repentant sentiment, but not a radical regeneration. The latter is so difficult for our corrupt nature that not in vain did Nikodemos, speaking with Christ, liken this difficulty to an adult person entering again into his mother's womb and being born for a second time. The Lord replied that what is impossible in the limits of human life is possible in the life of grace, in which the Holy Spirit descends from heaven and operates. And to grant us this gift, Christ had to be crucified and raised, as Moses raised the serpent in the wilderness, that all who believe in Him should not perish, but have life eternal (see Jn.3:13-15). So that which grace-bearing people can do only in part and only for some people, our Heavenly Redeemer can do, and does do, completely and for all. Filled with the deepest compassion for sinful humanity during His earthly life, He often exclaimed: "O faithless and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I endure you?" (Mt.17:17). He was oppressed with the greatest sorrow on the night when the greatest crime in human history oc-

190 Dogma of Redemption curred, when God's ministers — with the complicity of Christ's own disciple, the former through envy, the latter through greed — decided to put the Son of God to death. This oppressive grief possessed His most pure soul for a second time on the cross when the cruel masses not only were not moved to pity by His terrible physical sufferings (they could not come close to grasping His moral sufferings) but also maliciously mocked the Sufferer. One must suppose that during that night in Gethsemane, the thought and feeling of the God-man embraced all of fallen humanity — numbering many millions — and wept with loving grief over each one individually, as only the all-knowing divine heart could. Our redemption consisted in this. This is why only God, the God-man could be our Redeemer, and not an angel or a man. It was not at all because a more valuable sacrifice was necessary for the satisfaction of Divine wrath. Ever since this night in Gethsemane and that day on Golgotha, every believer, even one who is just beginning to believe, recognizes his inner bond with Christ and turns to Him in prayer, as to an inexhaustible spring of moral regenerating strength. Few are able to explain exactly why they so easily assimilated faith in the possibility of receiving new moral energy and sanctification from turning to Christ, but no believer doubts this, nor do even the heretics. Having suffered in His loving soul over our imperfec- tion and our corrupt will, the Lord poured into our nature a wellspring of new, vital strength, available to everyone who has ever or will ever desire it, beginning with the wise thief. One may ask: "How does this happen? Upon what does

191 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith the causal bond between suffering and regeneration depend if the latter is not an external gift of God as a reward for the merits of the One? How can one explain this transmission of moral energy from a loving heart into the hearts of the beloved ones, from the Sufferer to those for whom He had co-suffered? You have presented to us factual proof that it is thus; you have confirmed it with the words of the prayers of the Church and the words of the holy fathers and the Bible. Finally you wish, from this point of view, to explain the death agony of the Saviour, evidently ascribing only a secondary significance to His physical sufferings, the shedding of His blood and death. But we still desire to know what law of existence causes this communion of the Redeemer with those being redeemed, and the influence, which we ourselves have observed, of the co-suffering will of one man upon others. Is this merely a result of a conscious submission of the will of a loved one to the will of the one who is loving, or is there something taking place here that is deeper — something objective, something that takes place in the very nature of our souls?" "Of course," we would reply to the latter. I have always been very dissatisfied when a collocutor to whom I had explained redeeming grace, responded from the point of view of scholastic theology, to this effect: you are expounding the subjective, moral aspect of the dogma, but you do not touch upon the objective, metaphysical (that is, the juridical) aspect. "No," I would reply. "In the transmission of the compassionate, loving energies of the Redeemer into the spiritual nature of a believing person who calls upon His help, we find manifested a purely objective law of our

192 Dogma of Redemption spiritual nature revealed in our dogmas, but which our dogmatic science has not noticed." Nevertheless, before turning to the explanation of this law, one must first refute the current opinion that Christ's prayer in Gethsemane was inspired by fear of His approaching sufferings and death. This would have been extremely unworthy of the Lord, Whose servants both after this and even before (the Maccabees, for instance) faced torments rejoicing and exulting amidst the tortures of their bodies, longing to die for Christ as if it were the greatest blessing. The Saviour knew very well that His Spirit would be separated from His body for less than two full days; and for this reason alone, he would not have looked upon bodily death as something terrible.26 We are convinced that the heavy torments of the Saviour in Gethsemane came from a contemplation of the sinful life and evil disposition of all human generations, beginning with His enemies and betrayers,27 and that the Lord's words: "Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me," refer not to His impending crucifixion and death, but precisely to this crushing state of profound grief for sinful humanity which He so dearly loved. Apostle Paul confirms the correctness of our interpretation, when he expresses himself relative to the Gethsemane prayer in connection with the morally regenerating action of Christ upon people as their common High Priest:

Christ did not glorify Himself to become a high priest; but He Who said unto Him, `Thou art My Son...' Who in the days of His flesh, when He had

193 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His reverence.28

You see, therefore, that the Lord did not pray for deliverance from crucifixion and death, for then it would be impossible to say that He was heard, since He was not delivered from crucifixion and death. He prayed for relief from His overwhelming grief for sinful mankind. This grief was the "cup" that He asked the Heavenly Father to remove from Him. "He prayed saying, `O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me'" (Mt.26:39; cp. Mk.14: 37; Lk.22:42). From these words it is clear that the Lord prayed, not concerning His impending sufferings, but about that which He suffered "in this hour," the very hour in which He prayed. How, then, was He heard? An angel appeared to Him and supported Him. The Heavenly Father heard His suffering Son, crushed by the picture of the sinful world of man, and sent to Him a witness from another world — the world of holy angels, who had not apostatized from His will nor forsaken His love. The appearance of the angel comforted Jesus and He bravely went forth to meet the enemies and the betrayer. This is the sense in which He was heard, and the further words of the apostle confirm our understanding of the Gethsemane prayer as the prayer of a high priest:

Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered; and being made perfect, He became the cause of eternal salvation unto all them

194 Dogma of Redemption

that obey Him; designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Hb.5:8- 10).

These words literally confirm what we wrote above: precisely that Christ's co-suffering love appears in our hearts as a sanctifying power; and in this sense, He is our High Priest. We can now return to the question: by what law of existence is this possible? We have seen that it is actual, which means that it is logically possible. But by what means? It is here that we see the value of Christ's incarnation. It has been explained that only the all-encompassing God could love each person individually and grieve for him. Now we shall see that only a man could transmit his own holiness into the hearts of other men. In a word, our Redeemer can only be a God-man, which, in fact, He is.29

FIVE The "Law of Being" Which Gives Healing Power To Co-suffering Love

"The Son of God took on our nature," said the apostles and the fathers of the Church. And the contemporary theologians who protest against the juridical theory of redemption say the same thing. They wish, however, to express something more profound with these words, but have not yet managed to elucidate their thoughts. But before this profound idea can be expressed, it is necessary to elucidate what nature is.

195 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

In the explanation of the dogma of the Trinity and the Theanthropos (God-man), in our courses on dogmatics, we find it quite correctly explained that the person or hypostasis is an individual principle of which there are three in the Holy Trinity, but one in the God-man, and the nature or NÛF4H is the sum of the properties of a given nature, be it divine, angelic or human. There is one such nature in the Trinity, but in the God-man (Theanthropos) there are two. By nature, especially human nature, we have become accustomed to understand only the abstraction and summa- tion of properties present in each person individually and, consequently, comprising a single general abstract idea, and only that.30 Divine revelation and our Church dogmatics teach otherwise. The nature of the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity is one, and we do not say that we have three gods, but one God; He has one will, one thought, one blessedness. From this, it is evident that essence or nature is not an abstraction made by our minds of common qualities of different objects or persons, but a certain real essence (being), a real will, a real force, acting in separate persons.31 An objector will reply: "Very well, but all this is so only in the most sublime Divine essence (nature); we know of triunity only in Him, but relative to finite beings, from people to animals, plants and stone, is not the commonly held opinion correct, which views nature as an abstract understanding which contains in itself all the properties of being common to each species? Would you seek to assert that humans have one common will, and that John, Peter and Paul, though they are three distinct persons, are yet

196 Dogma of Redemption only one man?" St Gregory of Nyssa answers this question in the affirmative. I have more than once quoted from his epistle to Avavilos, "That There Are Not Three Gods." In this epistle St Gregory replies to Avavilos that the expression, "three men" is incorrect because man is one, though there exist separate human persons. But the reader may ask, "What is there in common among them if they hate and cannot even tolerate one another?" The answer is found in the very question itself. God did not create man for hatred and self-love, and the consciousness of the sharp separateness from each other, which exists in each of us, is an abnormal consciousness, born of sin. People free themselves from it according to the measure that they free themselves from self-love, and then the self-loving, self-assertive "I" pales in their consciousness, and is replaced by another, being filled with love and compassion — the consciousness of "we." Thus it is with a mother in relation to children, in the union of a husband and wife who are of one mind and spirit, in Apostle Paul who was in the pains of spiritual birthgiving; and it was always manifest in the heart of Christ the Saviour, wherein lies the power of His co-suffering experience of our infirmities, about which Paul wrote to the Hebrews (4:15). Nevertheless, for all our human separateness, we cannot but notice in ourselves the manifestations of the collective common human will; a will which is not of me, but in me, which I renounce only partially, and even then only with difficulty and struggle. This will is given to me from without and yet, at the same time, it is mine. This is, above

197 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith all, what the common human nature is. In this we must place, first of all, our conscience, which was given to us, and which almost no one can resist completely; then, our direct involvement and compassion with our neighbours, our parental and filial affections, and much else. Among these attributes are also found evil ones, desires seemingly imposed upon us from without: self-love, vindictiveness, lusts, and so on. This is a manifestation of our fallen nature, against which it is possible and necessary to struggle. And so the nature of all people is one: it is an impersonal but powerful will which every human person is compelled to take into account, no matter in what direction the personal free will is turned: toward good or toward evil. It is to this, also, that we must ascribe that law of being, that people can be born on earth in no other way than by a union of a father and a mother. But again, someone will respond to me, "I see that my natural will resembles that of others, but I do not see any real oneness; I am not conscious of a real oneness of my will with others and, sometimes, compassion for others is replaced in me by malevolence, whereas I often feel compassion toward animals and birds, which are of a different nature." Yes, unfortunately, this is so now, but from the beginning it was not so, it will not be so in the future life, and even now it is not so in the case of people who live according to God's will. You cannot conceive that you have one soul in common with others, but read in the book of Acts: "The multitude of them that believed had one heart and soul" (4:32). And here is another view of life drawn from

198 Dogma of Redemption nature by St Basil the Great. Describing the complete unanimity and victory over self-love of monks contemporary with him, St Basil continues:

These men restore the primal goodness in eclipsing the sin of our forefather Adam; for there would be no divisions, no strife, no war among men, if sin had not made cleavages in their nature; they are perfect imitators of Christ and His manner of life in the flesh. For just as the Saviour in forming the company of the Apostles made common all things and Himself as well, so do they...they emulate the life of the angels, like them observing the principle of community through their exactness....These men have seized in advance the good things of the promised Kingdom, evidencing by their virtuous life and community and exact imitation of that Kingdom's mode of life and state....They have clearly demonstrated to mankind how many blessings were bestowed on it by the Saviour's incarnation, because in the measure of their strength they gather the (one) human nature, which had been torn and cleaved into thousands of pieces, once more to itself and to God. And this is foremost in the Saviour's incarnate ekonomy: to gather human nature to itself and to Himself and, having abolished this evil cleavage, to restore the original unity, as the best of physicians binds up a body that has been broken in many places, using healing potions (Ascetical Statutes, c.18)

It seems, therefore, that I have said nothing other than

199 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith what St Basil has written in these lines. The reader can see that we have drawn his attention, not to any fancies or artificial conclusions of our own, but to the Tradition of the Church, to a doctrine forgotten (in this aspect at least) by our theological school which, from its inception in the 17th century, has drawn not so much on Church sources as upon Latin and Lutheran ones. If the reader wishes to see the authority of St Basil's words in the words of Christ and the apostles, this is not difficult to fulfil. Concerning that union in the future life of all the saved, not in the same sense of mere unanimity, but in the sense of a real and essential oneness, similar to the unity of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, one may read the words of One of the Persons of the Holy Trinity:

Holy Father, keep in Thine own name those whom Thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are....Neither do I pray for these alone, but also for those who shall believe on me through their words: that they all may be one, as Thou Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us...I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one (Jn.17:11-23).

Apostle Paul directly confirms the words of St Gregory that man must be one, though there are many human persons. He says that Christ "abolished in His flesh the enmity...that He, from the two [Jews and Gentiles] might create in Himself one new person, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by

200 Dogma of Redemption means of His cross, having thereby slain the enmity" (Eph.2:15-16). The body of Christ referred to here, is the Church, whose head is Christ. Sometimes the Church of the regenerate is simply called "Christ" (for He is its Head and its Life) and the children of the Church are called His members (1Cor.12:12-13; Eph.4:13-16). The Lord Himself also teaches of a new Being, in which He will be, and already is, united with the faithful, like a tree which is one and the same plant in all of its branches (Jn.15:1-9). And so the unity of human nature, broken by the sin of Adam and his descendants, is to be gradually reestablished through Christ and His redeeming love with such strength that in the future life this oneness will be expressed more strongly than the present multiplicity of human persons, and Christ, united with us into one Being, shall be called the new Man, the One Church, He being (in particular) its Head. It would appear that we have cleared the way for a feasible understanding of the essential, objective side of the mystery of redemption. The salvation which Christ brought to mankind consists not only of the conscious assimilation of Christ's principal truths and His love, but also in the fact that by means of His co-suffering love, Christ obliterates the partition which sin has set up between people, reestab- lishes the original oneness of nature and obtains direct access into the spiritual bosom of human nature, so that the man who has submitted himself to this action of Christ, not only in his thoughts but in his very character, finds new dispositions, new feelings and longings, not created by himself, but received from Christ Who has united Himself to him. It

201 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith now depends upon the free will whether these are called to life or rejected. The influence of the compassionate love of a mother, a friend, a spiritual shepherd, consists (even though in the weakest degree) in the same penetration into the very nature (NÛF4H), the very soul of man. One who is wavering between good and evil, and hears the admonitions of a wise but disinterested speaker, correlates these true thoughts which he has assimilated with his corrupted nature, but the wavering son of a mother who co-suffers with him, or of a grieving and loving spiritual father, discovers in his own soul, new, good inclinations which call him to himself and endeavour to dislodge the contrary dispositions which he has acquired through a life of sinfulness. The struggle within him begins without his own volition, and his own will determines the direction the struggle will take, and which side it will go toward. The direct entry of Christ's nature and His good volition into our nature is called grace, which is invisibly poured into us in the various inner states and events of our life, and with special power in the Holy Mystery, when this is worthily received, that is, when our personal, conscious will freely submits itself to that mysterious flow of grace-filled inclinations which Christ plants in our souls by the special means of Communion which He has established. Let us recall the words of the apostle: "Nevertheless I live, yet I live no more, but Christ lives in me," and many other similar sayings of his.32 Such is the explanation of the fact of the moral regeneration of people through the co-suffering love of Christ, imparted directly to those who seek it, or sometimes indirectly through Christ's "co-workers" who share

202 Dogma of Redemption in His co-suffering love. The subjective feeling of co-suffering love becomes an objective power which re-establishes the oneness of human nature that had been broken by sin, and which is transmitted from one human soul to another.

SIX Resolving the Perplexities

We must now resolve the perplexities which remain after our exegesis which, we are convinced, is strictly in accord with the Church, even though it has been forgotten by our schools. The perplexities are:

1. For what purpose, then, were the crucifixion of the Lord on the Cross and His death? 2. Why is He called a sacrifice for our sins and a propitia- tion of the Heavenly Father for us? And what is the meaning of the Apostolic words that His Blood cleanses us from sins? 3. Why is it said that we have become sinful and condemned through Adam's disobedience, if we must explain the whole ekonomy of salvation only in terms of moral values and make even metaphysical concepts, such as "nature," dependent upon them?

Russian readers will receive very sympathetically this transition of all theology into moral monism, and will add, perhaps, that it is the best refutation of the criticism of Tolstoy, who found such monism in the teaching of Jesus

203 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

Christ, but completely denied its presence in the epistles of the apostles and the Symbol of Faith, asserting that both were complete distortions of Christ's teaching. "This is all quite true," Russian readers will say. "But how will you circumvent or surmount the three obstacles which you yourself have just set forth? It is by no means only the influence of feudal justice which is professed in them, but the statements of the apostles, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews." We said that the action of redemption consists only in the rebirth of a person, while rebirth consists in his transformation [or, corrective transformation]. Does this imply that if a fallen person could correct himself through only repentance and a struggle with himself under the guidance of God's commandments, and the good examples of righteous envoys of God, then redemption would not have been necessary? I read this same question, with a direct, positive answer in St John Chrysostom's works. He stated the matter approximately thus: if the repentance of men could raise them to victory over vice, then the incarnation would not have been necessary. Let us now ask: upon Whom did it depend to fashion man's nature in such a way that a good desire and repentance are, nevertheless, powerless to regenerate a person in actuality, and in such a manner that he impotently falls under the burden of his passions, if he does not have the succour of grace? God the Creator, of course. Further, why could not the Creator forcibly make people good? Because of His perfect justice, according to which only the free decision of free creatures is considered good. Why, then, did

204 Dogma of Redemption the Creator not arrange man's nature in such a way that repentance would immediately make him sinless again, as was Adam before the fall? The answer: because of that same Divine Justice, for which evil is so antithetic that freely returning from it to good is punctuated by a long path of spiritual struggle and suffering. Moreover, once human nature had fallen, it was deprived of the patience and strength necessary to struggle victoriously with sin, and only in isolated cases does it triumph over it. In order to obtain a decisive victory, human nature needs help from without, help which is from someone Who is both holy, and Who co-suffers with it, that is, from a sufferer Who is, moreover, a Divine sufferer, as we explained above. And so, who is responsible for the fact that it is impossible to find any other means for the rebirth and salvation of man except the incarnation of the Son of God and the grievous agony of His co-suffering love toward us? The Creator, Who gave such laws to our nature that, when it apostatized its obedience to the Creator, it became so enfeebled. It is in this sense that one can and should affirm that Jesus Christ was a sacrifice for our sinful life, for the sin of Adam, as the first man and ancestor of sinners. If you wish, in this sense, one could even allow the expression "satisfaction of God's justice," for if the Lord had been merciful without righteousness, piteous, but not just, He might have reformed human nature without the co-suffering, tormenting love of His incarnate Son, so that every repentant sinner who strove toward perfection would be able of himself to attain spiritual perfection, and with it, also eternal salvation.

205 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

The Lord told John: "It is fitting to us to fulfil all righteousness" (Mt.3:15). Thus, the act of redemption — a struggle of co-suffering love, which pours the holy will of Christ into the souls of the faithful — being an act of love, would not violate the other laws of life, such as justice. And so it was often considered from this secondary, non-essential and peripheral point of view, but for the sons of Roman legal culture and for the Jews, it is considered as something extremely important. Such a consideration of the peripheral aspect of the event in no way obscures its actual meaning as an act of co-suffering love. For example, even the struggles of the righteous ones and of martyrs, though they were unmercenary deeds, when examined from the point of judicial or even commercial law, appear as quite expedient acts. "How excellent is your tradesmanship, O saints," exclaims the Church. "For having traded corruptible things, you have purchased for yourselves things eternal. You gave your blood and acquired paradise!" (cp. the parable of the merchant who bought a field with a treasure hidden in it). If we were to examine Christ's sacrifice from the point of view of criminal, military or commercial law, it would also receive a definite sense of meaning from each, even though it was not at all accomplished in the sphere of these relationships. Criminal law demands an execution for a crime: our Saviour took this punishment on Himself, by which we understand not only His physical death, about which we shall speak later, but the torments of co-suffering love. Consequently, He was a sacrifice of justice, which certain theologians understand as an abstract concept (fiat justitia) whereas others have in mind a bearer of justice, that is, God

206 Dogma of Redemption the Father. From the standpoint of laws of war or, if you prefer, international law, sinners became the property of God's enemy, that is, the devil to whom Eve and her descendants subjected themselves. The devil did not want to surrender to God those who were being saved, without a sacrifice [compensation], and therefore, a sacrifice had to be offered to the devil. Further, from the standpoint of commercial law, a slave who has been sold is returned to his former master only for a payment, and in this sense Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians, "You were bought at an expensive price..." (1Cor.6:20). None of these explanations contradicts one another in any way, nor do they contradict the explanation of the actuality of the matter, which comprises the content of this present work. They have, however, very little in common with the interpretations of Anselm, Aquinas and the later scholastic dogmatics which introduce the idea of a duel here. In particular, the comparison of Christ's sufferings with the Old Testament sacrifices, and the interpretation of those sacrifices (and even of pagan ones) generally accepted among Protestants and Latins, are completely without foundation. Specifically, these theologians assert that, supposedly, the Jews (as also the pagans) viewed the killing of a sacrificial animal as the execution of an innocent being in place of [vicariously for] a sinful person or nation. I dare say that it is impossible to support this view of the sacrifice with a single verse or with reference to a single event in the Old Testament, even though the ordinances concerning sacrifices fill, as is well known, almost half the books of Moses, especially the books of Leviticus and Numbers. The animal

207 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith being killed was not at all thought of as being executed, but as the offering of a meal, which is why flour, oil and salt were added to it. There were sacrifices for sin, but the conditions for the killing of the animal in this case were identical to those accompanying all priestly acts, as also in a peace offering, and there were also some completely bloodless sacrifices of various baked goods, etc. In the eyes of the Old Testament people, therefore, a sacrifice signified a contribution [or, offering], just as Christians contribute [or, offer] candles, kolyva and eggs in church; the first are for the adornment of the church, whereas the others are to be eaten by the faithful. And just as Christians know that God does not need the light of candles and the sweet kolyva, but that the worshipper's contribution to the church is a pious sacrifice on his part, contributing to the spiritual comfort of his fellow worshippers and to the sustenance of the church and its clergy, so also the children of the Old Testament knew that God does not eat the flesh of oxen or drink the blood of goats (Ps.49), and does not even need temples made by man's hand when, as Solomon said in his prayer, Heaven itself cannot contain Him (3Ki.8:27). But the Jews brought the sacrifice with the idea that, in their pastoral way of life, there was no other way they could honour their Exalted Visitor with their whole heart than by killing the very best of their cattle in His honour and offering Him the best feast they were able to. Thus did Abraham offer unto the Lord Who had appeared to him in three persons (i.e., Christ and two angels); Gideon to the angel, who burned up the meal he was offered by touching it with his staff (Judges 6:21), and Manoah, the

208 Dogma of Redemption father of Samson, who also tried to feed an angel (Judges 13:15-20). But nowhere will one encounter the idea that the animal being sacrificed was thought of as taking upon itself a punishment in behalf of people. Even in the ordinance about the three-year-old red heifer, it is impossible to find this thought (despite Protestant interpretations); and the Church does not connect this ordinance with punishment for sin, but with the Presentation of the Theotokos in the Temple, that is, a reverent gift to God. I doubt that sacrifices even in pagan cults had the meaning of a punishment. If there is any place in the Old Testament where one can find an idea (and doubtfully at that) of an animal as an expression of people's sins, it would have to be the scapegoat. The scapegoat however, was not killed but only driven from the camp into the wilderness (azazel — a Hebrew expression which has never been fully explained). The analogy between Christ's sufferings and death and the Old Testament sacrifice is, of course, repeated many times in the New Testament, but those sacrifices are not given any other interpretation here either. This analogy is expounded in the most detail in the Epistle to the Hebrews. What is the aim of these analogies? In order to understand this, we must first of all put away from ourselves the Lutheran reinterpretation of the events of the Gospel, which was connected with Luther's reforms. Lutherans desperately desire to represent the relationship between Christ and Christianity and the Mosaic law and Old Testament, and the relationship between Luther and

209 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

Latinism as identical. "The Jewish people were suffocating under the despotic yoke of the ritual law, but Christ, and later the apostles, freed them from this yoke." In fact, just the opposite occurred. Only with great difficulty were Christians reconciled to the loss of the Old Testament religious order which was so dear to them, and many of them did not want to be reconciled to this loss (even Apostle Paul continued to fulfil it — Acts 21:24) of something they loved as dearly as, for example, the Russian peasants love the customs of Holy Pascha, the birches on Trinity Day, the apples on the Transfiguration Feast, etc. It was difficult for them to endure being deprived of the beautiful temple, the Sabbaths, the majestic high priest, solemn sacrifices and, in general, all the objects of enthusiastic public worship: the ark, the veil, etc. The main aim of Paul's epistle to the Hebrews was to comfort them in the loss of these externals and to explain that the spiritual comfort given by that service is doubly preserved for Christians, but is not attached to a material temple and a sinful high priest, but to the eternal High Priest (4:15; 5:10; 7:22; 8:16), to an everlasting joyous Sabbath (3:11; 4:11), to a better law than that of Moses (7:12; 8:7-8), to a better Divine sacrifice, to an access into the heavenly sanctuary not made by hands, through a washing not of the body only, but through a mystical washing away of the stains of the soul in baptism (9:11-12; 10:22), and in place of the curtain, His most pure Flesh (10:22). The apostle expounds these same thoughts more briefly in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, written for the same purpose (the sorrow of the Christians over the loss

210 Dogma of Redemption of the Mosaic religious observances). Here, too, he speaks of a spiritual circumcision, of the handwriting of our sins, of Sabbaths and other festivals and of various prohibitions of the law, which preserved the Jews from defilement. What is notable in these epistles is that, in speaking about Christ's sacrifice, even about His sacrificial Blood, the apostle does not view it as a punishment [or, punitive execution] (even a voluntary one), but as a gift to God the Father, that is, in accord with the Old Testament (Hb.8:3-9, 9-10), so that Christ's blood shed on the Cross is an offering to God the Father, as was the blood of the Old Testament sacrifices. This concept of Christ's sacrifice as a gift to God is expressed with special clarity in the following words of the apostle (Hb.8:3): "Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore, it was necessary that this One have something to offer also." Of course, Apostle Paul does not exhaust the significance of Christ's sacrifice by an explanation of the idea that it replaces, for the faithful, the Old Testament order of services, the loss of which had so grieved them. He says that the Lord brought Himself undefiled to God and that His Blood cleanses our conscience from dead works (9:14); and Apostle John says the same thing in his first epistle (1:7). All these expressions, however, as well as the words of these same apostles about the saving power of the Lord's Cross, designate in these images (Blood, Cross) the same idea of redemption which is expressed by us above (the concept of moral regeneration), for immediately after, they indicate purely moral consequences of these concepts (to cleanse the conscience from dead works; I am crucified to the world by Christ's cross,

211 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith etc.).

SEVEN Concerning the Heresy of "Original Sin"33

Some reader may respond, "If you please, I am ready to agree that even if the shedding of blood had not been among Christ's physical sufferings, but only blows and physical death, if He had been put to death not by crucifixion, but by some other means just as painful and shameful, our redemption would still have been effected. But could it really have been effected without the physical sufferings and death of the Redeemer? Could it have been effected, let us say, only by means of those spiritual griefs and torments which He began to endure from the beginning of His earthly life, and especially in Gethsemane on the night of His betrayal? Moreover, you give too little significance to Adam's sin, but more to the sins—or rather, to the sinfulness — of each person; but was it not about Adam that the Apostle said, `in him all have sinned'?" The questions are reasonable, and so one must give them an appropriate answer. First of all, let us examine the words of the Apostle Paul to the Romans (5:12): "Wherefore, as through one man sin entered the world, and by sin, death; and so death came upon all men in that [because] all men have sinned." If one were to understand the words "in that" as meaning "in which," then one cannot tell what this " which" refers to. To the "one man"? But this is far too remote. To the world? Possible. To death? This is also possible, since in Greek "death" (2V<"J@H) is of the mascu-

212 Dogma of Redemption line gender.34 Let us ponder the Russian translation and we at once see the treacherous "italics" which, as we said before, is the primary basis for the Latin and Lutheran conjectures: "because in him all sinned." If this translation were correct, then it would be the main, indeed the only, basis for the juridical theory and for attributing innate vengeance to God. "As from a polluted spring," we read in our textbook, "corrupted water flows," etc. But, if you please, a spring and water are one thing, whereas living, morally responsible human beings are something else. It is not by our own will that we are descendants of Adam, so why should we bear the guilt for his disobedience? Indeed, we must struggle greatly in order to appropriate Christ's redemption: can it be that the condemnation of each man because of Adam befell men despite each one's own guilt? After all, the apostle says clearly that "the gift was poured out more abundantly than the condemnation" (cp Rm.5:15), but the juridical interpretation renders the result exactly the opposite. Finally, let us consider the original Greek text. The words "in that" are used to translate the Greek which means "because," or "since" (Latin: tamen, quod). This same expression is encountered in Philippians with the same meaning: "because you did take thought" (4:10), and the Russian translation is inaccurate here also. The synonymous Greek expression has the identical meaning of "because" (see Mt.25: 40, 45; Rm.11:13). Therefore, the correct translation of these words of the Apostle Paul is: "and so death passed upon all men, because all have sinned" (and not just Adam himself). This is the interpretation given to these words by Blessed Theodoret. And so Adam was not so much the

213 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith cause of our sinfulness as he was the first to sin, and even if we were not his children, we would still sin all the same. One should consider, therefore, that we are all sinners, even though we direct our will correctly, not because we are descendants of Adam, but because the All-knowing God gives us life in the human condition (rather than as angels, for example), and He foresaw that the will of each of us would be like that of Adam and Eve. This will is not evil by nature, but disobedient and prideful, and consequently it needs a school to correct it. This is what our earthly life in the body is, for it constantly humbles our stubbornness. In this matter this school attains success in almost all its pupils who are permitted to complete their full course, that is, live a long life, though some of God's elect attain this wisdom at an early age — that is, those whom Providence leads to the Heavenly Father or to His "co-workers". In general it must be said that the translation of these verses from the Epistle to the Romans (as well as many other passages in the New Testament) into Russian is completely wrong. The Apostle Paul distinguishes the event of Adam's fall as the means — the way through which sin appeared in the world — from those consequences of it, even though Adam's sin was the cause. Thus quite logically the preposition *4V ("through") is used in the first case; but where Adam's sin is the cause of the corruption of human nature and of mortality, the idea of the instrumental case is used as an ablativus causae. There is no instrumental case in the Greek language, but it is replaced by the dative, e.g., "I was struck by a stone," in which the dative case would be used in Greek.

214 Dogma of Redemption

The Russian text, however, quite incorrectly translates every one of the *4V phrases in the instrumental case. In this instance (Rm.5:12) the Russian version reads, "Thus, by one man sin entered into the world...," while in the Greek original it says, "as through one (*4' ¥<ÎH) man sin entered into the world." Adam is not actively responsible for the indwelling of sin in the whole world, but rather was a sort of door which opened the way for sin.35 Similarly, further on (5:16) in Russian it says, "And it is a gift, not a judgment, for the one who has sinned, for the judgment for one transgression is to condemnation; whereas the gift of grace is for justification from many transgressions. For, if by one man's offence death reigned...." etc. Here in the Synodal text italics are used, a sign that these words were thought up by the commentators; but the translation is wrong here. It should more accurately read: "but the gift followed many transgressions and brought righteousness. For if through the transgression of the one man, death reigned...."36 Further on the [Russian] translation is correct, for, although sin did not enter into the world by means of Adam's deed alone, but only through it, still this deed was the cause of each man's death; sin reigns not only through the one who sinned, but it actually was caused by his sin: J@L ,<@H B"D"BJT:"J4 not *4" B"D"BJT:"J@H. Here we do not have merely the modus or means by which death was spread, but rather its cause (ablativus causae) is directly indicated. Therefore, the dative case, performing the function of the instrumental, is used. Further on, in verse 18, he speaks of condemnation, and again we find an expression with *4V, not an ablativus

215 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith causae: *4 ,<@H B"D"BJ@:"J@H ,4H B"

EIGHT Conclusion

Now let us turn to the Lord's crucifixion and His death until the third day. Let us leave for a moment even our own interpretation of the dogma — that is, the Orthodox interpretation, even though it was forgotten by our schools — and, for a moment, take the juridical point of view. From this position it is asserted that the extreme, torturous suffering of the Son of God was necessary for Adam and his descendants to be pardoned by God. So be it; but why was it necessary for it to be crucifixion on the Cross and death, even if only for three hours? In what was the value of this great deed: in physical suffering or in spiritual torment? Suppose that the first had occurred without the second, as was the case in the deaths of many martyrs, who rejoiced during physical suffering and death; would the exploit of the God-man have been so great, so saving, even from the standpoint of punishment? Where, therefore, is the principal value of His suffering? In His spiritual torment, of course! We understand it as a co-suffering love for sinful mankind, whereas the juridical theologians understand it as

216 Dogma of Redemption

His taking upon Himself God's wrath; but it seems to me that there could be no other answer to the question I have put. In this case, what significance remains in the crucifixion, the Cross, the humiliation by the Jews and the Lord's death itself? A very profound one, of course, and we will endeavour to explain it by first posing a different question. Let us suppose for a moment that our Lord endured His most extreme torments in His soul only, for example, during His supernatural prayer (pay attention to this expression from the Triodion), and when He had taken leave of His Body, He descended into Hades to preach to the dead and again returned to earth when He rose from the dead. Would anyone (even theologians) then be able to imagine the depth of those sorrows and to understand the inner union of His soul with the whole of human nature, with all men for whom He mourned in His prayer as a mother who mourns her son who is perishing morally (let us recall Gogol's related image)? And if there were one Christian who knew only of the Saviour's spiritual suffering and another who had heard the Passion Gospels and meditated on the redemptive suffering of the God-man as only a host of physical tortures and humiliations which were suffered (that is, just as hundreds of thousands of martyrs had suffered, and no more than that), still the latter would probably glorify His passion with greater gratitude and would mourn His death with greater compunction each year than would the former. Why is this so? Because our nature is so coarse, so enslaved by bodily sensations and the fear of death that it is very difficult for it to enter into the concept of the purely

217 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith spiritual torments of Christ when He wept for the sins of others, unless those torments are combined with bodily suffering and humiliation by His fellow men. Is there anything extraordinary in a man becoming sorrowful and beginning to languish and grieve? Indeed, the eyewitnesses of the suffering of that night in Gethsemane — Peter, James and John — did not understand it, and they fell asleep three times while Christ was praying. The disciples of Apostle Paul showed just as little appreciation of his pastoral torments of birth pangs, and more readily submitted to the authority of mystification and pretentiousness. Remember Paul's lament, "Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved" (2Cor.12:15). "You put up with it if a man enslaves you, if a man devours you, if a man takes from you, if a man exalts himself, if a man smites you on the face. I speak in reproach as though we had been weak" (11:20). And so Christ's bodily suffering and death were primarily necessary so that believers would value His spiritual suffering as incomparably greater than His bodily torture, which in itself terrifies anyone who reads or hears the Gospel. Both the Lord Himself and the apostles in His name indicate that the significance of the crucifixion is primarily in this very thing: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Me" (Jn.12: 32). "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall you know that I am He" (8:28). "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up...that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" (3:14,16). "Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that

218 Dogma of Redemption nation only, but that also He should gather together into one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (11:51-52) through the preaching of His death on the Cross and His resurrection. Finally, Paul says of Christ, from the prophecy of Isaiah, "I have stretched forth My hands unto a disobedient and contradicting people" (Rm.10:21). Christ's cleansing Blood, saving Cross, life-giving Tomb and healing wounds are all expressions and images which are substituted (in the epistles of the apostles and Church fathers, and in the Church's prayers) for the general concept of Christ's redeeming Passion; those aspects of His struggle, of His saving grief and Passion, which make the greatest impression on us, are taken up here — especially the Cross, but also the nails, the sponge and the reed (as in the Oktoekhos). We are, of course, far from insisting that the only meaning of our Lord's bodily suffering and, in particular, of His crucifixion and death was to provide the faithful with a way of conceiving His spiritual grief. It is probable that because of the connection between the soul and body, there is a deeper mystical sense here; but in any case, from the standpoint of moral monism, the Lord's crucifixion and death are not without meaning for our salvation, for by bringing men to compunction, they reveal to them at least some portion of the redemptive sacrifice, and by leading them to love for Christ, they prove to be saving for them and for all of us. "Perhaps everything you said is not far from the truth, but we have never heard or read anything like it before, and we have not come upon any similar explanation of the meaning of these passages of the Gospel and epistles,

219 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith though, to tell the truth, we have never read the passages you cited from the holy fathers. But is it not too bold to dare even to touch upon such mysteries? `The things of God are known to no man, but only to the Spirit of God' (1Cor.2:11). `Think no more highly than one ought to think' (Rm.12:3)." Before replying to the essence of such perplexities, I consider it an obligation to note that it is completely in vain that they support themselves with these words of Apostle Paul which have been cited above and which are always being quoted. The latter part of the passage should be translated, "Do not think more of yourself [and not of God] than you should (Rm.12:3)." Instead of explaining the first passage, let us continue the Apostle's text: "No one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God, which things also we speak" (1Cor. 2:11-13), and so on to the end of the chapter. In a word, the sense here is exactly the opposite of that which this passage is given in courses in the schools; the Russian translation of the New Testament has also introduced its italics here and distorted the meaning of the text (2:14) to read, "one must judge this spiritually," instead of [the actual reading] "it is spiritually discerned," or, "investigated" ("<"6D\<,J"4). In speaking of the inscrutability of the Divinity, St John Damascene concludes: God revealed to us everything necessary for our salvation, and everything else He concealed from us. Salvation is our conscious process of perfection and

220 Dogma of Redemption communion with God; therefore, the truths of revelation united with it should be bound to our inner experience and not be allowed to remain as if completely incomprehensible mysteries which we do not understand. I am convinced that the explanation of the truth of the doctrine of redemption which I have expounded is in accord with the teaching of the Church, but I am even more firmly convinced of the Church's infallibility so that, if it were proved to me that my explanation does not coincide with her teaching, I would consciously renounce my views on our dogma. But inasmuch as no one has proved this to me (and I hope that no one will), I remain persuaded that the explanation I have proposed is in complete agreement with the Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Church, and that its seeming novelty results only from the fact that it unfolds the Church's teaching in the language of exact concepts and harmonizes the meaning of this dogma under consideration with the rest of the most important truths of the Faith.

ENDNOTES:

1. [Originally in the text:] Except for a small leading article published in the ECCLESIASTICAL HERALD of 1890 and a short article in the THEOLOGICAL HERALD of 1894 composed by the author of this present work. 2. [Ed. Note:] Although, in fact, the roots of the Western juridical heresy of atonement must be ascribed to Augustine of Hippo.

221 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

3. [Ed. Note:] This work of Hieromonk Taras was republished in Warsaw in 1927, under the title Perelom'V Drevnerusskom Bogoslovii. it was reprinted by Monastery Press, Montreal, P.Q. Canada in 1980. An abridged translation of it into English has appeared as a series in the journal THE CANADIAN ORTHODOX MISSIONARY, between 1978-1982. 4. [Originally in the text:] Here, by the Moscow theologians, he means Joseph of Volokolamsk, Zinovy Otensky and Maxim the Greek, and by Kiev writers, he refers to Lavrenty Zizany and Peter Mohila. Incidentally, no mention was made in this work of the almost independent Ukrainian theologian Kirill Trankvillion, who, in 1618, published his Mirror of Theology at the Pochaev Monastery (but toward the end of his life, alas, he completely apostatized from the Church and became a Uniat). 5. [Ed. Note:] Later, Holy Martyr Archbishop Ilarion Troitsky, martyred by the Communists at Solovky. 6. [Originally in the text:] This lecture appeared in the THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, issue for autumn, 1914 or 1915. Incidentally, I do not guarantee the exactness of the title and references, because I am writing these lines on Valaam Island of Lake Ladoga and have with me only the Scripture in various languages, three other books, and my memory. 7. [Originally in the text:] Ecclesiatiscal Herald, Pascha, 1890. 8. [Editor's Note:] Bolotov, Vasili Vasilievich (1854-1900). Church historian who wrote many research papers on the ancient Christian Church, and on the Coptic, Syrian and Ethiopian Churches.

222 Dogma of Redemption

9. [Originally in the Text:] To the shame of Europe, America and, alas, post-Petrine Russia, they have so profoundly penetrated into social morals that they maintain their despotic sway over our contemporaries, even those of the most opposing convictions, such as the duellists of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons — the nihilist Bazarov and the elderly landed gentleman, Uncle Arkady. Similar duels took place several times between members of the Russian State Duma, who were just as radically divergent between themselves in practically everything else as were those two heroes of Turgenev. The despotic power of this prejudice is so great that its practical obligation persists even in a recently promulgated law (in the reign of Alexander III), while none dare protest against it, even those types who in everything else have "renounced the old world," beginning with faith in God. It is, however, much more incomprehensible how believers can be enslaved to this prejudice, and say: "I do not consider one to be a decent person who does not repay a slap in the face with blood." "This means that you will deny yourselves entry into paradise," I once said in response to such a statement. "You see, there you would have to have been in `bad company.' Look at the ikonostas in church: there are very few there who were not beaten on the cheek and on the whole body, beginning with Christ our Saviour and His apostles, and not a single one of them took that action, without which, in your opinion, it is impossible to be considered a decent person." My collocutor was at a loss for a reply, and it is doubtful if he will ever consider it possible to reconcile the prejudice of duelling with faith in the Christian God and the Divine Redeemer. 10. [Ed. Note:] See, e.g., St Athanasios the Great, Against Arius. 11. [Author's Note:] The Significance of the Cross in Christ's Work, by Archpriest Svetlov is a very valuable critique of the erroneous Western teaching on the subject, and of the content of the juridical theory. 12. [Editor's Note:] Levitov, Alxander Ivanovich (1835-1877) Russian writer who focused on the consequences for society of poverty, ignorance, alcoholism and family discord. 13. [Originally in the text:] in Faith and Reason, in 1916.

223 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

14. [Ed. Note:] “Askesis” in Greek, or “Podvig” in Russian. The word “podvig” is facile and not well defined, but in its religious sense, it is very easy to translate, and is well comprehended in the more certain and precise English term “moral struggle,” which, indeed, is even clearer than the Greek. 15. [Ed. Note:] Starogorodsky, later Patriarch Sergei of Moscow 16. [Author's Note:] In the Russian text, “sanctification.” Here, the translators submitted to a Protestant tendency; the inaccuracy of the translation is obvious from the very content: “that you might restrain yourself from fornication,” and also from the seventh verse of the same chapter where the same Greek word, “agiasmos” is translated as “holiness” (“God will call you forth not to impurity, but to holiness”). The word is thus translated in Rm.6:19, 22; lThs.4:4; lTm.2 :15; Hb.12:14). [Ed. Note:] This is also mistranslated in the KJV, Amplified and RSV, but correct in the NIV and Marshall's interlinear]. 17. [Ed. Note:] Dr Alexandre Kalomiros points out that in Scripture, dikaioseni, is used to render the Hebrew word tsedaka, which means precisely, “the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation,” and indicates "restoration" rather than "atonement." Moreover it is closely synonymous with the Hebrew words hesed (mercy; compassion; love) and emeth (fidelity; truth). See St Nectarios Orthodox Conference, p.106 (St Nectarios American Orthodox Church, 10300 Ashworth Ave. N., Seattle, Wa. 98133). In the West, such words are usually translated according to a juridical or legalistic predisposition, borrowed from Roman law and developed in the dialectic of the law courts. Even so, the word cannot honestly be rendered as “justification” in any juridical sense. 18. [Author's Note:] i.e., instead of pravda or pravednost' as In the Slavonic, corresponding to the Greek dikaioseni (In Rm.3:24; 2Cor.3:9; Gal.2:21) where the context requires a moral (ethical) concept, and not a juridical one. This is true also of the other words of Apostle Paul which, even in the Russian text are rendered as pravda. [Ed. Note:] The KJV and NIV translate correctly in Cor. and Gal., but erroneously in Rm.3:24. The Amplified gives the fulness of the meaning of Rm.3:24, though employing the term “justify”]. 19. For a further discussion of this see Justification: The Path to Theosis, by Rev. Dr. Michael Azkoul (Synaxis Press, 1997).

224 Dogma of Redemption

20. [Ed. Note:] But these are correctly translated in the majority of the English versions. 21. [Ed. Note:] Justification: There is no logical reason for assigning any juridical connotation to "justification" in Paul's epistles. Justification means to balance or set aright. The legalistic idea of "justice" as "punishment" is at the root of the problem. Justice, in fact, would demand that we be liberated from bondage to Satan and returned to the "Father's house," not that we be punished for being in bondage. The difficulty for the West is that both Latins and Protestants, being first of all tainted with Augustinianism, worked out their theological theories by means of the dialectic of the law courts. 22. [Ed. Note:] St Antony was precisely correct. Rev. Dr. Michael Azkoul observes: "The Church shares the Life of Christ. He is the Sun of Righteousness — helios dikaiosynes (Mal. 2:4) — the One from Whom all righteousness radiates. Righteousness is also sanctification: the transforming Grace of the Holy Spirit....Sometimes the phrase [Mal.2:4] is translated Sun of Justice; and likewise other Scriptural expressions and verses, such as: For therein is the justice of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written the just shall live by faith (Rm.1:17). "Justice" is derived from the Latin justitia ("to be made righteous"). During the course of the Latin Middle Ages, "justice" gradually appropriated a legal connotation (See K. Foelich, "Justification Language in the Middle Ages," in Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII. ed by H. Anderson, etc. Minneapolis, 1985, 143- 161. (See Justification: the Path to Theosis, Rev. Dr. Michael Azkoul (Synaxis Press, 1998) Fn.9. 23. [Ed. Note:] In the introductory paragraphs, Metropolitan Antony refers to various of his other writings in which he had previously touched upon this subject. These other articles, however, comprise Volume 2 of his complete series relative to the main dogmas of the faith, and not in this volume.

225 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

24. [Author's Note:] Since Apostle Paul undertakes to save people, how foolish is the indignation of the Protestants (and our own Fr Neplyuev) about the exclamation, “Most Holy Theotokos, save us.” How foolish are they to forbid the calling of spiritual shepherds “father" as if obeying Christ's words, “call no man on earth father” (Mt.23:9). In that case, Paul would have often transgressed the Lord's commandment, and John even mere so. Likewise, Stephen who even called the Jewish priests “father” (Acts 7:2), not to mention the fathers of old (cp.2—l5, etc; Rm.4:16). 25. [Editor's Note:] Nekrasov, Nikolai Alexeevich (1821-1877). Poet who strove to advance the healing of society. He expressed the grief and sorrow of the common people. 26. [Ed. Note:] St Hilary of Poitlers devotes several paragraphs to refuting the idea that Christ felt fear in Gethsemane. He says that Christ's words, “My soul is sorrowful unto death” cannot mean that He was sorrowful because of His own impending death. He was sorrowful unto death in that He sorrowed so greatly over fallen humanity that He came unto death over it. “So far from His sadness being caused by death, it was removed by it.” (see also the following endnote). 27. [Ed. Note:] Concerning the words, “Let this cup pass from Me,” St Hilary says, “For this prayer is immediately followed by the words, ‘and He came to His disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter; could you not watch one hour with Me?...the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh Is weak....' Is the cause of this sadness and this prayer any longer in doubt?...it is not, therefore, for Himself that He is sorrowful and prays, but for those whom He exhorts....” The saint points out that Christ had no need to fear His passion and death, but that even those who were committed to Him would so fear it that at first, on account of it, they would flee and fear to confess Him, and that Christ was sorrowful over this. The whole passage is well worth reading. See On the Trinity, Book 10:30—40. See also St John Chrysostom, Against the Marcionites and Maniceans; St Cyril of Alexandria, On Luke, Sermon 146, 147 and St Ambrose of Milan, On Luke, Book 10:56—62. Both St Cyril and St Ambrose directly confirm Metropolitan Antony's interpretation of the cause and significance of Christ's agony in Gethsemane, and the “cup” which He asked to have removed from Him. A number of other fathers also confirm this.

226 Dogma of Redemption

28. [Ed. Note:] Hb.5:7. The KJV mistranslates the verse as “in that He feared.” The translators may have been using the word to signify “great reverence,” as the word “fear” is often used in that manner in older English, but it is very misleading, and quite incorrect. Marshall's interlinear Version, the NEV and the 20 Century Version translate the verse more or less correctly. The Amplified translates correctly, but then adds a Calvinist interpretive note which renders itself absurd. One must also cite the correct translations in the Wycliff Version of 1380, Cranmer's 1536 rendition, and Tyndall's translation of 1534. 29. [Ed. Note:] See, for example, St Irenae of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book 5, 1:1. 30. [Ed. Note:] Compare St Athanasios the Great, esp. Contra the Gentiles, 35; 41; 43 in several paragraphs. Metropolitan Antony's whole paper on redemption is deeply permeated with the spirit of St Athanasios. 31. [Ed. Note:] For a more detailed discussion of essence and hypostasis see Freedom to Believe (Synaxis Press, 2001). 32. [Ed. Note:] This is almost a summary of St Athanasios' second treatise Contra Arius. St Athanasios says, for example, “Man would not have been deified if the Word, Who became flesh, was not of the Father by nature, the Father's own true kind, in order that it may conjoin the created man, whose salvation and deification may be thus secured, to the uncreated God” (Contra. Arius. 2, 70:4). This union of the Divine nature with the human is the basis of the salvation of the human nature, so that to the degree man, by struggle and Grace, restores himself to the original human nature (like the human nature of Christ), he may also participate in the Divine. in a sense, man becomes deified by struggling to become a true human, to restore in himself the original human nature, in which the “image and likeness” of God is dominant. According to St Maximos the Confessor, this theology is more or less summarized in the “Our Father,” which is certainly a soteriological exposition. 33. One of Augustine of Hippo's more serious heresies. For a compete discussion of this, see John Romanides, Original Sin (Zephyr Press, Glen Rock, NJ, 2002).

227 Khrapovitsky: Moral Idea of the Main Dogmas of the Faith

34. [Ed. Note:] This is, in fact, the case. The "in him" does refer to "death" and not at all to Adam. The KJV translates more correctly than many versions, and more correctly than the Russian: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Here, the "treacherous italics" indicating that "in Adam all sinned," do not appear. 35. [Ed. Note:] A more direct discussion of this question will be found in Romanides, On Original Sin, (Zypheros Press, Glen Rock, NJ). Essentially, though, the problem began, as usual, with Augustine of Hippo. He interpreted Romans 5:12 as saying: "Therefore sin came into the world through one man and death as a result of sin, so death spread to all men because in [Adam] him all have sinned." In fact, the "him" refers to death, which is in the masculine, and not at all to Adam. The KJV renders the verse at least more correctly, "Therefore, and sin came into the world through one man, and death as a result of sin, so death spread to all men because all men sin." In fact, the verse appears to say that all men sin because of death. See also, Azkoul, M., The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church (Dormition Skete, Buena Vista, Co.) pp.107, 185 and 200. 36. [Ed. Note:] See also, for example, Ezekiel, Chapter 18: "... The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge ...," but, "Behold all souls are Mine: as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son, they are Mine. The soul that sins shall die. But if a man be just ... he shall surely live ... Now, lo, if he beget a son who sees all his father's sins, and considers them and does not do likewise ... he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, but shall surely live ... The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father ..." Compare with Rm. 5:12, "... death spread to all men because all men sin."

228 APPENDIX ONE

THE NEO-NESTORIANISM OF FR. SERAPHIM ROSE A Rebuttal of Father Seraphim Rose's Critique of St. Antony Khrapovitsky's ON THE DOGMA OF REDEMPTION

CONTENTS

ARCHBISHOP LAZAR PUHALO: Preface

RT. REV. DR. MICHAEL AZKOUL: Critical Comments on Fr. Seraphim Rose's "Report: On the New Interpretation of the Dogma of Redemption"

DR. GEORGE GABRIEL: A Note on the Nestorianism Of Father Seraphim Rose

BISHOP VARLAAM NOVAKSHONOFF: ASSESSMENT OF THE TEXTS: A comparison of Fr. Seraphim Rose's rendition of texts in his Report with the actual texts, to demonstrate his unconscionable deceit

ARCHBISHOP VITALY USTINOV: The Monophysitism of the Critics of Metropolitan

229 Antony Khrapovitsky's "Moral Idea of the Dogma of Redemption"

BISHOP GREGORY GRABBE: From An Introduction to An English Translation of the Moral Idea of the Dogma of Redemption4

METROPOLITAN PHILARET OF NEW YORK: A Sermon of Metropolitan Philaret

1 PREFACE BY ARCHBISHOP LAZAR PUHALO

For some years now, we have published sound, patristic and historical information regarding the mythology of the "aerial toll-houses." This has been done in response to the great spiritual harm that the late Fr Seraphim Rose's book The Soul After Death has done among the faithful. We have received literally hundreds of letters and e-mails which amply testify to the spiritual catastrophe created by Fr. Seraphim's introduction of this Gnostic tale into the English speaking world. Moreover, a book with a theosoph- ically oriented text titled Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave was published at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordan- ville, NY, which has compounded the spiritual mischief left behind by the theosophical movements of 19th century Russia and of Fr. Seraphim Rose's book. For whatever reason, there is a feeling in some quarters that one should not expose these things, or mention the fact that Fr Seraphim had a strong stream of Gnosticism and

4. This introduction was written while Bishop Gregory was still Protopresbyter George Grabbe.

230 theosophical thought in his writings and teachings. His theological thought and philosophy were never particularly Orthodox, but were far more in the Latin scholastic tradition. This may have appealed to those who were and are educated in an atmosphere clouded by scholasticism and with a shadow of 19th century theosophical thought in their spirituality, but it is dangerous to the theology and spiritual welfare of the faithful. Another quite serious aspect of Fr Seraphim Rose's writing and translating is the fact that, in it, he is often intentionally dishonest and lacking in integrity. A prime example is his criticism of St Antony Khrapovitsky's work, The Moral Idea of the Dogma of Redemption. The intent of that work was to refute the assertion of Immanuel Kant that Christian dogma had no bearing on the moral life of man, and that it was often a hindrance to that moral life. Kant presumed that there was no moral ideal or idea in the dogmas of the faith that could impact on the life of mankind. Metropolitan Antony responded with a series of treatises demonstrating the moral idea of the main dogmas of the faith. His treatise on the Dogma of Redemption especially excited the confusion and anger of the radical scholastic elements in Russia, but this element was receding before the Russian Revolution. The primary antagonist to the saint's writing was Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, who had introduced Rasputin to the Imperial Family, and passed this demonic charlatan off as a great healer and man of God. Metropoli- tan Antony opposed Rasputin and was sent into exile by Tsar Nicholas for this opposition. Theophan of Poltava never forgave Vladika Antony for his opposition to Rasput- in, although he appears to have suffered from a sense of guilt

231 later, after Rasputin helped destroy the Tsar and the Russian Empire, facilitating the Communist victory. Theophan of Poltava was an ecstatic mystic whose biography reveals a pattern of psychotic hallucinations. Theophan was also a radical scholastic who argued against Metropolitan Antony's efforts to deliver Russian theology from its 300 year "Latin Captivity." He spent his last days in a cave in France surrounded by Dobermann watchdogs, convinced that his "enemies" were trying to assassinate him. The late Bishop Gregory Grabbe related to a group of us that Theophan refused to go to a Synod meeting in Sremsky Karlovtsy in Serbia because, as he insisted to two hierarchs who visited him, an angel had revealed to him that Metro- politan Antony intended to poison all the bishops at the next synod meeting. He was Metropolitan Antony's main critic and Fr Seraphim Rose was an avowed disciple of Theophan of Poltava, which is likely why Fr Seraphim insisted to me personally that Rasputin was a "holy martyr." The enmity which began between St Antony Khrapovitsky and Theophan of Poltava began when St Antony warned the Tsar against Rasputin. Archbishop Theophan was furious with St Antony's opposition to Rasputin. At the same time, and to a degree for the same reason, the Kontsevich family developed a dislike of St Antony. Archbishop Theophan and his disciples in the Kontsevich family were among the most scholastically inclined thinkers in Russia, and somewhat affected by the then current heavy influence of theosophy. Seraphim Rose stands in a direct line of descent from this negative environ- ment. He considered himself a disciple of both Archbishop Theophan and the Kontsevich family. He asserted, among other arguments, that Rasputin must have been a holy man

232 because the God-anointed Tsar could not have made an error in judgment in such a matter. It seems that there was even a theosophical idea about the monarchs. Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) correctly refers to the critics of Metropolitan Antony's work as "Neomonophy- sites," and Dr. George Gabriel is quite right in stating that Fr Seraphim Rose has crossed over the boundary into Nestorianism. Fr Seraphim's perfidity and lack of intellectual integrity are clearly demonstated by Bishop Varlaam (Novakshonoff) in his side by side comparison of original texts with Fr Rose's wilfully distorted versions. In the following texts, we are going to demonstrate both the woeful lack of Orthodox thought and of Orthodox Christian theology in Fr Seraphim Rose's critique of saint Antony Khrapovitsky's writing on the Dogma of Redemp- tion, and also his wilful deceptiveness and lack of integrity in citing texts and quoting from the holy fathers. Above all, we will not remain silent while Seraphim Rose's unwise and ill advised condemnation of saint Antony Khrapovitsky circulates and creates mischief among the faithful, reinforcing scholasticism against sound Orthodox Christian theology. We join St Philaret of New York in referring to Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky as "our great father of the Church Abroad and renowned theologian."

233 PART I

RT.REV. DR MICHAEL AZKOUL: Lebanese-American Theologian

Critical Comments on Fr Seraphim Rose's "Report: On the New Interpretation of the Dogma of Redemption" (Orthodox Word Nrs. 175-176 (1994). pp.159-171.

After reading once more Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky's The Dogma of Redemption, I came to appreciate more fully his intentions in writing it, given its theme — the moral dimension of the Redemption — which he initially defined in his 1924 Catechism.5 Fr Seraphim points to the latter as another important source of the Metropolitan's "new dogma," the first sign of his ostensible drift towards "theological modernism" (p.159), towards what Rose labels "expressionism," a word with which I am not familiar in this context and which no dictionary defined for me. Here was only the beginning of my criticisms of his Report, a paper that should never have been written or published. Fr Seraphim's errors are not only simple but conspicuous. For instance, sometimes his bibliography is incomplete (e.g., fn.4, p. 167); sometimes the page cited does not correspond to the quote (e.g., fn. 1, p. 168); and sometimes the quote is incomplete, out of context, or Rose

5. As Metropolitan Anthony mentions in the introduction to the Catechism, it was a revision of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow's earlier, but somewhat scholastic, Catechism.

234 merely name-drops, that is to say, listing names without their words, which, on some occasions, has the designed effect of associating his argument with the authority of his putative sources, for example, one of the holy fathers (e.g.,Report, p. 167). I cannot say what is worse: the above infraction of fairness and objectivity, or Rose's appeal to Orthodox hierarchs (and academicians), trained in the Protestant scholasticism of late 19th century Russian seminaries. There is a certain irony in Fr Seraphim's trust in such "theologians" who possessed the very mentality which Metropoli- tan Antony hoped to combat. These are writers who refer to "theology" as a "science" instead of a vision and experience (theoria) of the holy; or, in their criticism of the Metropolitan, employing a language and method which betrays their education —"The reason for redemption (causa efficiens) consists in the spiritual acceptance by the Lord Jesus Christ in Gethsemane and His salvific prayer for all human life" (Archbishop Nikon, A Biography of Metropoli- tan Antony vol. 5 p. 175). One is free to wonder seriously about the perspective with which his critics examined his works. Can we be certain that they came to them without prejudice? I may be puzzled about Fr Rose's motivation, but not about his lack of intellectual honesty. He placed evocative words and phrases (without context) from (perhaps, indirectly) the writings of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava,6 Archbishop Seraphim Sobolev of Boguchar, Archbishop Vitaly Maximenko of Jordanville, Archbishop Leonty of Chile, etc. with incomplete quotes and paraphrases. If this testimony is not naked hearsay, it is

6. [fn. added by Archbishop Lazar:] See the discussion of Theophan of Poltava in the preface above.

235 surely argumentum ad verecundiam, that is, invoking the names of venerable persons to produce the illusion of proof; assertions so phrased that any criticism of those persons risks a breach of propriety.

Let us look at the Report in greater detail. The charge against Metropolitan Antony's "dogma of the redemption" is that he replaced the Lord's sufferings on the Cross with the sufferings of His soul in Gethsemane as the cause of our salvation. Fr Seraphim also asserts that "in the thought of Metropolitan Antony the suffering of Christ's soul are separated from those of His body and are not only given central place, but in fact are identified [Rose's italics] with our redemption" (p. 168). Let us agree that the Metropolitan gave serious attention to the moral rudiments of the Lord's suffering in the Garden in Gethsemane (the anti-type of Adam's experience in the Garden of Eden), but far more evidence is required to justify the charge against the Metro- politan than is provided by the aforementioned remarks of Fr Seraphim or anywhere else in his Report. No one with a knowledge of the Fathers can deny that Christ's redemptive work is not limited to the Cross. "Jesus Christ did not redeem us so much by His sufferings as much as by His very Incarnation," wrote Metropolitan Antony in his The Dogma of Redemption (trans. by Holy Transfigura- tion Monastery. Montreal, 1979, p.2). Fr Justin Popovich agrees, insisting "that the work of redemption cannot be reduced to any one period of time: the sufferings of the Saviour began at His very birth into this world and continued until His crucifixion on the Cross between two thieves"

236 (Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Church [vol.2]. Belgrade, 1935, p.377). Fr Justin and, I suspect, Metropoli- tan Antony, knew that the holy fathers equated God's Plan of salvation — the "divine economy" or "dispensation" — with the Incarnation (see St John of Damascus, De Fid. Orth.7 III, 1). Also, the word "salvation" is nowhere limited, as Fr Rose suggested, to the soul by the Metropolitan. The fact that he often mentions "the suffering of Christ's soul" (dushevniya — soul without the body) only means that he was concerned with demonstrating the "inner power of the spiritual shepherd and by the action of which he works the regeneration of the faithful or, rather, mediates, since it is wrought by Christ and the Holy Spirit" (Dogma of Re- demption, p.18). In other words, it is chiefly through the soul that God works our salvation: save the soul and the body is saved: the soul is the primary value. For example, during the Divine Liturgy, the Church prays "For the peace of the whole world, for the salvation of our souls...;" for "Things good and profitable for our souls...;" or "0 Heav- enly King...come and cleanse our souls from every stain...;" or"...to enter the house of my soul which is leprous and sinful." If the critics of Metropolitan Antony had read more carefully The Dogma of Redemption and his other books and articles (and the Service Books of the Church), they might not have made such mistakes. Nor would they misquote him. "During that night in Gethsemane the thought and feeling of the God-man embraced fallen humanity numbering many, many millions and He wept with loving sorrow over each individual separately, as only

7. i.e., the Concise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.

237 the omniscient heart of God could do. In this consists (this was) our redemption" (Report, p. 169). The italics belong to Fr Seraphim, as does the deliberate omission of the context, which is made clear by Metropolitan Antony: "For since the night in Gethsemane and that day on Golgotha, every believer, even he who is just beginning to believe, recognizes his inner bond with Christ and turns to Him in his prayers as to the inexhaustible source of moral regenerating force" (Dogma Of Redemption, p.26). Fr Seraphim is as careless with his accusations as he is with quotations. In The Dogma of Redemption (p.52), the Metropolitan purportedly said, "The crucifixion of our Lord and His death are not without meaning for our salvation, since, by touching people they reveal to them at least some part of the redemptive sacrifice" (Report, p. 169). Fr Seraphim would want us to believe that this means that the Metropolitan views the Sacrifice on the Cross as "metaphorical" (ib., p.170). The Metropolitan's actual words (and meaning) read somewhat differently: "Christ's cleansing Blood, saving Cross, life-giving tomb, and healing wounds are all expressions and images which are substituted (in the epistles of the Apostles and Fathers, and in the Church prayers), for the general concept of Christ's redeeming Passion; those aspects of His exploits, of His saving grief and passion, which made the greatest impression on us, are taken up here, especially the Holy Cross, but also the nails, the sponge and the reed" [in the Octoechos]. "We are, of course, far from insisting that the only meaning of our Lord's bodily suffering and, in particular, of His crucifixion and death was to provide the faithful with a way of conceiving His spiritual grief. It is probably that because of this connection between the soul and body [my

238 italics], there is a deeper mystical sense here; but, in any case, from the viewpoint of moral monism, the Lord's crucifixion and death are not without meaning for our salvation for, by bringing men to compunction, they reveal to them some portion of the redemptive sacrifice and, by leading them to love for Christ, they prove saving for them and for all of us" (Dogma Of Redemption, pp.51-52). Fr Rose, then, concludes that the Metropolitan holds that "there are two kinds of Christians: those who know the real teaching (by going to the academy) and those who must have something to move them (peasant piety). This is," asserts Seraphim Rose, "a condescending attitude toward the Holy Cross which contradicts the texts of the Divine Services. Blasphemy" (Report, p. 169). Aside from the fact that Fr Seraphim's falsehood contradicts the Metropolitan's ecclesiology (Dogma Of Redemption, p. 35), Rose's wild leap in logic, from one sentence to the next, climaxing in a gratuitous insult, makes it clear that it is surely the priggish Fr Seraphim who is not only "condescending" but insolent towards a bishop who commanded universal respect as pastor and theologian (see S. Bolshakov, "Le Metropolite Antoine de Kiev, President du Synod des Eveque Russes L'Etranger," Irenikon 5, 1935-1936, pp.558-577). Fr Sera- phim parades numerous witnesses to condemn the Metro- politan's opinions on the suffering of Christ's soul as a "new teaching" (Report, p. 169). They all agree that this "novelty" cannot be found in the Fathers "point by point" [my italics]. But St Matthew (26:36-38) records that Christ took into the Garden of Gethsemane with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and "began to be sorrowful and very heavy...and He said to them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; remain, and watch with me." St John Chrysostom asserts

239 that the Incarnate Lord was not "acting the agony. There was sweat, like drops of blood, and an angel came and strengthened Him, and a thousand sure signs of fear, lest anyone should think He was pretending.... He showed His humanity...His virtue and self-command, teaching us that even when nature pulls us back, to follow God" (Commen- tary On Matthew, homily. 83, 1). The frivolous inference that Metropolitan Antony "seemed actually to posit suffering in Christ's Divine Nature" (Report, p. 170) has now been put to rest, if ever such proof were in fact required. Now, the furore in this debate has surrounded the suffering of Christ's soul, and nowhere does the Metropolitan attribute a soul to God. Fr Rose hoped to strengthen the charge of "patripassianism" or "God-suffering" by a (mis) quote from St John of Damascus, "God does not suffer in His Divinity" (ib.). There is misdi- rection here, because St John writes, "We say that God suffered in the flesh, but never that His Divinity suffered in the flesh; or that God suffered through the flesh" (De Fid. Orth. III, 26). To this confusion, Fr Seraphim resorts to another distortion of the Metropolitan's theology, linking his beliefs with the teachings of "Western Protestant writers," such as Ellen White, the foundress of Seventh-Day Adventism, and others (Report, p. 170). But Fr Seraphim is not finished. He attacks the idea of Christ's Gethsemane "co-suffering love." Without biblio- graphical reference, he quotes the revered Fr Michael Pomazansky of Jordanville who wonders how, according to Metropolitan Antony, one may "co-suffer with that part of humanity which lives criminally and rejects repentance? One may suffer over it, one may suffer for it, for its blindness and wickedness, but not together with it when it

240 doesn't even think to suffer" (ib., 168). Discarding the notion that the Saviour's "co-suffering" is "metaphorical," we may answer Fr Michael (?) in a basic Christian doctrine. Not only does God "desire that all men might be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth," but to that end Christ died for all: "that in the economy of the fullness of times, He might gather together in one all things (anakephlaiosaitha = collect under one head; recapitulation) in Christ, both which are in heaven and on the earth" (Eph.1: 10). Metropolitan Antony follows St Paul; in fact, he follows the exposition of the Apostle's words given by St Basil the Great in his Ascetic Statutes. He taught that central to "the Saviour's Incarnation" was "to gather human nature to itself and to Himself and, having abolished the evil cleavage, to restore the original unity" (Dogma Of Redemp- tion p.36). So, whether one believes in Christ or not, whether we are "criminal" or not (the Lord died for every sinner), or whether one "even thinks to suffer" with Him or not, Christ is the Saviour and "co-sufferer" of all. Some Protes- tant sects profess that Christ died only for the elect or true believers; but the Scriptures and the Fathers teach that He suffered for all. He was "the Suffering Servant" Who suffered all His Life, in Gethsemane, "the humiliation, the spitting, the scourge, the nails," as well as the Cross where Christ becomes "the Warrior," cleansing our sins, vanquish- ing the devil and "destroying death by His Death" for mankind. Indeed, Fr Michael is right to confirm that "it was finished on the Cross (as the Saviour said), not in the Garden," where, the Metropolitan insisted, the Lord endured moral anguish for all — a step in the whole process of salvation. In a word, there is no reason to believe that St

241 Antony (as some call him) would disagree with him.

"Metropolitan Antony claimed that he did not insist that everyone follow his teaching," writes Fr Seraphim (Report, p.162). He is implying that the Metropolitan was not confident in the Orthodoxy of his teaching about Christ in Gethsemane. In The Dogma of Redemption, he shows no such diffidence. "I am convinced that the explanation of the truth of the doctrine of redemption which I have expounded is in accord with the teaching of the Church; but I am even more firmly convinced in the Church's infallibility, so that if it were proved to me that my explanation does not coincide with her teaching, I would consciously renounce my view on our dogma. But inasmuch as no one has proven this to me (and I hope no one will), I remain persuaded that the explanation I have proposed is in complete agreement with Holy Scripture and the Church's Tradition, while its apparent novelty results only from the fact that it unfolds the Church's teaching in the language of exact concepts and harmonizes the meaning of the dogma under consideration with the rest of the most important truths of the Faith" (p. 53). Thus, looking at the Redemption from a moral point of view, he declared, "Salvation is our conscious process of perfection and communion with God; therefore, the truths of revelation," unity with it, should be bound to our inner experience and not remain completely a misunderstood mystery (ib.). He took this stance not only to make explicit what is everywhere taught by the Church, but, also, as a response to the legalism of the medieval theory of Redemp-

242 tion, and, also, to its ethical perversion by Tolstoy and Kant. Fr Rose understood neither the religious nor historical motivation for Metropolitan Antony's doctrine; and if we can trust Fr Rose to have accurately cited his sources — sources which appear so critical of the Metropolitan — then, we must think of them likewise, for one reason or another, as misunderstanding the point he tried so vigorously to make. It is altogether lamentable that Fr Seraphim dismissed out of hand the disciples of the Metropolitan, including Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), Archbishop Vitaly (now Metro- politan of ROCOR), and his predecessor, the late St Philaret who, in his sermon for Holy Friday, 14/27 April, 1973, appeals to Metropolitan Antony directly and precisely to the "dogma of the Redemption" which Fr Rose calumni- ates with his cut and paste polemic. Strange, too, he does not answer the questions raised by Metropolitan Antony about the moral aspect of the Redemption; and that, from any point of view, Fr Seraphim fails to recite for us, in opposition to Metropolitan Antony, the "real" "dogma of the redemption." But the Metropolitan offers a "complete" picture of Christ's Redemption; indeed, at the same time that he described the moral or subjective aspects of the dogma (the focus of the controversy), he was expounding its "objective" elements (about which Fr Rose says nothing in the Report). If only he had read the last three chapters of The Dogma of Redemption. The Metropolitan clarifies terms ("sacrifice," "justification," "original sin," etc.), which enabled him to properly compare the Orthodox or patristic doctrine of the Redemption with the legalistic theories of the post-Ortho- dox West.

243 Examine in this book his teachings about the Fall of Adam, the devil, Calvary as a battleground, the crucified Lord offering Himself as a "ransom" to the grave and "a devout gift to God" (ib., p. 43). I see none of this in the Report. None of Fr Seraphim's witnesses (at least, not as they testify for him) mention the "objective side" of the Metropolitan's teachings on the Passion. We are not informed (an interesting oversight) that he cites the Triod- ion which declares that Christ "descended into Hades to preach to the dead and again returned to earth when He rose from the dead." The Saviour "mourned in His prayer" for them, thus identifying with all who are "perishing morally" (ib., p. 50). Therefore, it would seem that Fr Seraphim contrived and failed to find contradiction in the soteriology of the Metropolitan; and if he failed to show in his works any opposition between the subjective or moral aspects of the Redemption ( which he raised to prominence) to its objective or historical side, it is because there was none.

Fr Michael Azkoul

DR. GEORGE GABRIEL, Ph.D. Greek Theologian

A NOTE ON THE NESTORIANISM OF FATHER SERAPHIM ROSE

Fr Seraphim Rose actually falls into Nestorianism in his criticism of Metropolitan Antony's teaching on the agony of the Saviour's human soul. Fr Seraphim says that the human nature and the divine nature of Jesus are not mixed

244 and therefore the sufferings of His human soul are not able to save. For Fr Seraphim the God-Man's energies and operations proceed out of Him independently from their own corresponding natures, human and divine. Thus, for Rose, each nature had its own active, co-essential person, one Divine and one human, through whom these energiza- tions were realized. Fr Seraphim appears to have no understanding that the operations of the Saviour belong to the composite, single hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos. Jesus Christ is One. The Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils established the term “synthetos hypostasis of the enfleshed Logos” to show that all actions and operations of Jesus are not of one nature or the other acting independently, but of His own Person, the composite hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos and Son of God. This term protects the true Christol- ogy from schizoid allusions such as those of Fr Seraphim Rose. Such are the allusions (and delusions) that Fr Sera- phim makes in his criticism of “The Dogma of Redemp- tion.” He divides the Incarnate operations of the Saviour into distinctly human (and thus, not efficacious) actions, and distinctly divine and efficacious actions. In contrast to Fr Rose's dismissal of the salvific and sanctifying suffering of the Saviour's human soul, what comes to mind immediately is St Gregory the Theologian's dictum regarding the saving role of the entire human nature of the Saviour: "What has not been assumed is not sanctified."

245 PART 2

RT. REV. VARLAAM (NOVAKSHONOFF) Bishop of Vancouver

ASSESSMENT OF THE TEXTS A comparison of Fr Seraphim Rose's rendition of texts in his Report with the actual texts, to demonstrate his unconscionable deceit.

FR SERAPHIM ROSE'S THE ACTUAL TEXT: VERSION:

1. "The significance of this 1. The significance of this [Gethsemane] exploit (lit. struggle is fully elucidated podvig) is fully expressed in for the first time in theological science for the theological science, in first time.” [Rose's italics]. connection with the whole system of dogmatics and ethics.1 2. "Metropolitan Antony approaches this matter from 2. Metropolitan Antony another aspect, from which approaches the matter from the holy fathers did not ap- a different perspective, with proach it... that is, from the which the holy fathers did aspect of the sufferings of not approach [it] — from Christ's soul; and therefore the perspective of Christ's he comes to such conclu- soulful [dushevnykh] sions which are not to be sufferings, and thus he found directly in the holy presents [or, has] such fathers.”[all italics are conclusions which the holy

246 Rose's]. fathers do not present directly (although allusions [hints] to these thoughts of Metropolitan Antony are also to be found in the literature of the holy fathers). How can it follow from this that the thoughts of Metropolitan Antony contradict those of the holy fathers?2

3. "Metropolitan Antony 3. Metropolitan Antony underlines only that which emphasizes only that which, is in his investigation new in his research, is new to theology.” [Rose's italics]. theology and leaves that which is [already] well know to all.3

4. "Metropolitan Antony's 4. The connection of the view of the Old Testament Golgotha sacrifice with the sacrifice is new in Old Testament sacrifices is (theological) science.” (In the only a connection. Stated in writings of the Holy fathers a different way: the Old there exists a clear teaching Testament sacrifices fore- on Old Testament sacrifice, imaged Christ's willing which leaves no room for a sacrifice. Again we have a new understanding.) [Rose's matter of a metaphor, an italics. His own personal analogy, which is deduced commentary in parentheses logically; it is impossible to is interjected without attach demonstrative admitting to it in order to significance (as Archbishop

247 deceive the reader into Theophan expresses himself) believing that it appeared in [to it]. The perspective of the original]. Metropolitan Antony of the Old Testament sacrifice is new in [Russian theological] science.4 [emphases in original].

5. "Metropolitan Antony 5. Metropolitan Antony approaches the matter and also approaches the matter the teaching of Christ's of the teaching about sacrifice from another new Christ's sacrifice from aspect which the Fathers did another perspective, not not notice.” (When this was given attention by the mentioned in the Synodal Fathers. Thus, this session in 1974, Archbishop perspective does not diverge Nikon said that the Holy from [or, with] theology, fathers had been "unable to but actually [or, even] arrive” at this: "ne elucidates it, for example, nadumalis.") [Rose's italics]. "O Lord Who has suffered and co-suffered as man, glory to Thee." [Our] theology was, in general, little concerned [or, occupied] with dividing the redemption struggle into [specific] moments: Christ introduces his glorified Body and Blood on Great Thursday, when His suffering had not yet been accomplished, and in the

248 liturgy, in the section which Archbishop Theophan cites [i.e., the prayer of the elevation in the Anaphora], the entire redemptive struggle of Christ is presented holistically [or, o r g a n i c a l l y ] : "Remembering, therefore, this saving commandment, and all that came to pass on our behalf, the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Session at the right hand, the second and glorious Coming again."5

6. "Metropolitan Antony 6.It is evident to us that emphasizes an almost Metropolitan Antony gives previously undiscovered the terrible Golgotha its [or, inward meaning of the a] due place, but he Gethsemane supernatural emphasizes a previously prayer of the God-man.” almost unnoticed inherent [Italics and intentional mis- meaning in the Gethsemane translation are Seraphim supernatural6 prayer of the Rose's]. Is one really to God-Man, and for this, suppose that the Holy theological science must be fathers didn't comprehend deeply grateful to him.7 the inner meaning of the [Emphasis in original]. Gethsemane prayer, but

249 only Metropolitan Antony has? [Sarcastic comment added by Seraphim Rose, but made to appear to the unwary reader as if it occurred in the original].

7. Archbishop Nikon adds, 7. The error of Western "T h i s m i stake (the t h e o l o g i a n s i n t h e Gethsemane fear of death) interpretation of the essence entered into human of redemption, such as the theological thought and satisfaction of God's remained unnoticed by offended honour by the anyone throughout the course crucifixion of the only- of the centuries until begotten Son, unavoidably Metropolitan Antony.” entailed the other error in [Rose's italics]. the understanding of the Gethsemane prayer of our [See special note on this Lord Jesus Christ before His paragraph by Bishop death. This error firmly Varlaam, below.] entered into human theological thought and remained [there] without being noticed by anyone in the course of the centuries until Vladika Antony.8

8. "The reason for 8. But it is evident that for redemption (causa efficiens) an explanation of the consists in the spiritual teaching about redemption, acceptance by the Lord Jesus two aspects of it must be

250 Christ in Gethsemane and strictly distinguished: one is His salvific prayer for all the essence of our human life.” redemption, or its cause, which Vladika Antony refers to by a Latin term, `causa efficiens.' It consists in a spiritual perception by the Lord Jesus Christ, in Gethsemane, of the redemptive prayer for all human life. The other understanding is the accomplishment of our redemption, [ which] continued throughout the [entire] course of the earthly life of the Saviour and was concluded by His suffering on the cross, death and resurrection, [by] which the perception of the divine life of our Redeemer had become possible for us.9 [All emphases in original].

It will be sufficient to refer to item 7 above to demonstrate Fr Seraphim's woeful ignorance of the holy fathers, and his lack of discretion in asserting that they teach something which, in fact, they do not. In item 7, Fr Seraphim asserts that Metropolitan Antony is insinuating into Orthodox theology a novelty "unknown by previous theologians" when he writes that the priestly prayers of

251 Christ in Gethemane were not about His own fear. However, let us look at what our holy father St Hilary of Poitiers has to say about this. St Hilary of Poitiers devotes several paragraphs to refuting the idea that Christ felt fear in Gethsemane. He says that Christ's words, "My soul is sorrowful unto death” cannot mean that He was sorrowful because of His own impending death. He was sorrowful unto death in that He sorrowed so greatly over fallen humanity that He came unto death over it. "So far from His sadness being caused by death, it was removed by it.” Concerning the words, "Let this cup pass from Me,” St Hilary says, "For this prayer is immediately followed by the words, ‘and He came to His disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, Could you not watch one hour with Me?...the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak....' Is the cause of this sadness and this prayer any longer in doubt?...It is not, therefore, for Himself that He is sorrowful and prays, but for those whom He exhorts....” The saint points out that Christ had no need to fear His passion and death, but that even those who were committed to Him would so fear it that at first, on account of it, they would flee and fear to confess Him, and that Christ was sorrowful over this. The whole passage is well worth reading. See the saint's work On The Trinity, Book 10:30—40. Confirmation of Metropolitan Antony's teaching (and, consequently, a refutation of Fr Seraphim Rose) will be found also in St John Chrysostom, Against the Marcionites and Manichaeans, St Cyril of Alexandria, Commentaries on Luke, Sermons 146 and 147; and St Ambrose of Milan, On Luke, Book 10:56-62. Both St Cyril and St Ambrose directly confirm Metropolitan Antony's interpretation of the cause and significance of Christ's

252 agony in Gethsemane, and the "cup” which He asked to have removed from Him. A number of other fathers also confirm this. We urge our present readers to research the works mentioned above and then compare the teachings of these holy fathers on the subject with that of Metropolitan Antony. In addition, we would like to refer to Fr Seraphim Rose's intentional distortion of the title of Metropolitan Antony's edition of the older Russian catechism. The title of the edited catechism is Experience of an Orthodox Catechism. Rose, in an evident and clearly dishonest effort to be pejorative, uses a strained and obviously incorrect rendering of the word opyt”, rendering it as "attempt." Rose renders the title of the Metropolitan's editing of the catechism as An Attempt at an Orthodox Catechism and one must wonder if this was not an attempt to lead the reader to think that Metropolitan Antony was unsure of himself in the editing of the catechism.10

ENDNOTES:

1. Rklitsky, Archbishop Nikon, Life and Works of Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky, Vol.5, p.160 2. Life and Works..., Vol.5, p.171 3. Life and Works..., Vol.5, p.173. 4. Life and Works..., Vol.5, pp.173-174. 5. [and the exclamation: "Thine own of Thine own, we offer unto Thee...."] Life and Works..., Vol.5, p.174 (not p.175 as cited in Rose's Report.) 6. Bold in the original. 7. Life and Works..., Vol.5, p.175. 8. Life and Works..., Vol.4, p.106. 9. Life and Works..., Vol.4, p.103.

253 10. A. Alexandrow's Polnyi russko-angliiskii slovar', (Berlin, 1924 — in old orthography) does not include "attempt" in the definition of the word opyt”. V.K Müller's Anglo-russkii slovar' (Moscow, 1963) gives "attempt" as the last (and least likely) usage of opyt”.

PART 3 From Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church I THE MONOPHYSITISM OF THE CRITICS OF METROPOLITAN ANTONY'S "MORAL IDEA OF THE DOGMA OF REDEMPTION."

HIS EMINENCE, VITALY (USTINOV) Archbishop of Montreal and All-Canada, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

INTRODUCTION1

Metropolitan Antony, the founder of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, for the first time in the

1. This introduction appeared in an English translation of Metropolitan Antony's Moral Idea of the Dogma of Redemption published by Monastery Press, Montreal, Canada in 1992.

254 entire history of Orthodox academic theology, set forth the teaching of the dogma of redemption in a manner completely in agreement with the holy fathers, with Holy Orthodoxy. This does not mean, however, that this teaching was unknown to the Holy fathers of the Church. It lived in the bosom of the Church's grace-filled life, and by it all the saints, all the Doctors and Fathers of the Church lived. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church brings forth to the level of academic doctrine only that truth which is subject to attack, criticism or mockery by the enemies of the Church, by heretics and atheists. She contrives nothing, she does nothing which is artificial. Thus the time came when the Church was constrained by necessity to set Her academic theology on a truly Orthodox path. Now this was necessary because the scholastic school of theology had placed the doctrine of redemption entirely within the confines of judicial principles, interpreting it as the Saviour's redeeming merits and the satisfaction of God's flouted justice through Christ's sufferings. The entire judicial principle found in Orthodox dogmatic theology was and is foreign to Orthodoxy (since it is foreign to the God of love), and it could not satisfy the awakening Russian Orthodox thought which had been incessantly knocking at the door of this mystery of dogmatic theology for a long time. In such instances the Church has need of a Council, but without the consent of civil authorities it was not possible at that time to summon a Council. Therefore the Lord singled out His servant, Metropolitan Antony, so that through him He might reveal the hidden, mystical aspect of the entire work of redemption. The Metropolitan's unbounded love for Christ and his perfect devotion to His Church led him to this sublime height of theology. The

255 scholastic teaching presented the spiritual side of redemption as very impoverished, abstract and even emotional. But for this very reason it concentrated nearly the entire force, sense and meaning of redemption on the Saviour's sufferings on the Cross, and consequently it unconsciously fell prey to a kind of one-sidedness like that of the ancient Monophysites. The difference between these Neomonophysites and those of old is only that our Neomonophysites have for the subject of their theological emphasis not the Saviour's Divine nature, but His human nature. Therefore, it is not surprising that certain obdurate devotees of scholasticism, dismayed at the sudden appearance of a teaching totally unknown to academic theology, immediately accused Metropolitan Antony of diminishing the soteriological significance of the Saviour's suffering on the Cross. Metropolitan Antony, however, like a true Chalcedonian, simply restored the academic understanding of redemption to the theological balance of the dogmatical definition of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the two natures in Christ. Such is the great service of Metropolitan Antony, who applied a healing plaster to Russian academic theology by placing this foremost dogma concerning our redemption back into the mainstream of the great Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. In church life we know how hard it is for all clergymen who rely on the scholastic doctrine, on this Monophysite world-view, to preach before the holy Epitaphios. One famous Russian hierarch, feeling it awkward to speak on the Saviour's sufferings upon the Cross, the wounds, the spitting, the blows, on the entire human aspect of the sufferings of the God-man, managed to escape from the predicament by concluding his entire sermon with the

256 words, "Brothers and sisters, let us weep!” But the Roman Catholics, having departed from the Church of Christ and no longer being under the shelter of the Holy Spirit, have by their tenacious meditation on the wounds of the nails reached the pathological state of the stigmata, that is to say, an extremely serious form of the spiritual disease of delusion (prelest).

The difference between these Neomonophysites and those of old is only that our Neomonophysites have for the subject of their theological emphasis not the Saviour's Divine nature, but His human nature.

Howbeit, the crown of all of Metropolitan Antony's writings and of his archpastoral activities in the realm of learning was his disclosure of the moral aspect of the dogma of redemption. As a true archpastor he looked with pain of heart upon the vacuum which was created between academic doctrine and his Christian flock. The precious golden link between doctrine and life had been lost over the recent centuries of scholasticism's predominance. But it is better if we present here our author's complete thought in his own words:

One must suppose that, during that night in Gethsemane, the thought and feeling of the God-Man embraced fallen humanity numbering many, many millions, and He wept with loving sorrow over each individual separately, as only the omniscient heart of God could. In this did our redemption consist. This is why God, the God-Man, and only He, could be our Redeemer. Not an angel, nor a man. And not at all

257 because the satisfaction of Divine wrath demanded the most costly sacrifice.

For the everyday Orthodox Christian, unskilled in theology, nurtured in scholastic doctrine, or simply in worldly literature, this thought will seem commonplace, arid, devoid of any special content. But for those who "hunger and thirst after righteousness,"2 for those who are discerning and reflective, this thought is a true Divine revelation, capable of spiritually enrapturing a human soul, of moving a hardened heart to compunction and of causing a man to shed tears of repentance. One can say without exaggeration that the dogma of redemption as expounded by Metropolitan Antony, is — even without the calling of a Council — the conciliar voice of the entire Church of Christ. After many centuries of scholasticism's reign, after the famous ‘Renaissance' and the submission before German philosophy, such a teaching should be called a miracle of theological thought, a pinnacle of godly deliberation, equal to the very dogmatical formulation of the Council of Chalcedon in its profundity. That which Chalcedon did for dogmatic theology, the same Metropolitan Antony has done for moral theology. It remains for me to express the ardent desire that in a future Ecumenical Council—if it be God's will that one should ever again assemble, none of its members being Communists or Ecumenists disguised in Orthodox rassas — that the scholastic doctrine, which has caused the Church of Christ so much grief, be definitively and conclusively anathematized. And one further desire: that some God- inspired ecclesiastical writer would compose a prayer in the

2. The Russian word for "righteousness" also means "truth."

258 spirit and sense of the dogma of redemption. Slowly but surely, with much toil but steadily, this doctrine — so filled with love, joy and hope — of the great teacher of both the Russian and the Universal Church, Metropolitan Antony, breaks its way through the barrier of thorns and thistles, that is, of slander and ignominy. For "No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed” (Luke 8:16).

Archbishop Vitaly II

RT. REV. GREGORY GRABBE Bishop of Manhattan3

FROM AN INTRODUCTION TO AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE MORAL IDEA OF THE DOGMA OF REDEMPTION

In 1917, about a year after I had first begun to take an interest in theological literature, I had occasion to read in the Theological Herald—a journal published by the Theological Academy of Moscow—an article by Metropolitan (at that time Archbishop of Kharkov) Antony entitled "The Dogma of Redemption.” The article made a very

3. This rebuttal was written while Vladika Gregory was still Protopresbyter George.

259 strong impression on me. From that period I became accustomed to copy out in a notebook passages which especially pleased me from books I read; selections from the "Dogma of Redemption” covered many pages of my notebook. But the time came when the Bolsheviks approached the Northern Caucasus where our family lived, at first in Kislovodsk, then in Esentuki. We had to prepare for evacuation. In such times a man must face the question, which of his possessions are the most dear and are to be taken, and which are to be abandoned, since baggage must be restricted. For a lover of books this is a very painful decision. And so, among those few books which I could take was Metropolitan Antony's article "The Dogma of Redemption,” which I tore out from that number of the Theological Herald. Afterwards in Yugoslavia, at one of my first meetings with Metropolitan Antony, I heard him say that he wished to republish this article, but he was unable to locate the proper number of the Theological Herald, which was published during the Revolution but that number never reached abroad. Vladika was overjoyed when he learned that I had kept this article in which he placed so much love, trust, and faith. Naturally, I gave him the article and it was reprinted by him in 1922, apparently

260 with the aid of Patriarch Gregory of Antioch, who had great esteem for Vladika Antony. I should not be mistaken if I were to say that of all his compositions Metropolitan Antony especially cherished the "Dogma of Redemption,” which he pondered and nurtured over a period of many years. His Orthodox consciousness as well as the conscious understanding which evolved in him through the influence of a deeper study of the works of the holy fathers and a series of Russian theologians, could not be reconciled with the Western, juridical interpretation of one of the fundamental dogmas of our Church. A. S. Khomiakoff initiated an impetus for our theology to return from Western scholasticism to the Holy fathers, and this became manifest in the works of various theologians, some of whom were students of Metropolitan Antony. If it is so that Archimandrite Sergei (later known as Patriarch), Nesmyelov, Svetlov, and others prepared the ground for a correct understanding of the dogma of redemption through their criticism of the Western, juridical approach to this dogma, then to a considerable degree they will be found to have elaborated thoughts which saint Gregory the Theologian in his homily on Pascha pointed out long ago as needing further investigation, stating:

261 It remains for us to examine an act and a dogma overlooked by most, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom this was offered, and for what cause? If to the evil one, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, on what principle did the Blood of His Only-begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered up by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice, but neither asked for it, nor felt any need for it, but on account of the

262 economy, and because man must be sanctified by the humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant by violence, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also providentially effected this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? Such are the things concerning Christ, but as for the greater part, let it be reverenced with silence. (§ 22)

The saint could stop at this because in his days there was no Western, juridical theory regarding redemption. This theory, which in its practical application gave birth to such monstrous apparitions as Roman indulgences, urgently required in our times an Orthodox rebuttal. By way of criticism Archimandrite Sergei, Svetlov, and others provided an adequate refutation, but Metropolitan Antony unfolded a positive teaching concerning that which saint Gregory, for considerations which were at that time undoubtedly weighty, reverenced with silence. In the days, however, of Metropolitan Antony, the juridical error had so greatly increased, that he had to break this silence. For this the science of theology and all we faithful are obliged to render him eternal thanks.

263 Metropolitan Antony's thoughts received further development in complete agreement with him in Fr Justin Popovich's Dogmatic Theology, though the latter's custom was never to cite modern theologians, but only to quote the words of the Holy fathers. In the Fathers, Fr Justin found many thoughts akin to those of Metropolitan Antony, but not systematized as Vladika Antony had done, and Fr Justin after him. In his presentation, grounded upon the words of the Fathers, he supplements much of what Metropolitan Antony said and totally abolishes the misunderstanding which arose among hostile critics, who reproached the Metropolitan for diminishing the significance of the Saviour's sufferings on the Cross. This criticism is based for the most part on an inattentive reading of the Metropolitan's words, whose starting point was from the fact that the God-Man had human flesh and a human soul and hence suffered in both parts of His human nature. Because Western theology stopped at the sufferings of His Body, Metropolitan Antony, though in no wise disregarding these, centred his attention more upon the sufferings of the Saviour's soul. Therefore, it would be unjust to say that he dismissed Golgotha and transferred the focal point of the grievous weight of redemption from there to

264 Gethsemane. By no means! In both events he strove to penetrate into the sufferings of the soul of the God-Man as a manifestation of His compassionate love, which in a spiritual manner unites us with Him and regenerates the children of the Holy Church. I shall cite the following words of Vladika Antony which have remained unnoticed by his critics:

He was oppressed with the greatest sorrows on the night when the greatest crime in the history of mankind was committed, when the ministers of God, with the help of Christ's disciple, some because of envy, some because of avarice, decided to put the Son of God to death. And a second time [emphasis mine—Protopresbyter G. Grabbe] the same oppressing sorrow possessed His pure soul on the Cross, when the cruel masses, far from being moved with pity by His terrible physical sufferings, maliciously ridiculed the Sufferer; and as to His moral suffering, they were unable even to surmise it.

Therefore, his words, "In this did our redemption consist,” must be referred not only to Gethsemane, but to Golgotha also, contrary to the claims of the Metropolitan's critics.

265 Developing the thoughts of Metropolitan Antony in his Dogmatic Theology, Archimandrite Justin sums them up, as it were, when he explains that the work of redemption cannot be reduced to any one period of time: the sufferings of the Saviour began at His very birth into this world and continued until His crucifixion on the Cross between two thieves. The God-Man was unable not to suffer and endure anguish unceasingly, having at every moment before His all-seeing eyes all the sins, all the vices and all the transgressions of His contemporaries, as well as those of all men of all times. Fr Justin writes the following words in complete harmony with this article of Metropolitan Antony, whom he so esteemed:

Even before Gethsemane, but especially in Gethsemane, the man-befriending Lord experienced all the torments of human nature which had rushed upon it as a result of sin. He suffered all the sufferings which human nature had suffered from Adam until his last descendant; He endured the pain of all human pains as though they were His own; He underwent all human misfortunes as though they were His own. At that moment He had before His all-seeing eyes all the millions of human souls, which as a

266 result of sin are tormented in the embrace of death, pain, and vice.... In Him, in the true God-Man, human nature wept and lamented, beholding all which she had done by falling into sin and death (Protosyngellus Dr. Justin Popovich. Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Church. Belgrad, 1935. Vol. II, p. 377).

We cannot but regret that Fr Justin's Dogmatic Theology was all but annihilated during the Second World War and has become a rarity. It was not translated into Russian, and is, for that reason also, unavailable to the majority of our theologians. Nevertheless, without mentioning Metropolitan Antony's name, Fr Justin gave an answer, well- grounded on the Holy fathers, to all the points raised by the Metropolitan's opponents. When, in my youth, I read the "Dogma of Redemption,” that which captivated me, a fifteen- year-old youth just beginning to read theological books, was the freshness and depth of the author's thoughts, combined with the simplicity of his presentation. And it is with this same sensation that I experience his thoughts while reading his works now. In general, Metropolitan Antony did not perceive the dogmas as abstract, dry formulas, but as revelations given us for the direction of our life. He understood and explained that Divine

267 truths are not revealed to us in order to satisfy our inquisitive thirst for knowledge, but in order that we apprehend them with our heart and soul. Metropolitan Antony lived them and for this very reason he was able to transmit them with such force to his flock, his students and admirers. Love for God and for men was his chief characteristic. This sentiment, united with a profound Orthodox erudition, disclosed to him all the great truths which he set forth for our education and salvation. I think that many who are interested in Orthodox theology, but especially those who honour Metropolitan Antony's memory, will be grateful to the Holy Transfiguration Monastery for taking the effort to translate into the English language this remarkable work of our great theologian.

268 III A SERMON OF METROPOLITAN PHILARET Holy and Great Friday April 14/27, 1973

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Yesterday, in the reading of the Ninth Gospel concerning the suffering of the Saviour, and this morning, when the Gospel of saint John was read during the Ninth Hour, we heard the exclamation made from the Cross, the exclamation of the Conqueror of Hades, death and the devil, "It is finished” (John 19:30). What is finished? That was finished which was known to the Lord Omnipotent at the time of the creation of the world. Finished was that which the whole world was awaiting; finished was that which was prophesied even in Paradise to the forefathers who had sinned; finished was that which was foretold to the Prophets, that to which the Old Testament prefigurations pointed; finished was the redemption of the human race, its salvation from sin, death and condemnation. Christ the Saviour made this exclamation, I repeat, already a Conqueror who had fulfilled the purpose for which He had been sent. Before this there was heard from the Cross an exclamation of an entirely different nature: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:46). This exclamation was still that of a sufferer and not a conqueror.

269 This exclamation tells of boundless torment and suffering, and indicates to us with what terrible sufferings the act of our redemption was accomplished. But, as the God-inspired holy fathers of the Church tell us, and as our great father of the Church Abroad and renowned theologian, His Beatitude Metropolitan Antony, express with particular precision, our redemption consisted of two parts, so to speak: first, the Lord Saviour accepted upon Himself all the weight of our sins, then He nailed them to the wood of the Cross on Golgotha. When He walked with the apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane, they who were accustomed to seeing Him immovably calm, the Master of all creation, the King and Conqueror of the elements and the Master of life and death, heard with horror words unheard from Him before: "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” The Saviour then asks His disciples, His beloved spiritual children, during those unbearably difficult and decisive moments of the Passion, "Tarry ye here, and watch with Me” (Matt. 26:38). Here the prayer in Gethsemane begins. In this prayer we see that the Lamb, which was ordained at the time of the creation of the world for the salvation of mankind, steps back as if terrified before what is approaching Him and what He has to accept and suffer. Is He so much afraid of the physical suffering? Is it that which makes Him step back? No! From the narration of His suffering we see how calmly, how majestically and with what wonderful, and of a truth Divine, patience He endured the terrible physical, bodily torments. One has to keep in mind that He was pure and sinless. Suffering is characteristic of sinful nature. He did

270 not have to suffer because there was no sin in Him. Therefore, suffering was for Him unnatural, and consequently, incomparably more sharp and difficult than for us. And yet, how did He endure the physical torments? Let us consider one moment of those torments: He is laid on the Cross, His most pure hands and feet are pierced by terrible nails. What a dread moment! But He does not think of Himself. The Saviour of sinners, Who came into the world to save sinners, thinks of them even here and prays to His Father for His slayers, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). At that moment, He does not think of Himself; He forgets His own suffering; He only prays that the Father would be merciful, would forgive the sin of His own crucifiers. This is the way in which He knew how to fulfill His act of serving and saving sinners. Later on, a few hours will pass and He will lead yet another soul to salvation: the soul of the wise thief. But here we see that He is so struck with awe at the horror, that He prays to His Father, "Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me” (Luke 22:42), and even more sharply according to Saint Mark, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee” (Mark 14:36). All things are possible unto Thee; Thou mightest find yet another way. Let this cup pass from Me. So terrible was it, He prays that it will pass from Him. The Church tells us that Christ the Saviour is the Lamb of God Who takes upon Himself the sins of the whole world. Yes, He took upon Himself, He accepted as His own, all our sins. And please remember that this is not simply a phrase written on paper, this is not a vibration of the air which we term a sound; this is very truth. In the Garden of Gethsemane during this terrible

271 struggle, He received into His soul the whole of humanity. As the All-knowing God for Whom there is no future and no past but only one act of the Divine omniscience and understanding, He knew each one of us, He saw each one of us, and every one of us did He receive into His soul, with all our sins, our cold unwillingness to repent, with all our weaknesses and moral defilement. And what does He see? In order to save us, whom He loved so much and whom He received into His soul, He has to take upon Himself all our sins as if He Himself had committed them. And in His holy, sinless and pure soul every sin burned worse than fire. It is we who have become so accustomed to sin that we sin without hesitation. As the prophet said, man drinks unrighteousness as a drink (Job 15:16), and does not count his sins. But in His holy soul every sin burned with the unbearable fire of Hades, and here He takes upon Himself the sins of the entire human race. What a torment, what a searing torment it was for His all holy soul! But on the other hand, He sees that if He does not accomplish it, if He will not receive upon Himself this weight of human sins, then humanity will perish for all ages, forever, for endless eternity. Here His human nature, stricken with horror, steps back before this fathomless abyss of suffering, but His endless, His boundless, His inexpressibly compassionate love will not consent that humanity should perish; within Him there occurs a terrible struggle. Finally, exhausted from this struggle, He goes to those from whom He was seeking compassion and whom He asked to tarry and watch with Him, but instead of commiseration, He finds them sleeping. He addressed them—according to one of the Evangelists,

272 he addressed Simon directly—Thou sleepest, thou who but a short while ago swore that thou wouldst follow Me everywhere, even unto death; thou sleepest, thou couldst not watch with Me even one hour? "Watch and pray,” He tells them, for "the spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mark 14:38). He steps away and again begins His lonely prayer. And at the last His boundless love prevails and He takes upon Himself the sins of all humanity. But we see how much this struggle cost Him. The Heavenly Father sent an angel from Heaven to support Him because His human strength had reached its limit, and we see that He is exhausted and covered with a terrible bloody sweat which, as medicine states, occurs as a result of inner spiritual struggles which shake the whole being of a man. Saint Dmitri of Rostov, meditating on the sufferings of the Saviour says, "Lord Saviour: why art Thou all in blood? There is yet no terrible Golgotha, no crown of thorns, no scourging, no Cross, nothing like unto this as yet, yet Thou art all stained with blood. Who dared to wound Thee?” And the saintly bishop himself answers his question: "Love has wounded Thee.” Love brought Him to torment and suffering; from this struggle He is covered with blood but comes forth as Conqueror. And in His redeeming, heroic deed, He took upon Himself our sins and carried them on the Cross to Golgotha, falling under its weight. And there began that other, central part of our redemption, when He suffered all those sins which He took upon Himself in Gethsemane, in the terrible torments on the Cross. The Holy Gospel lifts up a little of the veil covering His suffering on the Cross by the exclamation concerning which I spoke before, "My God, My God, why hast Thou

273 forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:46). For this was the principal terror for Him. Probably from this He stepped back terrified in the Garden of Gethsemane in that He realized what was awaiting Him: He knew that the Father would forsake Him, all covered with the stains of human sins. Through this exclamation uttered from His lips, the abyss of this measureless suffering is partly revealed to us. If we were able to look into this abyss, not one of us would remain alive, because from this measureless suprahuman suffering our soul would melt, perish. But lo! at last through His suffering He achieved everything for which He came. As the new Adam, He becomes the forefather of the new, renewed, spirit-filled humanity, and then as Conqueror He exclaims, "It is finished.” The suffering is ended for Him now and He surrenders His spirit unto His Heavenly Father. During the suffering on the Cross, He called unto Him as the least of sinners who is immersed in his sins, saying, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” and now He again calls Him Father: "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit” (Luke 23:46). As one of our great Russian preachers said, "The suffering is finished, let the wounds be healed, let the blood stop flowing; approach now ye Josephs of Arimathea and ye Nicodemoses, and also ye reverent Magdalenes, come to the Deceased in order to show Him the last honours." Let us remember well, beloved brethren, the subjects I lightly touched upon in my sermon. Blessed is that man who knows how to read the Holy Gospel, who understands it and meditates upon what it tells us. And now, while worshipping the Saviour entombed, let

274 us remember that the Lord suffered for our sins, that all these wounds were inflicted by us; and reverently kissing the wounds of the Crucified with repentance and grateful- ness, let us pray to Him that by His grace He will teach us to be faithful to Him in all the paths of our lives. Amen.

275 INDEX Greek Words Analysis of Anselm's Teaching !(4TFÛ<0;...... 174 `Cur Deus Homo' (Why God !<"6D\<,J"4...... 220 Became Man)...... 162 !D,J²...... 174 Anaphora Prayer...... 171 )4' ¥<ÎH...... 214 Ancient of Days...... 108 215 Anderson, H...... 109, 223 )4V...... 214, 215 Anselm of Canterbury. 162, 205 )46"\@:"...... 175 argumentum ad verecundiam.235 )46"4@FÛ<0...... 174, 175 Arian...... 77, 140, 145, 1713 )46"\TF4H...... 174, 175 Ascension...... 126, 155, 249 )\60...... 174 Ascetical Statutes (by Basil ¥< T...... 215 the Great)...... 199, 240 +N T...... 215 Askesis...... 172, 1V<"J@H...... 212 Athanasios the Great Saint. . 169 MÛF4H...... 195, 201 Atheism...... 33 Atonement...... 162, 174 Regular Index Augustine of Hippo1.62, 211, 214 20 Century Version (of the NT19).3 Augustinianism...... 175 Ablativus causae...... 214, 215 autonomic ideal...... 48 Academic theology. 169, 257-259 autonomous moralityi., iii, 25, 29 Against Arius (Athanasios). . 169 Avavilos, Epistle to...... 196 Against All Heresies (Hilary of axiology...... 13, Poitiers)...... 194 Azazel...... 208, Against the Marcionites and Azkoul, Michael (Rev. Dr.).. 229 Maniceans ( Chrysostom). . 192 Aiken, H.D...... 14 B Akathist...... 10 Basil the Great (St.). . . . 199, 240 Alexander III...... 165 Belgrad...... 267 All-Russian Church Counci1l.1, 12 Bethesda...... 99 A l l - R u s s i a n M i s s i o n a r y Biography of Metropolitan Conference...... 9 Antony...... 235 altruism...... 88, Boguchar...... 235, Ambrose of Milan...... 192 Bolotov, Professor...... 164 American Bill of Rights...... 19 Bolsheviks...... 260 Amplified New Testament. . 173 Buddhists...... 109 anakephlaiosaitha...... 241,

276 C De Fid. Orth (John Dam2a3s6ce, n2e4)0.. Calvary...... 243 deism...... 21 Canadian Charter of Human delirium tremens...... 100 Rights and Freedoms...... 19 deontology...... 2, 23 Canadian Orthodox Missionary1.63 determinism...... 14 canonical structure...... 11 dikaioseni...... 174 Caucasus...... 260 Dimitrije of Serbia...... 12 Causa efficiens. 172, 235, 250, 251 Divine in junction...... 165 Chile...... 235, Divine properties...... 162 Christian dogm3a, s4., 18, 20, 24, 51 Divine righteousness...... 162 Christian struggle...... 49 dogmas of Chri2s,t i3a,n 1i7ty, .20, 55, 64 Church of the Annunciation. 10 263, 265, 267, civil war...... 12 Dogmatic Theology of the Co-suffering...... 185 Orthodox Church. . . . . 236, 267 Commentaries on Luke.. . . 252 Don Quixote...... 44 Commentary on Matthew.. 240 Dormition Skete, Buena Vista, Communist...... 12, 232 Co...... 214 Concise Exposition of the Dostoevsky...... 182, 185 Orthodox Faith...... 71, 236 dualism...... 15 cons1c5i,e n17ce, .28-30, 32-34, 42, 45-48, dualist...... 13 50-52, 67, 72 Duel...... 165, 206 100, 105, 113, 126-129, 169, 197, Duma...... 165, 248 211 dushevniya...... 237 Constantinople...... 12 Contra the Gentiles (by E Athanasios)...... 195 Ecclesiastes...... 124, 125 Cranmer, Archbishop...... 193 Ecclesiatiscal Herald...... 164 creation. 5, 39, 55, 148, 269, 270, Ecumenical Movement...... 4, Crimea...... 12 Emeth...... 174 Critique of Pure Reason Esentuki...... 260 (Commentary on Kant’s). . . . 42 Eternal Mysteries Beyond the criticisms of Christian dogma. . 2 Grave...... 230 critique of human knowing.. . 19 etheromystical...... 44 Critique of Practical Reaso2n8., 31 ethical knowledge...... 36 Critique of P1u3r,e 2 R2,e 2a6so, n31. , 42, 43 Eudoxia, Martyr; former harlo1t7.8 Cyril of Alexandria. 90, 192, 252 expressionism...... 234 Damian of Jerusalem...... 11 Ezekiel...... 214 dass an sich...... 14 Faith and Reason...... 87, 171

277 Fall of Adam...... 156, 243 I Fathers and Sons...... 165, Ilarion, Troitsky (Archimandrite) F4at, h6e7r,s 7 o0f, t1h6e8 ,C 1h7u0r, c1h7.3, 195, 254 ...... 163 255, 269, Imperative Theory of the Will.37 Fiat justitia...... 206, indeterministic...... 87 Foelich, K...... 175 indulgences...... 263 Foundations of the Metaphysics of intelligentsia...... 13, 170 Morals...... 31, Irenae of Lyons...... 194 Freedom to Believe. . . . 86, 195, Irenikon...... 239 Isaak the Syrian...... 33, 155 G Isaiah, Prophet...... 218 Gabriel, George (Dr.)...... 229 Isidor, Metropolitan...... 164 German monographs...... 167, Gethsemane...... 190 J Gnosticism...... 1, 230 Jerome, (Athonite Elder).. . . 184 Gogol...... 217 Jewish...... 123, 179, 209 Golgo tha...... 190 John Cassian...... 90 G1o90lg, o2t3h7a,. 247, 249, 264, 265, 269, John Chryso6s8t,o 1m8.6, 192, 239, 252 273 John Damascene. . . 71, 135, 220 Great Friday Matins...... 188, Joseph of Volokolamsk. . . . . 163 Gregory of Nyssa...... 196 Juridical Heresy...... 162, 168 Groundwork of the Metaphysic Juridical relig ious concepts. 170 of Morals...... 37, juridical theology...... 26 Hartman...... 87, Juridical theory...... 166 Hellenistic...... 3, Justifica1ti4o,n 1.73-175, 184, 214, 243 Hesed...... 174, Justification Language in the heterodoxy...... 48, Middle Ages...... 175 heteronomous...... 29, Justification: The Path to Theosis Higher Church Administratio1n2., ...... 174, 175 Hilary of Poitiers.. . 90, 251, 252 Justitia ("to be made righteous1"7).5 Holy Bible...... 6, 71 Holy Mysteries.118, 137, 157, 187 K Holy Spiritist...... 118 Kalomiros, Dr Alexandre. . . 174 Holy Trinity Monastery. . 8, 230 Kantian.. . 13, 23, 43, 45, 48, 103 homousios...... 17 Kantian nomism...... 43 Huxley...... 85 Kantianism...... 39, 48 hyp7o2s,t 7a5si,s 81,. 86-88, 131, 195, 245 Kazan Ecclesiastical Academy.10

278 Kazan Theological Academy.. 7 modernity...... 15 Kharkov...... 9, 11, 168, 259 Mohammed...... 98 Kholm Theological Seminary. 7 Mohila, Peter...... 163 Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy. 170 Mona tery Press...... 163 Kislovodsk...... 260 Monastery of the Resurrection.11 KJV (Bible)...... 173 Monastery Press...... 163, 254 Kliuchevsky, Prof. Vasili monastics...... 6, 182 (historian)...... 174 Monophysite...... 256 Kurgansky, Taras...... 163 Monophysitism...... 229, 254 Montreal...... 163, 236, 254 L moral autonomism. iii, 25, 29, 35 La Nouvelle Heloise...... 299 moral autonomiiiy, .20, 27, 30-36, 38 Ladoga, Lake...... 163 moral development. . . 4, 20, 102 Latin medieval philosophical moiiria, l1 i6d, e3a8l., 42-45, 47, 48, 86, 231 works...... 13 mor2al, l3i,f e1.4, 15, 34, 71, 81, 86, 96, Latin scholastic tradition.. . . 231 102, 231 Law of feudal knighthood.. . 164 Mor5a,l 2st4r,u 3g8g,l e3.9, 52, 55, 129, 143, laws of nature...... 299 144, 152 lega2l,i s4t,i c7., 141, 143, 151, 174, 175, 172, 175, 176 243 Mosaic law...... 209 legalistic norms...... 4 Moscow and Kiev Theologian1s.63 Levitov...... 171 Moscow and Kiev Theologians of Liturgical poetry...... 166 the Lutheran. 175, 177, 199, 209, 212 16th and 17th Centuries. 163 Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy.7 Moscow University...... 13 M Mt Athos...... 184 Marshall's interlinear New Muretov, Prof. M.D...... 173 Testament...... 173 Myshkin, Prince...... 182 Maxim the Greek...... 163 Maximos the Confessor.. . . . 202 N Medieval.. . 13, 26, 147, 165, 242 Melchizedek...... 194 nakham...... 124 menakhem...... 124 Nathaniel...... 43 Messiah...... 43 Nazareth...... 3, 106 metaphysics...... 31, 51, 88, ne nadumalis...... 248 minimalism...... 4 Nekrasov...... 186 Mirror of Theology...... 163 neo-Gnostic...... 299 Missionary Survey...... 163 Neo-Kantians...... 299

279 neomonophysites.. 233, 256, 257 pathological state...... 256 Neplyuev, Rev Fr...... 179 Patriarch Tikhon...... 12 Nesmelov, Professor...... 166 Patriarchal Administration. . . 12 Nestorianism...... 229 Patriarchate...... 11, 12 NEV (version of the New patristic thought...... 6, 75 Testament)...... 193 P6en6,t e8c1o, s8t.3, 84, 120, 126, 129, 184 New Adam41., 46, 82, 154, 155, 273 Perelom'V Drevnerusskom Nikodemos. 30, 97, 106, 183, 189 Bogoslovii...... 163 NIV (Bible)...... 173 personal faith...... 15 Novgorod Province...... 6 Peter of Lombardy...... 162 Novocherkassk...... 12 Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy ...... 6, 7 O Petrine caste system...... 8 Oktoekhos...... 219 Petrov, Archpriest N.V.. . . . 169 Old Testament sacrif2i0c8e., 247, 248 Pharaohs...... 36 On Luke Philo...... 123 (of St Ambrose)...... 192 physics...... 14, 31, 51, 88, (of St Cyril of Alexandria)1.92 physiology...... 14 On Original Sin pietism...... 1, 18, 21, 22, 26 (of John Romanides)...... 214 p6i4et, y6.5, 68, 69, 128, 129, 177, 179, On Original Sin (by John 239 Romanides)...... 300 Platonist...... 123 On the Trinity, Pochaev Ikon...... 10 (of St Hilary)...... 192 Pochaev Monastery...... 8, 163 Ontological Argument...... 43 Podvig...... 172, 246 Opravdan\e...... 174 Ponomarev, Prof. P.P...... 169 Optina Hermitage...... 8 Popovich, Justin...... 236, 267 Original Sin (heresy of). . . . . 211 post-modernity...... 300 Orpheus...... 106 practical idea...... 13, 26, 48 Orthodox Doctrine of Sa1lv6a3t,i o1n72. Pravda...... 174 Otensky, Zinovy...... 163 Pravednost...... 174 Prayer before Communion (of St Symeon)...... 187 prelest...... 257 P Prodigal son...... 97, 177 Paganism...... 70, 165 Prologue for 29 May...... 183 pantheistic. . . . 26, 40, 87-89, 148 Protestan1t, i2sm7, .53, 54, 65, 128, 154 Paraclete...... 124 Pro8t2e,s t8a6n,t 1s.37, 154, 168, 173, 175, Paradise...... 5, 165, 205, 269 179, 207

280 Psychologic interaction. . . . . 180 relativism...... 15 Puhalo ROCOR...... 243 Lazar (Archbishop)...... 229 Roman Catho2li7c,. 29, 162-166, 256 Punitive execution...... 210 Roman law...... 164, 174 Quod...... 213 Romanides, Rev Dr John. . . 211 Rasputin...... 231, 232 Rome...... 1 rational knowledge...... 14 Rousseau...... 56 rationalism. . . . 18, 19, 48, 67, 70 RSV ( Bible)...... 173 rationalist2ic6., 27, 64, 103, 123, 142 Russian Church...... 8, 11, 12, Reciprocity...... 180 Russian Empire...... 8, 232 Red Army...... 12 Russian patriarchate...... 11 Red heifer...... 208 Russian revolution...... 231 Red Sea...... 13 Russian saints...... 9 reductionism...... 4, 21 Russian scholastics...... 301 Reflections: Saving Power of Russian society...... 9, 63 Christ's Passions...... 164 Russian Synod Abroad...... 12 Regener ation...... 185 Russian theology. . . . . 6, 17, 232 Regen7e5r-a7t7io, n97. , 104, 134, 177-183, 185-189, 191 202, 211, 237

S Significance of the Cross of Sacred Tradition...... 167 Christ's Work...... 163 san8c1t,i f1ic2a9t,i o1n37. , 139, 172, 175, 190 Simon the Magician.. . . . 58, 107 saving merits...... 3 Skaballanovich schemata of knowledge...... 22 Prof...... 170 sc1h-o3l,a 1st7i,c .18, 21, 26, 27, 67, 86-88, Solovky...... 163 128, 132, 141 Sosinian...... 171 142, 161-165, 168, 173, 175, Soul After Death...... 230 177, 186, 191, 206, 231-235, Spiritual Treasure Gathered 255-258, 261 From the Secular World. . . . 185 scholastic ideas...... 3 Sremsky Karlovtsi...... 12 Scholastic theology. 165, 177, 191 St Job of Pochaev...... 8 Scholastic theory...... 163 St Nectarios American Orthodox scho1la, s1t7ic,i 1sm8,. 21, 27, 88, 231, 233, Church...... 174 235, 256, S t Ne c t a r i os O r t h od ox Serbia...... 12, 232 Conference...... 174 Starogorodsky, Serge...... 172 St Panteleimon Monastery. . 184

281 St Petersburg...... 7, 10 Trinitarian...... 77, 140, 145 stigmata...... 256 Triodion...... 217, 244 stoic...... 41, 141 Trishka...... 85 Stundism...... 64 Troitsky...... 163, Supernatural prayer. . . . 217, 249 Troparion...... 13, 67 Svetlov, Tsar Nicholas...... 231 Archpriest...... 162 Tsedaka...... 174 Symbol of Fa6it9h, .96, 132, 154, 203 Tubingen...... 64, 87, 103 Symeon the New Theolog ian3.02 Turgenev...... 165 Saint...... 186 Twelve Homilies (of St Symeo1n8)7. Synaxis iP, r4e6s,s 4. 7, 86, 174, 175, 195 Tyndall's translation...... 193 Synodal administration...... 9 (of the Bible)...... 193 synthetic judgments...... 302 Ufa Diocese...... 8 synthetos hypostasis...... 302 Ukraine...... 12, 64 Tamen...... 213 Uniat...... 163 thalers...... 43 Unitarian...... 171 The Adolescent...... 182 Ustinov, Archbishop...... 303 The Broth ers Karamazov. . . 182 The Teachings of the Holy V-Z Orthodox Church...... 214 Valaam Island...... 163 Theanthropos...... 66, 195 Valaam Monastery...... 11 theism...... iii, 25, 28, 33, Vatagino...... 6 THEOLOGICAL HERA16L1D, .260 vengeance.. 5, 147, 169, 176, 212 theological modernism. . . . . 234 Volhynia...... 8, 9 THEOLOGICAL REVIEW.163 W.C.C...... 4 Theophan of Pol2ta7v, a2.31, 232, 235 Warsaw...... 163 theoria...... 235 Western philosophy. 13, 25, 144 theosis...... 17, 167, 174, 175, Western scholasticism. 1, 21, 261 Thomas Aquinas...... 162 Wycliff Version (Bible). . . . . 193 Tikhon of Zadonsk...... 185 Yakutsk Seminary...... 9 Tolstoy, Lev (Leo)...... 163 Zacchaeus...... 43, 177, 180 Trankvillion, Kirill...... 163 Zephyr Press...... 211 transcendental...... 29 Zhitomir Seminary...... 10 transcendental synthetic unity of Zizany Lavrenty...... 163 apperception...... 31 Zosima, Elder...... 182 transfiguration. . 4, 209, 236, 268 Trifonov...... 9, 10 trigodly...... 81

282