On Faith, Unbelief, and Doubt

"The Word of God," however, is not contained in Scripture alone; it is also expressed in other types of revelation, I mean: the lives of the saints, the works of the Holy Fathers, the decrees of the Councils, the liturgical books. What are, for example, the lives of saints? It can and should be said that this is the life of the Church. In its bright, positive manifestations. This is the true "history of the Church"... We teach in history about heresies and the fight against them. And sometimes one gets the impression that its history consisted mainly in these clashes. But this is not so. Heresies are outside the Church; heresies are around and against the Church. And her life is a grace-filled river along which those who are being saved float: martyrs, desert dwellers, saints, pious princes, humble family ascetics... Of course, all this is connected with the struggle. But there flows a bright, holy, saving river of God (John 7:38, 39).And it began with Christ and His apostles... And this story was first told in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. What a wonderful book it is! This is a diary of early Christianity. And what an obvious thing too! Even greater than in the Gospel: sometimes one is simply amazed at the abundance of details, accurate references to places, times, names..."We," writes St. Luke, a companion of St. Paul. They embarked on the Adramytic ship and set off, intending to sail near the Assian places. With us was Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica. The next day they landed at Sidon... Starting from there, we sailed to Cyprus, because of the contrary winds. And having crossed the sea against Cilicia and Pamphylia, they arrived at Myra in Lycia. There the centurion (and his name has been preserved - Julius) found the Alexandrian ship sailing to Italy (where Paul was sent to judge Caesar himself), and put us on it. Swimming slowly for many days and barely catching up with Knidus... we sailed to Crete at Salmon. Having made their way past it with difficulty, we arrived at a place called Good Harbors, near which was the city of Lasea." Up. Paul advised against sailing further: they did not listen to him. "We sailed near Crete. But soon a stormy wind rose against him, called euroclydone... And we rushed, surrendering to the waves. And, having run into an island called Claudia (we had never heard of it!), we could hardly hold the boat... The next day... We began to throw away the cargo, and on the third we threw things from the ship with our own hands. But since for many days neither the sun nor the stars were visible, and a considerable storm continued, then at last all hope for our salvation disappeared" (ch. 27). ... What is it? Almost a sea diary of the captain of the ship! What more authenticity is needed.. Too obvious! And if all this is indubitable and clear, then all the other events of which the holy author, the physician Luke, was an eyewitness or direct listener, are equally indubitable. This means that the story of the descent of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit on the day of Pentecost in the form of tongues of fire, and the angel leading Peter out of prison; and the conversion of Saul, which is related three times; and the Angel's rapture of St. Paul. Philip: carried by air to Azotus; and other and other miracles and events — all the same, absolutely equally certain, undoubtedly! There is no doubt about the sixfold appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul... And after that, some people say: oh, how I would like to believe, but how difficult it is for me... Formerly, in the seminary, such words still seemed plausible to me... But little by little I saw a great untruth in them. It is not true, it is not true that it is difficult to believe. On the contrary, it is very easy to believe, but it is more difficult not to believe. How? It's very simple... After such reliable testimonies of the Acts and Gospels, after all this evidence, how difficult it is to believe?! After all, reality stands before our eyes with compulsion... And you just don't need to persist... And is it difficult to accept the facts as they are? How can I not take them? They were... So the ship sailed back and forth. And then ran aground. And from it they began to jump into the water and swim to the land. And so did Pavel. We made a fire. They collected firewood for him... And so did Pavel. And when he "picked up a lot (just now I noticed this detail for the first time: "a multitude", a large pile) of brushwood and put it on the fire, then the viper, coming out of the heat, hung on his hand... But he, shaking off the serpent into the fire, suffered no harm" (ch. 28). Here is a new miracle: unharmed... The Lord Jesus Christ was right when He said of the Jews: "If I had not done among them works which no one else had done, they would have had no sin" (John 15:24). And now they are to blame: they saw it and did not accept it. And He Himself was "amazed at their unbelief." John was also amazed.Yes, unbelievers are guilty of their unbelief... Yes! It's not hard to believe at all. It is not easy to live according to faith: "The Kingdom of Heaven is taken by force" (Matt. 11:12). And to believe? No effort is needed: just don't persist... On the contrary, it is more difficult not to believe... After all, after such a host of testimonies of the Scriptures (and during Christ's lifetime, of His very works), one must force oneself to reject... A what? To reject the facts... White should be called black; What happened must be denied... Why, it's incomparably more difficult than accepting them! And I know this from my own thousandfold mistakes. And the words of the Lord seem to me to be obviously clear and true: "If ye do not believe," then "ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24). And again: "He who does not believe is already condemned," and precisely because "he did not believe in the name of the Only-begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). "He that believeth in Him shall not be condemned" (ibid.)... Yes, the Scriptures are sufficient for faith. But it did not end, and continues to this day. The book of Church history, i.e., Acts, continues. It is noteworthy that of all the books of the New Testament, this is the only one that is not concluded in any way, neither by a blessing nor by an "amen." Acts stops at the note: Paul in Rome "received all who came to him" and taught faith in the Lord Jesus Christ "with all boldness without hindrance"...... And I think: this is not accidental, but providential. At that time, the history of the Church was just beginning, and it continues throughout the ages, until the Last Judgment.And the lives of the saints, this essence of the history of the Church, is nothing but a direct and immediate continuation of the Acts. And therefore they should be read in the same way as Acts... And in them there is so much historical evidence, so many absolutely reliable facts of the manifestation of the supernatural world, that only the unbridled audacity of insolent deniers can refuse to accept them... And experience shows that reading the lives of saints is of great importance for strengthening faith. And on these lives – very few in number (St. Barbara, Nicholas the Wonderworker, Alexis the Man of God, Mary of Egypt, Cosmas and Damian) – the Russian people were brought up in the faith, following the Greeks... There was no need for any lectures, no scholarly or semi-learned reasoning, but the simplest reading of reliable material. Only. And people lived by the spirit of the saints. And they saw him off in their everyday life, in everyday life. And our wise spiritual leaders, such as, for example, Bishop. Theophanes the Recluse, it is advised even to begin reading not with the Scriptures, but with the Lives of the Saints, with the Chetyikh-Menya. They are simpler, and closer to children's faith, and more convincing... And all this continues to happen almost to this day. Here is St. Seraphim of Sarov still lived almost before the eyes of our grandfathers. And twelve times he was vouchsafed to see the Mother of God with the saints, and once the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, at the Liturgy. Consequently, the first Christianity is still alive, and the history of the Church continues. And whoever wants to "see" can see even now: if not by himself, then by undoubted trust in the true testimony of St. Seraphim, Fr. John of Kronstadt († 1908). And I know of cases when stories about the last saints and about new miracles in general convinced some of the weak in faith no less, and even more, than the Gospel itself. Once I had to go from Germany to France. After Aachen, I found myself in the same carriage with a Russian woman traveling from Sweden to Spain to visit her sister, an artist. She was married to a Swede and had two beautiful boys. Having met me, she turned to me with the following request: "I am a believer, but sometimes I am confused by doubts: is there all this? I don't want them, but they come. I would like to strengthen my faith with something. Can you help?—Why, you have read the Holy Scriptures. The Gospel?—Yes.—"Then what greater proof of the other world do you have than the appearance of the Son of God Himself from there, His wondrous works, and His own revelations about the Trinity, and so on?—Yes," she answered shyly, "that is true. But... But all this has been so long ago that it seems somehow cold now. And she was delicately guiltily embarrassed: she herself understood the frivolity of her objection. You never know what was even before Christianity: Caesar, his wars, Alexander the Great, Homer, Socrates, Plato; But no one, absolutely no normal person, is embarrassed by the remoteness of their lives and does not doubt their historicity. That's why she felt guilty. But she, like Thomas the Apostle, did not want to deny Christianity and the heavenly world, but, on the contrary, to be more convinced of it. And if Christ did not reject the weak Thomas, but showed him His sores on his hands and feet, then did I have the right to remain silent? or from eyewitnesses of those people with whom miracles happened... In Paris, she visited me with her friends and gave me almost a basket of all sorts of expensive fruits as a thank you. I could tell you a few cases here in the Notes, but that would distract me even more from other notes. In addition, I have special handwritten notebooks, where this is partly written down ("From the Other World"), although not all of them... In part, I have spoken above about the vision of Archim. Tikhon of the angel. He also told me about an extraordinary appearance to him (in a dream) from the afterlife of a girl named S. — of whom he had never heard, and she asked him for prayers at the Liturgy. The girl was a Protestant... I know of several cases of clairvoyance: both from my own memory (Fr. Nikita, Fr. Isidore) [1], and from the stories of others (about the appearance of the Mother of God in Ufa to orphans abandoned by matter), and I heard and others reported how demons quite clearly manifested their presence to Fr. F—nu, Fr. Macarius in the presence of Dr. Pirogov). And how many miraculous cases of apparitions after the death of Fr. John of Kronstadt! Thousand... I myself was informed by the persons who were vouchsafed this (Fr. Theophilus, the colonel's wife, Mrs. Y. and so on and so forth). And Fr. John himself testifies not falsely that God worked many miracles with his hands (read His Diary).The well-known professor of Russian history at Moscow University, M. Pogodin, even wrote a whole book entitled "Simple Speeches about Intricate Things" [2]. In the first part, he wrote down his philosophical thoughts about the relationship between faith and knowledge, his experiences, which were very significant and interesting. and in the second he collected many facts of supernatural phenomena... True, they are not always equally valuable, but there are many very important and convincing things. In the third part, he speaks against Darwinism... There are well-known books by the Moscow archpriest Fr. Gregory Dyachenko, who collected a mass of similar facts ("From the Realm of the Mysterious", with an addition) [3]. Not everything is equal either, but instructive... And many other similar books and brochures were published. What is all this material like, following the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles? This is the ongoing uninterruptedly revelation of the world, this is the development of the Gospel and the Acts: the Lord Himself, as we have seen, promised His disciples: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works which I do shall he also do, and greater than these"... (John 14:12). And in order to strengthen faith and revive it, it is very important to use everyday revelations. Experience confirms this. I will not argue now with those deniers who consider the lives to be legends. True, it happens that sometimes not entirely reliable details in the narratives increase, but the main material is historical. Of course, if a person in general, contrary to reason, decided in advance to reject everything supernatural, miraculous, unusual, such a person will not accept the lives from the beginning. But when he reads these sources again, he will also think: what is it? Is it possible that all this, both now, and two thousand years ago, and here and there, and among the simpletons and among the sages, is it really all just fiction? Are they really legends? And an honest person will understand the frivolity of such indiscriminate denials... And he should have engaged in a really scientific, impartial, in-depth study of these innumerable phenomena. And then he would see all the certainty of the stories about them. But what is more surprising and unforgivable is the frivolous attitude to hagiographic material even on the part of believers. Quite recently I heard about one such impudent and superficially educated priest, who, with the grin of an "intelligent, modern cultured man," asked my acquaintance: "Do you still believe these fairy tales?! ... God have mercy on us from such ministers! These are slanderers, devils, and not priests! And how else does God tolerate such people? This is worse than any vices... I think, however, that in Russia such copies were the rarest exception.The question arises (if not among such blasphemers, then at least among other believers, sincere, but confused): do they really believe in the Gospel, in Acts? And if they do, then what other miracles do they need greater than there? And sick 38-year-olds were healed, and those born blind received their sight, and were fed with five thousand loaves of bread, and demons were cast out, and the dead were resurrected, and what is more surprising: desperate sinners became saints: and Christ rose and ascended, and the Holy Spirit clearly descended from the Father... What other miracles can we expect after that? Or how can we not believe them?" Legends"... Do these small, imaginary "clever guys" know that legends are no less, and even more important than facts? Did these wise men think that even the desire and creation of "legends" is no less important than miracles? Where does it come from? And how does it hold up? The root is not even that we only "want" this world to exist (and this need is very important, we will see later); but in the fact that if not in this case, then in another, not in another, then in a third, hundredth, thousandth case, similar phenomena have already occurred before. And mankind preserves the historical memory of them; and when necessary, he fills new cases with this faith. Legends in their essence are more important than facts, for legends are already the sum total of their components, the general formulas of individual cases, the general established truths. But I repeat, in the stories about the lives of the saints, historical events are recorded, moreover, attested by the best people in conscience: close and also pious witnesses of the lives of the saints of God. that he "does not recognize miracles" (we have had and still have many of them, half-educated or imagining "wise men", "know-it-alls", no matter how "great" their names may be, like Tolstoy, etc.), then by this they reveal only their insufficient mental education, and still more – a perverted heart, so that they want to say beforehand: "There is no God". Now I will pass over these perplexities.Further, the question of miracles will be posed directly and will be solved mathematically easily.The works of the Holy Fathers have the same significance, about whom (the philosopher Kireevsky said a strong word: "They speak of the country (i.e., the heavenly one) in which they were." And Bishop Theophan (the Recluse) advises reading them in the second place, after the lives of the saints. Yes, indeed, the saints say that what they saw. They could not hesitate to say with the apostles: "We have proclaimed to you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, not following cunning fables, but being eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16)." Of the things that were from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at, and what our hands have touched, about the Word of life"; "About this," the Apostle persistently repeats. John, — what have we seen... and you had fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write unto you, that your joy may be perfect" (1 John 1 ch., 1, 3, 4). Paul. Impelled by the attacks of his enemies to defend himself, after 14 years of silence, he was finally forced to reveal his extraordinary rapture to heaven. This is such a powerful and convincing testimony that I call it to the attention of every seeker and even believer." It is not profitable for me to boast, for I shall come to the visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ (he writes about himself), who fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I do not know, whether out of the body, I do not know: God knows), was caught up to the third heaven. Everything here is extraordinary, striking: the very vision of the "third heaven", paradise; and the impossibility of conveying it in human language, for earthly language has no words for the heavenly, other world; And 14 years of silence, the words "I know" and "I don't know". The Apostle quite frankly confesses that he was in some kind of special state, and not in the usual one: either in a body, or without a body... And what he does not know, he says: "I do not know." But on the other hand, he insistently repeats that the very event with him undoubtedly happened: "I know a man", "I know about such a man", that he was in paradise... Such confidence can only be possessed by one who really speaks "of the country in which he was," and Christ the Lord Himself assures us of this reality even more than anyone else. When He talked at night with His secret disciple, a member of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus, he could not even understand about the "spiritual birth." And the Lord rebuked him: "Thou art a teacher of Israel, and knowest not this?" And of Himself he further declared thus: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak of what we know, and bear witness of what we have seen, but ye receive not Our testimony" (John 3:10, 11). "what do they know"... But if they are not believed, then it is no longer their fault, but the fault of those who do not accept them... A simple heart and a mind that is not evil, and even a broadly enlightened one, accepts with faith, as reliable eyewitnesses say. Scripture and the Holy Scriptures. In essence, the first path of "children's faith" was also received through Revelation "according to tradition": from parents and teachers... But in both of them, and especially in the first period of "simple faith," as we have constantly noted, our heart also occupied an important place: it easily and joyfully accepted faith and the arguments in favor of it, and, on the contrary, repelled unbelief and its temptations. We will think about this later: where does this instinct come from? However, while we are still talking about more or less natural ways of revealing faith – according to tradition: from parents, and from Divine Revelation in the Scriptures, and from holy people.Here we must already speak about the Church, although not in the full scope of this question.Shortly before the death of Fr. John of Kronstadt, God brought me and my friend Fr. Neophyte (who had already died) to visit the holy pastor. It was an unusual conversation, memorable to me, a sinner. But I will remember only one subject here."Father! In order to understand my question, I ask you to remember that we, seminarians, and then students, were cold in our faith; and therefore in others they could not understand its ardor. It was no longer possible to deny it to Fr. John, and more than once I was an eyewitness of his ardent service at the Liturgy and in his sermons... Yes, this is a well-known fact. And for me his faith was like a riddle: what you don't know yourself, everything seems incomprehensible.— Where does faith come from? The already sickly old man asked thoughtfully; and was silent for a while. We waited.—I lived in the Church! The priest suddenly answered firmly and confidently. I, a "theologian," am a student—alas! — did not understand these words: "lived in the Church." What's it? Strange ignorance, the reader will say... I do not deny it; but I confess. But it is sad that future pastors did not understand such simple things as the Church." And it was obvious to Fr. John. I really did not understand his answer - as if he had said something to me in a foreign language... So Nicodemus did not understand Christ the Lord (John 3:4, 9). And I asked again: "What does it mean to live in the Church?" Father John was even somewhat upset: "Well, what does it mean?" Well, I served the Divine Liturgy and other services; I prayed in church in general. Then, after some more thought, he continued: "I liked to read the Menaion in church... Not the Chetyi-Menaion (not the Lives of the Saints)... Although they are beautiful.. And the Menaion is liturgical. He really always went to the left kliros at matins and read the canons to them. With great boldness... Almost as if he demanded their intercession from God. I remember that the first time I had to visit it was on the day of St. Alypius (the Stylite), November 26 [4]. How Fr. John appealed to him with force!—Reverend Father Alypius! pray to God for us!" Pray!" as if he were standing before him and fervently asking for intercession... And the whole service passed with him with force... I don't remember any other details of this important conversation about the Church."That's what it means: to live in the Church," he finished. Gradually, the whole importance of the Church was revealed to me. Now, recalling the past, the first and even the second periods of my faith, I must confess that it was not held together by the Word of God, much less by the lives of the saints or the works of the Holy Fathers. It can be said that I almost did not even read the latter, as well as the Lives: neither in the theological school, nor in the seminary... Is it strange? "Undoubtedly... But no one was interested in these sources, and none of the elders even told us about their importance, did not warm up interest. I myself was a librarian in the seminary, I saw these thick books, I also remember the leather bindings of the Philokalia [5]; but he never even opened the lids in them. And the Scriptures, as I have already written, were only a textbook, and a cold one at that. Consequently, my faith, like that of other comrades, lived not by the Word of God, not by lives, but by something else. With what? I have already said: by parental and common tradition, and even by their own heart. But that's not all. After all, everyone had traditions and a heart, but not everyone remained believers. There are many reasons for this. And one of the most important is the Church. The same Fr. John of Kronstadt in his diary "My Life in Christ" said the following (I am writing from memory): "I still wonder: how is it that our intelligent people, who have departed from the life of the Church, still preserve the remnants of the faith?" And on the contrary, I happened to hear from a Christian woman already abroad such reasonable words: "I am sure that if anyone attends church constantly, he cannot be an unbeliever." I will reveal it a little from experience, which is known to almost all of us.Perhaps some people will think that preaching has had an effect on us? People value their word so highly now... No! Until the Academy, I do not remember a single case when sermons made a strong impression on me at all. And they were almost never pronounced in the theological school and seminary. During the communion of the clergy in the altar, the singers sang something "concert". What then? Perhaps reading passages from the Epistle and the Gospel? — Not either. We almost never understood the Apostle. Yes! And they regarded it from the point of view of the loudness and beauty of the voice. And we knew the Gospel by heart; and never reading it captured our hearts... It passed by... What then? Could it be those canons that Father John loved to read from the Menaion? Even less. And if we did, it was more beautiful singing of irmoses [6]; especially if there was a "trio" of wonderful tenors and bass.Then what is left of the "Church"? — The most important thing is that this simple standing in the church; of course, participation in the prayers pronounced (for each to a different degree); well, and hearing the Word of God... This "service," especially the Liturgy, by itself, that is, without any special participation of the mind, preserved and educated our faith. This is the simplest thing: I was in church, I went to mass, I defended the service – in some wondrous ways they kept faith in us... What? "We never thought about it... Have you ever wondered? "And yet it was this very 'walking' that nourished us most of all... I am not even talking about the extraordinary moments of confession and Holy Communion: then, of course, we rose to a more intense height. But these moments were so rare... Once or twice a year... Consequently, our faith received from our fathers could not rest on them. Namely, on those constantly recurring "holidays"; Sundays, the Twelve Great Days, at the four fasts, at the memorials of the saints... After all, if you look around now, you see that all life was intertwined with the Church: the Introduction came, you already hear the irmoses for the Nativity: "Christ is born, glorify!"; Christmastide came, there was a whole wreath of feasts: Christmas, Circumcision and New Year. Baptism, Basil the Great, John the Baptist; on the eve of Christmas — Christmas Eve, do not eat until the star; on the eve of Epiphany – not to drink before holy water... Christmastide, holy days have passed, Shrovetide and Lent are coming soon: mournful good news, dark vestments, communion (and fish were not supposed to be eaten: except for the Annunciation and the Entry into Jerusalem), sincere confession, Holy Communion... And this is for a month and a half. And there are the striking days of passion: the reading of the 12 Gospels. The Shroud, the burial of Christ... And the midnight Bright Matins... Easter! The Resurrection of Christ... God, what a joy. For a whole week the trezvon is continuous.St. George's Day is coming soon: the cattle are driven out, a prayer service is served; Cows that have become emaciated during the winter are sprinkled with holy water, and they go to the meadow to nibble on the still skinny grass. Ascension... Trinity with greenery and flowers... "Ivan-Kupala" - June 24... "Peter and Paul"... Fasting again... "Kazanskaya"... We have a one-year fair in our district. And here the first "Spas" (August 1) with poppy seeds is already close; and the second "Saviour" – the Transfiguration with apples (previously we strictly observed: sin is eaten before consecration)... The third post is Dormition. The third "Saviour" is the image not made by hands (August 16). "Beheading" of the Head of the Forerunner (August 29). Nativity of the Virgin (September 8) ... "Exaltation" – as they used to say in the village – of the Cross of the Lord (September 14). Autumn "Kazanskaya" (October 22). And again – "Introduction"... Fast again. And again the holidays are spinning all year round. And how many special saints there are in a year! Spring and winter Nikola. "Eudoceia of the Martyrs". "The Standing of Mary of Egypt"; "Spiridon Turn" (December 12), "Michael the Archangel", "Ivan the Theologian". "Gerasim of Jordan" with a lion (March 4): the rooks have arrived. "Alexei the Man of God" (March 17): larks were baked! "Kozmo-Demyan" – not once a year, Marina the "Red" (July 17) [7]... To be afraid of a fire... "Elijah the Prophet"; You can't work at all - he will punish you... "Flora and Laurus, St. Pantelemon" healers... And this is a whole year... And each Sunday is in essence a remembrance of Pascha... Well, who among the Russians did not know all this? The most illiterate peasant lived in this circle of ideas and everyday life. Whether the sermon was preached in church, whether he understood the Apostle (everyone understood the Gospel), whether he delved into "what is there" on the kliros reading the "sexton," all this is not so important. But this is what he remembers: tomorrow is Sunday or special holidays: he must go to church, "stand"... And even if he stays at home, he still knows that he is now "festive"... And I heard the bell. Or maybe at least one of the family comes down and "brings grace"... And on major holidays: on Christmas, on Epiphany, on Easter, and on the "patronal" "father" with icons they will go to every home, sing a prayer service, sprinkle holy water, kiss the cross, congratulate on the holiday. And in our village they also honored the Intercession (October 1). Weddings on this day were celebrated in all the villages around... The peasants left with field work, sowed new "ozimi", sold the excess at the market... And you can marry children... After the wedding in the church, we feasted for three days... That's all... And then everyone has something special: who has a child - christening, looking for godfathers, naming; someone else died: general sympathy and participation in the funeral; if someone falls ill, you have to follow the priest, you need to "inform" him, or even give him the Unction later... And so all life revolved all year round the churches of God. It is not for nothing that they were placed in the best place, and built higher, and decorated with bells, domes, icons, candles and lamps... There it is, "life in the Church"... And even if we look at it only from the point of view of at least the continuous education of people for a whole year, then how can we not be surprised at the amazing wisdom of those who came up with all this and spent it in everyday life! This is not even a human invention, calculated in advance and specially invented by someone... No, this is the wise institution of the Holy Spirit, "the King of Heaven, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth"... The Word of Christ the Lord is being fulfilled: "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). "But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit...," He said to His disciples before His death, "shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said unto you" (John 14:26). Paul taught his assistant Timothy: "I write to you, ... that if I tarry, thou mayest know how to act in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:14, 15). She is our Spiritual Mother... Neither parents, nor school, nor sermons, nor even the Divine books taught us proper, but it was the Church of God, our Mother, with all its all-wise structure and way of life... Teaching also entered into this imperceptibly: everyone knew the basics of faith and the education of morality: everyone knew what was good or bad. And how else did they know! Dostoevsky is amazed at how deep the concept of sin and holiness was in the Russian consciousness! I remember that the English, who came to Russia, in the Moscow Trinity Lavra, asked the professors of the academy how Russians, most of them illiterate, knew Orthodoxy. And we received the answer: from the Church... That's the truth! It is quite rightly said that the Church is a mother, an educator: not only spiritually and grace-filled, through the sacraments, but even spiritually (psychologically), through its entire liturgical and educational system. Perhaps I will repeat myself in something out of forgetfulness; It's not a big deal.

* * *

So, I came to the academy with simple faith, but with a rational mind, to which everything needs to be "proved". But gradually, and even quite quickly, this heavy burden of rationalism, of false faith in the power of the mind, began to fall from my spiritual shoulders... I have freed myself from this malignant oppression... I saw the relative value of all "knowledge" in general, and I clearly saw the complete inadequacy of the mind in matters of faith. Little by little, the old fear of lack of proof disappeared from me... Then I even stopped wanting proofs from the mind, as if they were weak. Then I saw other ways of spiritual knowledge, not rational... And I liked them incomparably more than the previous "proofs"... And then I even disliked proofs, but fell in love with "secrets", which I had previously feared cowardly and completely falsely, even from a rational point of view... And so I returned—what a whirlwind! — to the same "simple faith" by which he has always lived, with which he came to the Academy. But now this "simplicity" was guarded not only by heart and tradition, but by the very mind that had previously seemed to be the enemy of simplicity. "Knowledge" helped "faith"; Thus came and passed the second stage of my faith, the so-called "conscious," i.e., when faith passed through the furnace of the intellect, "knowledge," critical epistemology (the doctrine of the ways of knowing). At that time we spoke of a period of faith in which we believe "by conviction," i.e., as if on the basis of reason. In essence, such a definition is completely incorrect: for faith (as we shall see) still remained outside and above reason, but since a rational examination of the abilities of the mind itself showed its inadequacy in the spheres of faith, and thereby removed it from the path of faith, freed it from the imaginary bonds of the mind, to that extent it can be said that an important appendage was added to faith: the elimination of the mind by the mind... In the words of one of the scholars and profound bishops, science has eliminated itself; The mind has eaten itself, as it were. Faith was freed... And only then did the same mind begin to help faith a little: but not by "proving" it, but by bringing up some "auxiliary" supports. Placed within legal limits, the mind has already become a conscientious and humble assistant of faith, as the lower organ for the higher (spirit). Formerly he was considered a master, now he has become a servant. And the well-known expression of scholastic Western theology, that "philosophy is the handmaiden (ancilla) of theology," is partly true: but not to the extent of the scholastic valuation of the mind. Scholasticism believed and thought that everything could be explained by the mind, and tried to do so; but I saw the complete lie of such a high appreciation of intelligence; Nevertheless, he saw a partial benefit of philosophy, namely in the preparation of the soul for faith, in the removal of rational obstacles to it, and then in some subsequent help. The difference is great.How all this happened in my soul – I will write about this in the next part of the notes. And if the first period can be called a "childish" faith, then the next one – the second – I will call conditionally "reasonable" faith. And then there will be the third stage of it. But there is a time for everything... The elder of the Skete of St. John the Baptist on Valaam, Fr. Nikita, and the elder of the Gethsemane Skete of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Fr. Isidore, predicted to Vladyka Benjamin his future path in life (monasticism and episcopacy), when he, as a student of the Theological Academy, visited these righteous men. (See more about them in the books of Vladyka Veniamin "God's People" and "Notes of a Bishop". A story about this is given by Metropolitan Veniamin in Part VI of this book ("Miracles of God"), as well as in his "Notes of a Bishop" – Compilation. ^ The book of the historian Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin (1800-1875) "A Simple Speech about Intricate Things". – Moscow, 1873 – Compilation. ^ The book of Archpriest, Master of Theology Grigory Mikhailovich Dyachenko "From the Realm of the Mysterious. A simple speech about the existence and properties of the human soul as a god-like spiritual entity. With the application of stories and reflections leading to the recognition of the spiritual world in general." In 3 ch. Moscow, 1900. And an addendum to the book — "From the Realm of the Mysterious. Spiritual world. Stories and Reflections Leading to the Recognition of the Existence of the Spiritual World" (Moscow, 1900) – Ed. ^ The day of St. Alypius the Stylite († 640) is celebrated according to the new style on December 9 – Ed. ^ The Philokalia is a collection of works of the Holy Fathers, mainly of ascetic content: St. John of the Ladder, St. John of the Ladder. St. Nilus of Sinai, St. Abba Dorotheus, Sts. Barsanuphius and John, St. Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem, St. John Cassian and other ascetics – Comp. ^ Irmos (bundle) is a hymn that is part of the canon, a work performed at matins and during some other services. The canon consists of nine parts — songs. The irmos "binds" the songs with each other – Comp. ^ The dates of the holidays are given according to the old style – Compilation. ^

Part II: Reasonable Faith

* * *

Fear of Intelligence

I will begin with the memory that we, intelligent people, were afraid of the mind in the matter of faith. And observing not only myself, but also other people – even to this day – I see how many fairly educated people are infected with this false fear even now! I will say more: theological science itself is still in the thrall of the mind, of "knowledge," of philosophy, and of philosophy, reverencing not it, but itself as a "handmaiden." Theology was introduced into one of the types of philosophy. And all our theologians with extraordinary (and not at all praiseworthy) zeal try to put on the clothes of philosophy. Until the seal is applied: "this is clever," and therefore "permitted by the censorship," our learned theologians still feel uncomfortable, ashamed of their "faith"... If science itself has proved to be so timid before the "mind," then what can we say about ordinary average educated people who are unable to understand the depths of the epistemology of faith and so-called "knowledge"? Where can an ordinary intellectual, who is not sufficiently experienced in religious life and superficially educated philosophically, understand the relationship between faith and knowledge, if even theologians do not all accept this, but follow the path of revaluation of the mind trodden by scholasticism? More than once I have heard the following judgment about him: he is great and brilliant as a writer, but not at all profound as a thinker. And this is quite true: as a philosopher he did not rise above the mediocre level of the average Russian intellectual. His attitude to the supernatural world, in particular to all that is miraculous in the history of the Gospel, is so stereotyped and superficial that it does not differ in any way from the views of some nihilist teacher: he did not overcome the rationalism of his epoch, he placed reason above faith, he subordinated to it, to his judgment, questions that were completely not subject to him — as we will easily see now. contributing to the destruction of faith by imaginary "reasonable" objections. True, he did not become a pure atheist, as even more frivolous intellectuals did; he developed his own very confused religious outlook — without a personal God; And which one? This is extremely unclear. He still recognized the greatness of Christ, but only as a moralist, and not as the Son of God; he denied and even blasphemed the Church (all of them), and twice he sought to go to the Optina Monastery to the "elders" [1], and in the last days of his life he circled around these monastery walls, visited his sister, a nun of the Shamordin Convent, Maria Nikolaevna... And he died in bewilderment and anguish: "And the peasants, the peasants are dying...", he shouted, recalling the peaceful death of the Orthodox peasants... "And that's it?! And nothing more?" he asked himself in front of others.Yes, Tolstoy ended his life bankrupt. And others rely on it completely incorrectly. One of his friends once asked Chekhov: "What do you think about faith?" - Chekhov replied skeptically: "Uh! If Tolstoy himself broke his neck here, then where can we, little people, decide anything?" And indeed, he did not solve anything to the end. But to his credit it must be said that he did not become an atheist either; But such was this infected age that an intelligent, so-called educated, intelligent person of our time was not supposed to believe: faith was, according to the general current opinion, incompatible with reason. If, however, other ideas that came from philosophical circles sometimes made their way into this darkness of the intelligentsia—that faith is not the enemy of reason, but, on the contrary, that the road is completely open to the intelligent man for faith, the purest faith, and not the curtailed one—then such ideas did not find wide acceptance, but seemed to be some dark ghosts of the "Middle Ages," of the superstitious past, the unlived prejudices of idiots, almost a sign of political fanaticism. A liberal man, this supposedly really intelligent European, had to be either an atheist nihilist, or at best he could be a skeptic, an agnostic who stopped between faith and unbelief. And this state of mind passed into the post-revolutionary period. The correspondence of the population carried out by the Soviet authorities several years ago [2] testifies to the fact that, along with open atheists, the type of "agnostic" has also been preserved. When census takers, not always sufficiently educated, asked for an answer to the question of whether a citizen believed, they sometimes, mainly from more qualified intellectuals, received the statement: "I am an agnostic." And the perplexed census takers did not know where to place such a terrible citizen, among the believers or non-believers? There were cases when one of these scribes advised his friend: "Write it to the faithful." "No, that's not true," protested the agnostic. "I am not a believer." "So what? Are you, then, an unbeliever?" — "No, and I am not an unbeliever: I am an agnostic, I told you..." Illiterate copyists were completely lost in front of such a sophisticated citizen-comrade.Exactly the same thing I had to hear personally from American intellectuals. A student at Harvard University, a very sympathetic person by heart and quite widely educated, in response to my question about faith, immediately declared that he was an agnostic... And his friend, with whom he was staying, was a priest, and no less educated. On another occasion I asked one of the noble women, who was a member of the so-called Society of "Christian Knowledge," whether she believed in Christ as the Son of God. She replied with embarrassment: "I don't know"... So she remained perplexed. Many times I have had to convince myself that, apparently, this vague attitude to faith is widespread in American society: "I don't know." It cannot even be called "philosophical agnosticism" proper: it is practical indifference, the half-asleep state of people who have not thought deeply and have not fully solved anything. The spirit of rationalism, of idolatry before reason, knowledge, and science, has penetrated to such an extent into all the cracks of our age that we, even in spite of our personal inclinations, have been infected with it: everything true must be intelligent, i.e., justified from the mind, "proven." And since it had been decided beforehand by "someone" that faith is not reasonable, that faith is not justified by reason, another law inevitably followed from this: an intelligent person must be an unbeliever! Although our spirit instinctively protested against such an abominable prejudice, and we seminarians even liked to dispute it, I confess that in the depths of my soul I was still tormented by this hidden fear: "It is not in the nature of an intelligent person to believe!" continued to believe as before, simply, with a childlike faith... And he calmed down on it... I also remember the experience of a theological school, when I was afraid to believe the Psalmist that only the "fools," not the wise, say, "In their hearts, there is no God." I wanted to believe this, but I was afraid: is it so? And in the seminary, too, the theological sciences, following the Psalmist, in essence tried to prove the same thing about the reasonableness of faith and the folly of unbelief, but the poison of the rational age, the worship of the mind, the recognition of its superiority over faith, prevented us from believing... And this is not accidental, and not from bad teachers, but from the most rational system of study. Namely. As I have already said, our theological scholarship and the spirit of modern representatives – authors and teachers – rested on the principle: everything must be proved! And they tried to prove it. But it was with this warning—everything is reasonable, everything must be understood—that instilled in us a terrible fear of mind control. And since it was quite easy to see that some (for the time being, I will say at least this: some) truths of faith were inexplicable by the mind, or, as they were confused then, "contradicted" the mind, our faith in the wisdom of the dogmas of faith was easily undermined. Indeed. God is one, but in three persons... Three and one... What mind can understand this? And if it is not clear, then according to the intellectual-seminary catechism, it is also incorrect or, in any case, doubtful... you still need to "prove" it... And it is impossible to prove... And we fell into a vicious vicious circle of bewilderment. But faith in the mind remained unshakable even then. This idol stood firm. No one dared to throw it down, as St. Vladimir did with the pagan Perun, throwing him into the Dnieper to the horror of the simpletons, our ancestors.True, in some small doses we were taught – mainly in theology and dogmatics – that the truths of faith are mysterious in their essence and are not subject to rational explanation; but these doses were suppressed by such a weight of rationalism, faith in the power and superiority of the mind, that they very soon dissolved in idolatry before "science", knowledge, reason; And we were afraid to admit to ourselves that we believe and can believe, we have the right to believe in mysteries inexplicable by the mind... The fear of "mysteries" – this rationalistic poison of all intellectuals, from the seminarian to Tolstoy – was inherent in me for a very long time, until I became convinced by experience, and not by science, of its enormous falsehood and danger. And I affirm that never in the seminary, and perhaps even in the academy, did I have to hear not only solid judgments, but even a slight warning or suggestion that an intelligent person need not be afraid of mysteries and unknowability in general, and in faith in particular. And yet, if this were explained to us, and inculcated, and proved, which was not difficult at all, then the free road to faith would be dissolved for us... Alas! On the contrary, we were brought up in the view: "Everything is understandable"... And our sciences, having said a few words about mystery, immediately, as if afraid of it, shunned in the opposite direction, and thousands of words flew into our heads and hearts — with the opposite purpose: "to prove." The antidote was suppressed by poison... And later, when all the falsity of rationalism was already revealed to me, I could not help but see how the spirit of the mind prevailed in the lectures of the professors of the Academy and in the books... I am not afraid to say now that it was an evil spirit, a demonic spirit, a diabolical delusion – in the true sense of these words. This spirit contradicted the Gospel, the Epistles, the epistemology of the Holy Fathers, and in general the essence of the truths of the faith; but this poison has infected our educated society extremely deeply, preventing us from believing simply or even destroying faith, as was the case with the unfortunate Tolstoy and millions of intellectuals. But at the same time, and even more firmly, I carried through the seminary the simple faith that I had had since childhood: it was in my heart and in my life, and rationalism was only in my head, and even then more like a temptation repugnant to my soul. However, it bothered me like a tooth constantly aching with pain: and I did not know how to pull it out; and the doctors, my teachers, did not teach me this art. And only the childish faith directly overcame this morbid poison, drowned it out, until at last I myself coped with this delusion... And moreover, he coped with the same path of mind as he was poisoned, according to the proverb: "Knock out a wedge with a wedge", "The more you hurt, the more you are treated". In his book "God's People" (chapter "Optina"), Metropolitan Veniamin wrote the story of one of the inhabitants of the Optina Hermitage (Fr. Joel, who witnessed Leo Tolstoy's visit to St. Ambrose of Optina († 1892): "Father Joel, an old monk, told me a small episode from the life of Leo Tolstoy, who was at the skete. He spoke with Fr. Ambrose for a long time. And when he left him, his face was frowning. The elder followed him. The monks, knowing that Father Ambrose had a famous writer, gathered near the door of the shack. When Tolstoy went to the gates of the skete, the elder said firmly, pointing to him: "He will never turn to Christ! Gordy-ynya!" – Ed. ^ A census was conducted in late 1936 and early 1937. The respondents had to answer, among other questions proposed to them, the question of belonging to a religion. The census was declared "wrecking", its results were not published. He mentions it in his book "I believe..." writer L. Panteleev (Panteleev L. I believe...: Poslednie povesti. L., 1991. S. 63 — 65). – Ed. ^

The Process of Overcoming Glamour

This is how it happened, as far as I remember in essential features. Of course, the process of the struggle between faith and reason went on in my soul gradually and in many layers, along different paths. And the plant reveals its life imperceptibly; And it needs the warmth of the sun, and the juices of the earth, and the exchange of air, and moisture. And you don't see how the flowers have already appeared overnight, and there is not far from fruit. This, undoubtedly, was the case with my soul: it grew gradually and imperceptibly, using various methods of its own satisfaction and comfort. And now I can write down the former complex process in a simplified way, in a few clearly concentrated points. However, in order to clarify the question of the growth and process of faith, these points are precisely needed as the main milestones of the path. Now the following more important methods are outlined in my consciousness, which helped to overcome the rationalistic poison: rational, or philosophical, then experienced, or heart, or psychological, and, finally, grace-filled, mysterious, mystical. I will write about them here.This process took place mainly in my own soul. And this is always especially important. Then everything we acquire is clear, convincing, and lasting. Your own experience is the best teacher. And when we receive knowledge only from others, from outside, then it is easily forgotten or evaporated, having no deep roots in ourselves. And what has passed through the crucible of our soul, then seems so simple and obvious to us that it even seems strange: how can others not see it? I will say even more: now I think that my thoughts expounded here seem to me so simple and elementary that it is even shameful to prove them to thinking people. After all, all this is so clear and self-evident. But at one time these thoughts were like a "revelation" for me, how could I not have seen it before?! Therefore, I venture to assume that it is likely that for others, too, my mental process, if it does not seem to be a revelation, will nevertheless confirm or clarify their own experiences; And maybe it will be interesting news for them... After all, our soul is generally the same, and therefore the experiences are similar. But he was undoubtedly helped by the experiences of other people before me: I mean mainly the works of writers, both ancient and modern. But these books only helped or went towards the process that was in my soul.Here I can remember with the greatest gratitude with a kind word the book of Vl. A. Kozhevnikov (may he rest in peace!) on the relationship between faith and knowledge. In it, he examines the main objections of "knowledge" to faith. The book is quite small, up to 100 pages, published by Rel.-phil. library (M. A. Novoselova). It represents, it seems, a series of lectures given by Vladimir Alexandrovich in a circle of Moscow youth. And I would recommend that anyone interested in these questions not only read it, but simply study it, study it in the most thorough way: then the reader will be relieved of the need to study multi-volume philosophies.Through him, I learned a number of other books in the same direction.Reading the Holy Fathers, which I began to study from the first year of the Academy, especially participating in the student "Zlatoust" circle [1], also brought me great benefit. True, I do not remember any of the outstanding special treatises on the question of the relationship between faith and knowledge. But isolated passages, brief sayings, deep thoughts accidentally dropped in passing sometimes gave a strong impetus to my mind, enriching and strengthening it and explaining the nature of faith and knowledge. Remembering now the works of the Holy Fathers, I can mention the names of St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Isaac the Syrian, St. John of Damascus, the Holy Fathers of the Philokalia, St. Simeon Nov. Theologian, Chrysostom, from whom I found the most material on the questions that interested me. It would be extremely important to collect in a system their views on belief and unbelief. I will now recall – not having at hand their works – two or three outstanding sayings (even if not literally). Anthony the Great said: unbelief is frivolous audacity. St. John Chrysostom: Faith is the lot of grateful souls. Damascene: God is above all concept and all being, and therefore is completely incomprehensible. St. Gregory the Theologian: sometimes everything is so clear about God; and another time you fall into the abyss of ignorance. Consequently, the states of unbelief and lack of faith were familiar even to the saints. Chrysostom: If you do not understand something, then accept it by simple faith; Ah, how beautifully the Holy Fathers speak! And how nice it is even just to rewrite their golden words. It is known that many amateurs have long collected their emerald sayings.I will write a few more excerpts from the book of the Holy Fathers.His own: "If it is impossible to explain the method of conception by natural action, then how can it be explained when the Spirit worked miracles?.. Let those who seek to comprehend a supernatural birth be ashamed.. Nor do you think that you have learned all things when you hear that Christ was born of the Spirit.'" Christ came from us, from our composition, from the Virgin's womb, but how? "You can't see it." And so: Thou shalt not seek either; but believe what is revealed; and do not try to comprehend what is silent.'" Do not investigate: how is it? Where God wills, there the order of nature is conquered." Basil the Great: "Let you not have an excessive desire for reflection"... "I confess the inaccessibility to thought and the inexpressibility to human words of the image of the Divine Nativity." "Let superfluous questions be silent in the Church of God; let faith be glorified; let it not be tested by wisdom." Theodotus, bishop. Ancyra: "I tell you a miracle: give up your studies!" "The natural man, clinging to earthly things and testing everything with the thoughts of the mind, considers the miracles of God to be madness; because they are inexplicable according to the laws of nature." "Signs and wonders are received by the faith of God, and not tested by the mind." "If thou wilt know this (incarnation), know that thou hast been made; (a) How he was made, this is known only by the Miracle Worker." "The divine nature is inaccessible to the concept of the human mind; it is higher than what is comprehended by our senses. And so: we have no knowledge of God, because of the superiority of His nature." Demetrius of Rostov: "The mysteries of God, the more we talk about them, the more hidden and incomprehensible they are." Scripture, in the Word of God. But I did not gain this then. Scripture is so sure of the existence of God that it does not even raise such questions. And I, too, with my lack of faith in the Word of God in the seminary, did not even want to look for answers there... And only later did I see here the main revelations about faith and unbelief. For example, the Lord says to the Jews: "Search the Scriptures, for you think by them to have eternal life; but they bear witness to Me. But you will not come to Me (author's italics – Ed.) that you may have life" (John 5:39-40)." How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and do not seek the glory that is from the One God?" (v. 44). There is no humility." Why do you not understand My speech? For you cannot hear My words." And why is that? Because "your father is the devil, and you will fulfill the lusts of your father" (John 8:43-44); and "he is a liar" and "a murderer" (44). Unbelief is from the devil." Whoever is of God (emphasis added. – Ed.) hears the words of God... you are not of God" (47). Faith is from God." Whoever wants to do His (the Father's) will know about this teaching, whether it is from God..." (John 7:17). Experience shows the truth of faith." But you do not believe, for you are not of my sheep"; and "My sheep obey My voice" (John 10:26-27). Unbelievers are strangers in spirit to Christ God. On the contrary, believers are akin to Him, like children, like their parents." And wisdom (truth) is justified by its children" (Matt. 11:19), i.e. by those who are kindred to it in spirit. Even the ancients said: like is known by like. The truth about God is revealed by Christ Himself. The True Word of God: "... No one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wants to reveal Him" (Matt. 11:27).But if people do not accept His revelations, it is because of their own hardness and stubbornness: "they could not believe," because they themselves blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts (John 12:39-40). the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth (John 14:16, 17). He will "teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (v. 26); He will "guide you into all truth" (16:13)." "Stiff-necked," says Stephen to his fellow Jews, "ye always resist the Holy Spirit, both your fathers and you" (Acts 7:51). "And to this day they persist." We are from God; he who knows God hears us; he who is not of God heareth not us" (1 John 4:6). — How many times has it been pointed out that faith is from God: in whom God is, in him will be faith. And vice versa. Consequently, it is not at all a matter of the mind, not of knowledge, but of the spirit, of the heart, and even more deeply: in God, who lives in the heart and reveals Himself to it. And in whom does God dwell? "He who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him" (1 John 3:24). for God is love" (1 John 4:8); "... if we love one another, then God dwells in us..." (1 John 4:12)." We know also that the Son of God came and gave us (light and) understanding, that we might know (God) the true..." (1 John 5:20). Christ is the foundation of faith.Our faith is "not on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:5). "But to us God has revealed it by His Spirit" (2:10)." Whoever thinks that he knows anything knows nothing as he ought to know" (1 Corinthians 8:2). "But whoever loves God has been given knowledge from him" (v. 3). However, all of it teaches faith. But not in a philosophical way, but in incomparably more different ways: by direct revelation about the manifestations of another world, by facts, and so on. We will talk about this later; And now let's talk about faith and the attitude of knowledge and science to it... This is what I come to. The organizer and soul of the "Zlatoust" circle was Bishop (then Archimandrite) Theophan (Bystrov), who studied the works of the Holy Fathers with students "beyond the program." The circle received its name because students began their acquaintance with the works of the Holy Fathers with the works of St. John Chrysostom. – Ed. ^

Do scientists believe?

In wide circles of intellectual society, as is well known, a terrible prejudice has been established that science is incompatible with faith; And it must be said that in fact there was a reason for this: our comparatively educated classes in the last century have undoubtedly shown a great inclination to unbelief. Unbelief has become almost a sign of a "thinking" person. All of us Russians know this from our school experience, from our outstanding writers, and simply from the life of the intelligentsia. Faith left the intelligentsia.But here is the question: why? Usually it is answered that formerly people were "ignorant", unenlightened, blindly believed everything, and now they seem to have become clever and see that all this is only fiction necessary to deceive simple-minded people. The reason for the disbelief of our educated classes is different: not in science, but in their will; not in the mind, but in the heart. And that this is so is quite easy to prove, although the unbeliever will always resist self-evident proofs. But we are not writing for "stiff-necked" stubborns, but for seekers of truth. If, indeed, learning and faith were incompatible in their essence, then no scientist would be a believer. And vice versa: if at least some truly learned people still remain believers, then it is obvious that science and faith are compatible in themselves. If, therefore, there are learned unbelievers and learned believers, intelligent atheists and clever Christians, then it is quite clear from this that the cause of faith and unbelief is not in the mind or lack of mind, but in something else. There are many such collections abroad, in foreign languages; they also appeared in Russia, in view of the growing atheism of the intelligentsia. I know of a later collection by the English investigator of this subject, Tabrum, precisely on the question of whether modern scholars believe. First, I will tell you about foreigners. In order not to refer to other similar sources, I will dwell on it, especially since I was lucky enough to get hold of this book recently from Russia... This is what this interesting and serious work of our contemporary gives us. It turns out that out of 100 modern scientists requested, only about 10% declared themselves non-believers; and the remaining 90% openly recognized themselves as religious people. True, their answers were different, according to their religions; but all of them declared their faith in God.It makes no sense to mention their individual names, because we, Russians, do not know them, except, perhaps, with the exception of a few of our scientists. I will only remind you of the most learned Oliver Lodge. But the Russian people have not even heard this name; but every educated person knows the name of Charles Darwin. His name is not mentioned in Tabrum; Because he belongs to an older generation. But this is not the point, but the fact that his name was and is still being abused: he is presented as a pure materialist and an opponent of religion. Judging by his earlier statements, Darwin was not a pure atheist, but recognized some creative force that created the first types of organisms. And even if he later inclined to unbelief, it is still impossible to recognize him as an unbeliever. And our materialists are already correcting him, now speaking of "neo-Darwinism," now referring to his letter to K. Marx, that "he consciously avoided talking about religion and limited himself to the field of science." What of this? There have always been atheists. This is not what we are talking about. But about the fact that many scientists were believers: of former times – Newton, Leibniz, Kant, etc. There were and are believers from the scientific world. That is, we "know", that is, we experience the existence of this world and its functions (actions); but we do not "understand" or "perceive" either its initial appearance or even the functioning of its manifestations. We observe the facts, but we are not able to explain them. Recently, I had a meeting with a professor of botany who had worked at the university for forty years; Then he retired. And now he is interested in religion. I saw theological books in his possession.In the conversation, I asked him a simple question. We all "know" from experience roses: pink, red, white, yellow.— Do you, as a professor of botany, understand why (not for what, but exactly why?) roses are diverse in color?— No! We will not increase the number of examples, although they could be given without number! No one can deny this! But we do not "know" how all "this happens" (we do not say: how did it happen?). If this happens in the earthly, natural world, then what can we say about the so-called "supernatural"?And therefore it is wrongly said that this world is "known by the mind", and the supernatural – "by faith". Both are perceived by direct faith and experience, as facts. And we cannot "understand" them. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish only between objects (objects) of perception and the organs by which we perceive them: there are thoughts, but we do not "see" them; love exists, but we do not "hear" it with our ears, etc. And the way of cognition is the same: "direct perception" is experience. And it is preceded by faith (trust). But there will be a special talk about this later.We can point to another book on the question of scientists and believers. Dennert (a German) also gives a lot of examples on this topic.Of the Russian writers, it is necessary to refer to the professor of the University of Kiev (former), Archpriest. Svetlov [1], who even sharply ridicules those who think that "scientists" and "science" have long ago consigned to the archives the question of the superiority of science over religion. By the way, I will write about the famous Frenchman Voltaire. Readers know that he not only did not believe in God, but even jokingly blasphemed. But almost no one seems to know the end of it. A priest came to him... And Voltaire wrote the last words, that he was dying a believer. This recording was kept in the Paris Library. Whoever doubts this, let him look into the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron and read his exact words. Let us not count which of the scholars is greater – non-believers or believers? But there is undoubtedly a connection between unbelief and so-called education.In any case, among the Christians of the first period, believers came mainly from the "simple", so-called lower class. Namely. The Apostles were recruited by the Lord from the fishermen, and of the educated there were few: Nicodemus, Saul-Paul, etc. On the contrary, the "educated" (for that time) leaders – the chief priests, Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, Pilate (a skeptic who does not believe in anything: "What is the truth?" – and left without waiting for an answer from the Lord), etc. – not only did they not accept Christ, but also crucified Him. But it can be said with certainty that the majority of Christians came from the working class, as evidenced by St. Luke. Paul: "Look, brethren," he addresses everyone in general, "who are you who are called: not many of you who are wise according to the flesh (by outward learning), not many who are strong (powerful), not many who are noble..." (1 Corinthians 1:26).And now the faithful come mainly from the working class: they fill our churches, monks were recruited from them, and the clergy were replenished from there (before the seminaries, i.e., until the middle of the eighteenth century, and now); and most importantly, the Church of God stood on the "people", these are indisputable facts! In what exactly? Or more simply, in pride! At least, this is my observation. Learning distinguishes people from the mass of ordinary workers, gives them advantages over the latter, self-conceit grows, wealth is added: and with all this comes pride." Faith is humility," says St. Barsanuphius the Great. But this is not the main thing; A learned person begins to believe in himself: in his mind, in his knowledge, and not in God, not in the grace of God. Thus says the same Apostle: "Therefore God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the strong; and God hath chosen the lowly things of the world, and the despised things, and the things of no importance, to abolish the things that are important, that no flesh should boast before God" (1 Corinthians 1:27-29). And of himself the Apostle says: "And my word and my preaching" consisted "not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the manifestation of the Spirit and power, so that your faith may be established not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (2 chs. 4-5). 19, 27, 29). Let us now turn to our Russian scientists. We, Russians, are no less authoritative and, of course, much more known and convincing are the names and information about our Russian learned believers. Not having such collections at hand, I will refer to well-known Russian outstanding people who openly confessed their faith. I will only list their names; sometimes I will say two more words about them. N. V. Gogol. In his letters there are a great many religious thoughts; he has an explanation of the Divine Liturgy. But who knows about this? And were we told about this in gymnasiums and seminaries?.. Alas, no! The "Inspector General" was taught as the commandments of God; they read "Dead Souls" and his short stories. And they haven't even heard of letters. And the meaning of "The Government Inspector" is not known to this day, although N. V. Gogol himself explained it: the true inspector is the Lord. A. Zhukovsky. A great deal of reasoning of a philosophical-religious nature has remained from him, and precisely on the question of faith and knowledge. But I am sure that 1:1000 intellectuals have even heard of it! And ballads were learned by heart. M. Dotoevsky. Who did we all know that he was not only a believer, but also an Orthodox Christian? But even this giant could not turn the modern intelligentsia, which had deviated into liberal unbelief, to the path of faith. Dostoevsky did not have any direct students and heirs. Most have followed the Westernist path of atheism and humanism. But it is enough to mention the name of Fyodor Mikhailovich for a decent intellectual to be ashamed to classify all intelligent people as atheists.I spoke about Tolstoy and Chekhov above.Of the new writers, the bright name of Shmelev should be mentioned with respect; I personally know that he confessed and communed of Holy Communion. Mysteries at the Sergius metochion in Paris, when I was there. And after the service, I invited him to have tea with me.May the name of S. I. Gusev not be forgotten either. Even if there was darkness in his past: he refused his priesthood. But in his old age, he sincerely, consciously, and at the same time simply heartily prays to God, asking for the salvation of his soul. A few other less important names could be mentioned... But I will not disturb their pride: let them be saved in silence.Incomparably more faithful from the philosophical circle. It can be argued that the vast majority of them were believers. And this will be clear later. And now I will only point out that a superficial education can distance a person from faith, and deep knowledge will at worst make a person an "agnostic", and at best it will lead to faith, or in any case will not make a person a "conscious" atheist. And it is understandable: philosophers know the limits of the human mind and its impotence in the field of faith.Of the many philosophers, it is enough to name the Slavophiles: Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Strakhov, Danilevsky... After that, Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov, who left several volumes of philosophical and theological works and had, not only in his time, but also to this day, a great influence both on the university youth and on the intelligentsia society in general... However, even he was unable to stop the cart of intellectual Russia sliding into the abyss of nihilism: godlessness and materialism stepped over Solovyov as well. He has many non-Orthodox thoughts, but this is a private matter; and his faith is beyond doubt. And one of his close friends told me during his lifetime that, dying, V. S. Solovyov humbly and repentantly said: "The work of the Lord is hard." He also frightened with his union with Catholicism, but even here he was looking for the "Kingdom of God," only misunderstood by him.Of the other philosophers, let us recall the names of the professors of Moscow University: Lopatin, S. N. and E. N. Trubetskoy; but in particular, it is worth dwelling on the living and hitherto living professor of St. Petersburg University, N. O. Lossky. In a secular university, a professor who openly believes in the Holy Trinity is inadmissible, as he himself told about it in one of the editions of his fundamental work on "Intuitionism".Let us also recall the names of our contemporaries, philosophers: S. L. Frank (formerly a Jew, now Orthodox), N. A. Berdyaev, Vysheslavtsev, and others. Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov's father, Sergei Mikhailovich... His contemporary, Professor of Russian History of Moscow University M. I. Pogodin. This man left behind a very interesting book under the intriguing title: "Simple Speeches about Tricky Things". In fact, the more serious part of the book is the first, where he expresses his thoughtful and thorough feelings and thoughts about the relationship between faith and knowledge.In the second part, he collected many facts (not sufficiently equivalent, however) about phenomena from the other world. In the third, he challenges the theory of Darwinism, which at that time captured almost the entire reading world.At the beginning of the last century, everyone knew the name of Chancellor Speransky, who left behind special theological books. From modern times, it is necessary to recall with reverence the name of the political economist Pavel Ivanovich Novgorodtsev, who wrote abroad the book "On the Social Ideal", in which, among other things, he openly declared to the entire intellectual world the collapse of the false idea (still Solovyovskaya) about the "Kingdom of God on earth". Modest for all his education, he swept like a brilliant star across the political and philosophical horizon. Konstantin Leontiev [2] — who ended his life in the Optina Monastery near the elders; "This is ours," Fr. Ambrose said of him. Let the memory of Professor Maxim Maksimovich Kovalevsky of Kharkov University remain in posterity. A member of the Duma... Gosh! Gosh! What a sad uproar his acquaintances and party members raised when, before his death, he invited a priest (my colleague in the Academy, Fr. S.) and confessed and communed of Holy Communion. Secrets. But he acted according to the judgment of his conscience, contrary to the intellectuals' nihilism.The name and works of another professor of political economy, S. N. Bulgakov, are more widely known. He also went through a fall into godlessness, was a Marxist, and then returned to faith and ended his life in the priesthood... All his science did not prevent him from returning to the Orthodox Church. There is a conviction that scientists of this type especially suffer from atheism, although there are no special reasons in the world sciences themselves that would necessarily lead to atheism. And even if this is partly true. But the deepest scientists, both of the ancient and modern world (and especially among the latter), physicians, who were believers, are known. Of the Russian luminaries, I will name three names. The intellectual world, especially our predecessors, our grandfathers, knew the name of the famous doctor, biologist, surgeon Pirogov. Until recent years, medical societies were named after him. But few people know his diary with thoughtful notes. There he not only testifies to his faith, but even reveals his own experiences of his sense of the manifest existence of demons. But who has read about it?The name of the world-famous chemist Mendeleev is even greater. His doctrine of the periodic table of elements is accepted by the entire scientific world as an alphabet. Few people know his interesting and instructive work "To the Knowledge of Russia" and others. And this giant of science was a deeply religious Christian. And at the same time, he remained a realist in science. His realism helped him to remain the same in faith: every conscious believer is a realist, not a dreamer.Everywhere they have spoken and will continue to talk and write about the last giant of science, I. P. Pavlov, who died not so long ago in Russia. He was born in the family of a priest. An interesting and instructive legend has developed about him - and legends are more important than facts. Whether he was riding a tram or walking around St. Petersburg, a church appeared on the way. Pavlov took off his hat and crossed himself. A fellow worker who was there, for whom all questions about faith were "resolved" in the party program, condescendingly pats Pavlov on the shoulder and says: "Oh, darkness, darkness!" Soviet writers are trying to remove the question of Pavlov's religiosity, but the historical legend will defend the testimony of his faith even more stubbornly. The name of A. V. Suvorov is dear to the Russian people. He was a man of extraordinary personal holiness. An ascetic of Orthodoxy. But why have we not been revealed his image from this side, even in theological schools? They wrote about his jokes and even buffoonery. But they did not talk about faith. But at one time he even wanted to take monastic vows. And what were his orders to the soldiers! Here we always hear about God. For example, before the capture of the Izmail fortress, he gives the order: "Pray for a day, fast for a day, and take Izmail on the third!" ... And they took... And how not to take it, if people prayed and fasted?! Then – Kutuzov, the Muravyevs and many, many others – all these are people of strong faith! Of the names of recent times, we can name at least Davydov, Varlamov, Savina, Shalyapin ... The latter had as his confessor abroad the Parisian archpriest. S. — go. And shortly before his death, he confessed and took communion. And the names of the musicians Rimsky-Korsakov, Balakirev. Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Smolensky, Kastalsky, Grechaninov — who dedicated their talents to the Church and its hymns — testify to the faith of their authors! Ivanov and others. and so on. — have given themselves to the service of faith. I personally had to know a little bit of Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov... What modesty with genius! Well, who would dare to say of all of them that they were illiterate "darkness" in their faith? Many of them were professors of science at universities; almost all of them had gone through higher school, were gifted with genius abilities.It is fair to recall, without fear of reproach by modern atheists, many statesmen who held the position of ministers... Not to mention the tsars themselves... It can be said that in former times an atheist minister was even simply unthinkable. And such names as Stolypin will go down in history.Finally, it remains for us to mention a huge class of theologians: hierarchs, spiritual fathers, professors of the academy, secular religious writers. How many people among them were not only talented and broadly educated, but even brilliant... And if our testimony is not enough, then we can at least refer to Herzen. He once dropped a word: "I have seen a lot of untalented governors; but I have not yet seen a single stupid bishop"... Even if this is exaggerated about the hierarchical class in general. But there is no doubt that among the saints there were not a few very learned people. Here is Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, a man of genius abilities, a versatile expert in theological sciences, an adviser to the tsars; the wise administrator: his resolutions are studied as examples of prudence: a deep and eloquent preacher: a holy life, though hidden in asceticism. And they rightly called him "Philaret the Wise." Theophanes the Recluse of Vyshensky, the author of commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. He was the translator of the Philokalia and the author of many other books (The Path to Salvation. "Letters on Spiritual Life", "Outline of Christian Moral Teaching", etc.). The most learned man of his time in general. He left the episcopate and went into seclusion for 30 years for spiritual life... He did not do this in vain, but out of the deepest conviction of his vast mind and experience. Ignatius Brianchaninov, a brilliant student of the Engineering School, left everything and went as a novice to a monastery, then a bishop, and then again in retirement in the monastery: he left behind 5 volumes of works. And also: Archbishop of Kherson, Russian Chrysostom. Innocent; another Kherson bishop-philosopher Nicanor; Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow, are all highly learned people. And among the clergy and secular professors, one can name dozens of brilliant and profound minds: the famous Bolotov, the philosopher Nesmeyanov, the philosopher Karinsky, the learned Professor Glubokovsky, the Golubinskys, and others. and so on... All these are people of learning on a global scale and are Orthodox. And now let us ask: did all these people believe because they were poorly learned, unintelligent, and simple-minded? On the contrary, it is not difficult to understand that no one else thinks so much about his faith as a believer and at the same time an educated person. In fact, he who decided to be an unbeliever would simply renounce everything, brush aside all questions; I don't recognize anything, they say... And he is "free": think nothing, refute nothing! It is quite another thing for an educated person to be a believer: if I have recognized the faith, then I cannot stop there. Not only can others ask me, but my own inquisitive intelligent spirit asks me about a thousand questions that are difficult for the mind: why do I believe in God at all? And why do I recognize the One God in the Trinity? How is the incarnation of the Son of God conceivable? What is the grace of the Holy Spirit? How can you receive the sacraments of the Church? How are the bread and wine transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Lord? Are sins absolved in confession? Why icons and a cross? How are miracles that transcend the laws of nature conceivable? Is prayer powerful? Is there an afterlife? Are there angels and demons? and so on..." "Answer all this to yourself! Think it all over! And how many such questions... And how constantly they can stand before our enlightened consciousness! Take, for example, the sacrament of Communion: a layman now usually takes Communion once a year; and we do it weekly and more often. And we may constantly be faced with an inquisitive question: why do you believe? Is it so? — and according to the well-known law of the association of ideas, we are completely unable to prevent the emergence of these questions; Therefore, it is necessary to find answers: it is impossible to brush it off. Yes, it is quite true that no one thinks so much about faith as an educated believer, especially in a spiritual rank, or a theologian! And therefore unbelievers speak of us with extreme light-mindedness, as if we "unconsciously" believe. No, they really don't think much about it; and we must not think: if not for others, then at least for ourselves.A layman has to think no less if he decides to be a believer, especially in the midst of today's society of little faith.Such an extraordinary person was, by the way, the famous Slavophile A. S. Khomyakov. A man of many things, he later became a theologian. And at the same time, he strictly fulfilled church decrees, even in fasting. The Samarin family. Aksakovs, teachers K. D. Ushinsky, S. A. Rachinsky and others. — the smartest people of their time, who were not afraid to go against the opinions of their stereotyped age — they were believers, of course, not because of "darkness," but because of a deeply enlightened inquiry. On the contrary, non-believers should ponder over us, educated Christians: why do we, with all our outstanding enlightenment, believe? One of the Russian writers, an acquaintance of mine, was once asked by his acquaintances: "How is it, N. N., that you are so clever, and at the same time you believe?" There are many people much smarter than I am, and yet they believe. And this is absolutely true: after all, the vast majority of people of little faith and unbelief have thought very little or even not at all seriously about faith and unbelief... And they decided: there is none of this.. And therefore, at the conclusion of this section, I thoroughly throw an accusation at our accusers: they, in the overwhelming majority, became unbelievers not because they were learned, but, on the contrary, because of their lack of learning and frivolity; not because they thought too much, but precisely because they thought too little about what they had renounced. St. Anthony the Great said about them quite accurately: "Unbelief is frivolous impudence." This is true darkness! And now I ask in turn: why don't you unbelievers believe? Tell us: what scientific evidence has led you to the necessity of unbelief? We believers can tell you why we believe. And what do you say?.. And I know from experience that an unbeliever usually cannot give serious reasons for himself. They do not so much prove and justify their unbelief as they object to our faith. What then? We also accept this method of fighting. But for the time being, after what has been said, we invite them to forget once and for all their false and frivolous prejudice that all scientists do not believe, that faith and knowledge are incompatible, and that only people who are illiterate, ignorant, and uneducated can be believers. This lie is refuted by thousands of contrary examples of people, scientists and believers. And examples prove the truth more powerfully than any words. If someone were to say: all swans are white, but there were also black swans (I saw them in the Crimea), then after such examples one should forget once and for all the former opinion about the whiteness of swans, we will have to say later that there are white swans and there are black swans. So it should be said about scientists: there are unbelieving scientists, and there are believing scientists. Consequently, learning in itself does not necessarily lead to unbelief. It is necessary to look for other causes of unbelief. All this is very clear! "And in ordinary life we see similar cases. There are two different brothers in the family: one is religious, the other is of little faith. Two seminarians, students: one is a believer, the other declares himself an atheist. Husband and wife are approximately equal in mind, but different in faith. Even the same person is a believer, then loses faith, and then returns to it again. From this it is easy to make an observation: this difference in faith is not from the mind, but from something else... We will talk about this later: why exactly? Only not from the mind, not from learning. On one occasion I gave a young man who had graduated from high school a book by Tabrum [3] "Do Scholars Believe?" He read it. But it did not seem to leave any impression on him: he was and remained an unbeliever! Perhaps now he will no longer dare to say that faith and science are incompatible; But he personally did not even think about why such great scientists all believe? Shouldn't he think about it too? Should we overestimate our unbelief? No, he remained cold as before. It is clear that it is not his intellect, not his learning, that hinders him, but something in his soul, deeper and more dangerous.And I do not think that by the previous references about learned believers we will be able to direct the unbeliever to the path of faith. But there is no doubt that by these examples we are knocking out of the hands of our opponents one of the most popular and false weapons of unbelief. And if we do not convert the stubborn atheists to faith, then by such facts we ease the path of faith for those who sincerely seek it, and even more so for believers, by removing the scarecrow that reason and faith are incompatible. And this alleviation of the obstacle alone is not useless. Unbelief is refuted by examples, and now let us proceed to the analysis of objections to faith. Professor of the Kiev University of St. Vladimir, Archpriest Pavel Yakovlevich Svetlov is the author of a course in apologetic theology, the compiler of the remarkable bibliographic work "What to Read in Theology: A Systematic Index of Apologetic Literature in Russian, German and English" (Kiev, 1907). – Ed. ^ Philosopher, writer, publicist Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontiev (1831 — 1891) lived in Optina for a long time, working on his works with the blessing of St. Ambrose. At the end of his life he took secret monastic vows with the name Clement. – Ed. ^ Tabrum A. Religious Beliefs of Modern Scientists; Lane. Ed. by V. A. Kozhevnikov and N. M. Solovyov. Moscow, 1912. – Ed. ^