But if we forget all this, forget both the insignificance and sinfulness of man, then even then from the point of view of law we cannot explain the salvation of man: the basic principle of the legal union – the equality of sacrifice and retribution, work and reward – is not maintained. What is earthly life in comparison with bliss beyond the grave? An insignificant drop in comparison with the whole ocean. If, therefore, a person's deeds have any value, it is at least not for the purpose of obtaining eternal bliss. "If Abraham, says the Holy Apostle Paul, was justified by works, then he has praise, but not in the sight of God (Rom. IV, 2). From our earthly point of view and for earthly purposes, the righteousness of man has some value and may deserve some reward in the eyes of men, but before the Judgment of God, where the judgment on man's final fate is pronounced, this righteousness has no value, does not correspond to the greatness of the reward. First of all, this is because "the time of repentance is short, but the kingdom of heaven has no end" [143]. The labor of asceticism, like a dream, is fleeting, and the repose with which this work is rewarded is infinite and indescribable" [144]. "Our short-lived affliction produces eternal glory beyond measure" (2 Cor. IV, 17 – 18). "The thousands of years of this world are also in comparison with the eternal and incorruptible world, as if one had taken one grain of sand from all the multitude of the sands of the sea" [145]. But time and eternity are opposed to each other not only in their continuity, quantitatively, but they are much more incomparable with each other in their content, in their qualitative difference. No matter what efforts a person undertakes, no matter what sufferings he endures, all this is nothing compared to the bliss that he receives for it. "Look," says St. John Chrysostom, "what greatness of glory which the following virtues enjoy, it surpasses all (wV nican authn panta) that anyone may do; let him reach the very top, and then stay behind. What can a man do to fully deserve (epaxiwV aJlhsai) the bounty of the Lord?" [146]. "If," says St. Macarius of Egypt, every man from the time when Adam was created until the end of the world waged war with Satan and endured sorrows, then he would not have done anything great in comparison with the glory which he inherits, because he will reign with Christ for endless ages" [147].

The impossibility of understanding salvation from the point of view of law is further revealed by the inadmissible and inconceivable phenomenon in a legal union, that one of the members of the union (God) not only does not need the other members and does not seek to use their labors and forces for his own benefit, but turns out to be a constant and necessary helper to them in everything with which the latter want to oblige Him. Each member of a legal union has its own well-being as its goal and, as is natural, wants to have it at the lowest price on its part. And the Lord possesses blessedness apart from man, and so, in spite of this, He not only acknowledges Himself as a debtor to everyone who does good, but also strives for some reason to increase His debt, Himself working for people and considering what He has done to be the work of people. "Virtue," says Bl. Augustine, whatever they may be, although called ours, is given to us by Divine grace" [148]. "Your merits," says St. John Chrysostom, "are not from you, but from the grace of God. If you point to faith, it is from a calling; whether you point to the remission of sins, to the gifts, to the ability to teach, to the virtues, you have received all from there. What, tell me, do you have that you have that you have received, but have achieved by yourself? You can't point to anything. You have received, and yet you are exalted? At the same time, one should humble oneself; for what is given does not belong to you, but to Him who gave it. If you have received, you have received from Him; if you have received from Him, you have not received what is yours; If you have not received what is your own, then why are you exalted, as if you had everything from yourself? [149] "How can we deserve eternal life by our obedience, when true obedience is not our own, but God's work, and it is ascribed to us that we do not resist the grace of God, but cooperate with that which works in us?" [150] What kind of merit can there be on the part of a person when he cannot take a step in moral development without God's help? "If Thy mercy had not covered me, says St. John. Ephraim the Syrian: I would perish now, as dust before the wind, as I have never appeared in this life" [151] Without God, according to St. Gregory the Theologian, we are all mortal playthings of vanity, the living dead, stinking of sins" You have not seen a bird fly where there is no air, a dolphin swims where there is no water; so a man without Christ does not lift his feet up" [152]. Thus, in the essence of the matter, man not only does not oblige the Lord with his merits, but rather owes them to Him. How can we understand the union of God with man after this, if we stand strictly from a legal point of view? I enter into a union not at all out of a desire to serve or help my neighbor, but, on the contrary, out of a desire to use the powers of my neighbor for my own well-being. At the same time, my goal, of course, is to receive as much as possible and give as little as possible. Shall I, therefore, assume any obligations if I do not expect to receive a greater or, at the very least, equal remuneration for them? Meanwhile, the Lord not only enters into a union with man and assumes obligations upon Himself, having no need of this union or of man in general, not only gives man a reward infinitely superior to the latter's labor and forgets all his untruths, without demanding payment for them, but He Himself also produces good in man, so that He Himself may be obliged to man for this good. "God, who, according to St. Irenaeus of Lyons, needs nothing, accepts our good works in order to reward us with His blessings, as our Lord says: Come in the blessing of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me to eat... Inasmuch as you have done this to one of the least of my brethren, you have done it to me (Matt. XXV, 34 et seq.). He does not need it, but he wants us to do it for our own benefit, so that we may not be barren." From a legal point of view, this phenomenon is incomprehensible, even downright meaningless.

Obviously, this union of God with man must be understood from a different point of view, and not from a legal one, which can only distort it, and not explain it. It is not the right that is at work here, not the desire for "one's own", but mercy, forgetfulness of oneself and the desire to serve another, lesser one. What a distance; asks St. John Chrysostom, do you imagine between God and man? How is it between a man and a worm? But even imagining this difference in this way, you have said nothing, and nothing can be said. But will you seek for yourself from the worm of loud glory? No. If, with all your love of glory, you do not want this, will He be in need of your glorification, Who does not have such a partiality and stands so high above you? However, not needing glory, He says for your sake that He desires it. And if He did not disdain to become a slave for your sake, is it any wonder that for the same motive, He gives His consent to something else? Whatever contributes to our salvation, He considers nothing unworthy of Himself" [154].

That is why the Fathers of the Church, who used the analogy of labor and reward, podvig and crown, never forgot and did not conceal from their listeners that this is only an analogy, only an approximate comparison, which by no means expresses the essence of our salvation, that salvation is not accomplished according to the external law of equal reward. Here, for example, are a few examples from the works of St. John Chrysostom, who, as we noted above, most often and in detail dwelt on this analogy of podvig and crown. Wishing to explain to man his salvation, many, including the Holy Father himself, follow in the footsteps of St. Paul. Paul, to the analogues of competitions on the lists: both here and there a reward is given for victory. But the resemblance is only visible, the difference; (At the Olympic Games), says St. Chrysostom, the teacher of wrestlers stands, remaining only a spectator, not being able to do anything else, but only waiting on whose side the victory will be. Not so our Lord: He fights and stretches out His hand, and touches, and, as if Himself overcoming the enemy from all sides, delivers him into our hands, does and arranges everything so that we can stand firm in the struggle and gain victory, and he can lay on our head an unfading crown" [155]. A comparison with a battle is used, but this comparison must also be understood with a great limitation. "Do not hide behind the burden of labors and feats: not only by the hope of 6 good things, but also by another way, God has made virtue easy for us: He always helps and helps us. Only wish to show even a little diligence, and then everything else will follow by itself. For this He requires of you at least a little labor, so that your victory may be yours. As a king commands his son to stand in ranks, shoot arrows, and be in sight in order to attribute victory to him, and yet he himself directs the course of the battle, so God acts in our war against the devil. He demands of you only that you declare open enmity towards the devil – and if you do this, then He Himself will have already ended the whole war" [156]. One can compare the relationship between God and man with the relationship of a lender and a debtor, but "among men who have accepted the pledge think that they show mercy to us, keeping what they have received: but with Christ it is the opposite: having received a pledge from you, He, according to Him, does not show mercy, but on the contrary receives, and for the very care that He shows to your possessions, He does not demand payment from you, but he repays you" [157].

Thus, all these and similar comparisons, while presenting a certain external resemblance to the work of our salvation, do not express such an essential, fundamental feature of it, without which it appears in a false light: according to them we should serve God, whereas He "came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life" for us (Matt. XX, 28). According to the legal understanding, it turns out that by our deeds we show something to God, that we must quench His wrath with our sorrows and sufferings, that we must pay for ourselves, that for the future pleasure that God has promised us. He deprives us of our temporal pleasures, as if he does not have such generosity as to grant man complete bliss. In fact, God is ready to do everything to save man, to bring him into that bliss – He does not consider anything so great and dear to Himself that He does not sacrifice it for the salvation of man. Our deeds are insignificant and illusory, and if God were as the legal understanding of life imagines Him to be, like a lazy servant who has buried his talent, if He were a reaper where He did not sow, and a gatherer where He did not scatter (Matt. XXV, 24), then, of course, He would not have given anything for these works of ours (nor would we have had them then), and we would never have been able to "get rid of our body of death" (Rom. VII, 24). But "thanks be to God" – He is not such as to be afraid to have mercy and squander His gifts – He does not calculate how much a person should, on the contrary, He "only expects an occasion from us to show His great mercy" [158]. "Man, to say St. Ephraim the Syrian can receive a reward for his labors more than by goodness. (But) whose work is equivalent to a kingdom? Who (therefore) can receive the kingdom in righteousness, if he does not inherit it? Is a drop given in truth, and the rest makes up for goodness? The work of righteousness gives only chance, and will reward the giver with great wealth for a little" [159].

In view of such inconsistencies in the legal understanding of life. The Churches have allowed it only as a comparison, they have always been aware that in our salvation there is the mercy of God, which is always ready to give more even than is required, and not a dry calculation that thinks only of not passing on the superfluous, so as not to cause loss to itself. The Church, however, ascribed salvation not to works, not to merit, but exclusively to the mercy of God. We work, we do good, but we are saved not by work, "we are rewarded by Christ the Lord in the age to come according to His mercy alone, and not according to merit" [160]. "Eternal rest," says St. Basil the Great, "awaits those who have lawfully asceticized in this life, (but) rest, not given according to the merit of works, but according to the grace of the great-gifted God, granted to those who trust in Him" [161]. Interpreting Rom. VI, 23, St. John Chrysostom says: "The Apostle did not say that it (eternal life) is the reward for your merits, but: "the gift of God," meaning that we were not freed by ourselves and did not receive a debt, not a reward, not a reward for labors, on the contrary, all this is a work of grace. And from this we can see the advantage of grace: it has not only freed us and improved our lot, but has even accomplished all this without our efforts and labors" [162]. "Everything good and salvific is done not out of duty, but by grace and grace alone (cariti panta cai agaJothti), and we have not given us any reason to do us good" [163]. Our personal participation in our salvation seems to disappear before the greatness of what the Lord does for us and in us, so that St. Athanasius of Alexandria expresses the Orthodox teaching on the salvation of man quite accurately, saying that all our salvation must be attributed to the mercy of God" [164].

Only such a teaching is reconciled to this concept of God; "which God Himself has revealed to us; only with such an idea of salvation will we understand that God is a God of love, there is, indeed, our heavenly Father, Who is indifferently ready to have mercy on everyone, if only they would turn for this mercy. "Ask, saith the Lord, and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find; For if you are evil, you know how to give good to your children: how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him" (Matt. VII, 7 – 11). "You have heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy (this is the basic thesis of the legal, legal understanding of life: to repay what is due to everyone). But I say, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who despitefully and persecute you (the mood is directly opposite to legalism, why is it necessary?): that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He commands His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust, without asking how much they deserve these mercies, and not fearing to reward the unworthy. (Matthew V:43-45). Does the legal concept of Him correspond to such a concept of God? Can we say that the Lord "is good for those without grace and evil" (Luke 2:10). VI, 35), if He gives only what is equal, if He has mercy only on the worthy. What is the difference between such retribution and ordinary human justice? "If you, saith the Lord, will love those who love you, what reward will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what special do you do? Do not the Gentiles do the same?" (Matt. V, 36 – 47). The same can be said about the legal concept of God. If He has mercy only on the worthy, then is this love? Would not each of us, imbued with selfishness, do the same? In what, then, is the superiority of Divine mercy over ours? "If," we confess to God in our daily evening prayers, "Thou shalt save the righteous, nothing great; and if Thou wilt have mercy on the pure, it is no wonder: for the essence of Thy mercy is worthy." But "in this is love, that we did not love God, but He first loved us" (I Jn. IV, 10); but "God commendeth his love, in this, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. V, 8), "But upon me (we pray), surprise sinners with Thy mercy, for this manifest Thy love for mankind, so that my malice may not overcome Thy ineffable goodness and mercy" [165]. If the Lord teaches us to forgive our neighbor his sins against us, it is because He forbade us to demand any satisfaction for the offenses inflicted on us, although the law of righteousness not only permits this, but also requires it, then He forbade it because He Himself does not demand satisfaction from us, which He Himself forgives us. Only the law represented the Lord as the guardian of righteousness, but with the coming of Christ, the law was recognized as imperfect (Rom. III, 21, etc.), ceased to exist, and we saw our Heavenly Father as His Only-begotten Son revealed Him to us.

Unable to carry out the concept of merit to the end, and at the same time unwilling or afraid to leave it entirely in the West, they invented a distinction between merit in the proper and improper sense (de congruo), and the merits of man are assigned to the second category. God, they say, certainly cannot in all truth recognize human deeds as they are, merits worthy of reward, obliging Him to render man due (for the reasons mentioned above); but, as if closing His eyes to this, He declares to man that He will recognize his deeds as merits and reward them as if they were worth a reward. Retribution, therefore, is nevertheless done in truth, albeit conditional.

But does it not resemble the following: there is some law, the observance of which for some reason is burdensome or harmful to a certain person? And so, out of compassion for him, we advise him to circumvent the law without breaking it to the letter. The law is circumvented, and we pretend that we are convinced of its full implementation. Many examples of such bypasses can be found in the morals of those very Jesuits who, perhaps, preached a legal understanding of life more zealously than anyone else. But is not our moral sense indignant when this pitiful game, this hypocritical observance of the letter in the actual violation of the meaning of the law, is ascribed to God? The law of righteousness, if it is understood as a reward for the work of equal pleasure – after all, it will still be violated – after all, a person in fact does not deserve eternal life, and so, in spite of this, the Lord will say that a person receives eternal life according to his merits. Of course, this will be a mercy – of course, it will be better, more comforting for us than with the repulsive dryness of the strict law, but the idea of God will turn out to be far from moral, unworthy of the One Saint.

Presenting God's relationship to man in such a wrong light, the legal understanding of life also distorts the moral life of man.

The essence of the Christian life is in love, which "is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom. XIII, 10). "Jesus said (to the lawyer), 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments all the law and the prophets are established (Matt. XXII, 37-40). "If anyone wants to come after me, says the Lord, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Matt. XVI, 24). Does the legal understanding of life meet these requirements? Can it be said that a person loves God most of all, can it be said that he has completely denied himself, when a person does the will of God only in the hope of receiving the highest reward for it? After all, the goal that sanctifies good deeds for a person in this case is nothing other than well-being – the center of a person's life continues to be his own "I", and not God. Making a certain concession in favor of the law of God, a person in his soul remains the same self-lover as before, desiring only his own benefit. True, the saying about the bearing of the cross refers to the sorrows of this life. But is it fair to limit the power of the Savior's words with these sorrows? We must not forget that the Lord never taught us outward good behavior as the ultimate goal, but had in mind the mood. If, for example, He commanded to beware of an oath, to turn the other cheek to the one who struck him, etc., this does not at all mean that these actions are prescribed to a Christian (sectarians have no right to limit the meaning of these words in such a way). For a Christian, the mood is obligatory, which, under certain conditions, can be expressed in these actions; these latter serve only, so to speak, as a clear example to the teaching, and not as its content. Exactly the same is true of cross-bearing. The Lord, of course, does not need our sufferings, but needs that mood that makes it not only indifferent to us, but also joyful to suffer for Christ – we need that self-hatred, which is an expression of love for God. Give me, my son, thy heart, saith the Most Wise One (Proverbs 23:26). Meanwhile, doing because of the reward of the heart does not give, the heart still belongs to man, and not to God. "If you do good to those who do good to you; What kind of gratitude do you have for that? For sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive it back, what gratitude do you have for that? for sinners also lend to sinners, that they may receive back as much (Luke 1:11). VI, 33 – 34). Again, the Lord does not care about our debtors, but wants to teach us self-denial for the sake of our Heavenly Father. "And you will have a great reward, and you will be the sons of the Most High; for he is good to the ungrateful and the wicked, v. 35. But if we love Christ and follow Him only because we have "eaten bread and are satisfied" (Jn. VI, 26), if we do good only because we expect a greater reward from God, then how does our good work differ from that of the pagan? After all, even pagans, waiting for a reward, can do good deeds – they even perform such feats before which it is impossible not to stop in amazement? Such, for example, are the fakirs, Buddhist ascetics, some dervishes, etc. All of them, each in his own way, await their reward or benefit beyond the grave, and for the sake of it they depress their bodies, endure insults, renounce the comforts and honors of worldly life, etc. while Buddhists, fakirs, etc., chase after ghosts; but in our essence, from the point of view of mood, we will not differ from them in the least; we will be selfish like them. No, the true follower of Christ "calls the Sabbath a delight" (Isaiah 58:13), and not a burden or a means for gain, "he who is born of God does not sin" not because of fear of punishment and not because of the desire for reward, but because "the seed of God dwells in him" (Jn. III, 9). His good deeds, therefore, must find its root within the soul, must stem not from self-pity, which is inherently hostile to Christ's teaching, but from love for the good and God.

That's why, oo. The Churches resolutely denounce good deeds out of reward or out of fear, this is "helming," in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian [167]. "In my opinion," says Clement of Alexandria, "we must have recourse to the word of salvation, not for fear of punishment, nor from the promise of reward, but for the sake of the good itself. Those who do this stand on the right side of the sanctuary, but those who think that by giving perishable things they will receive in exchange the immortality that belongs to them, are called hirelings in the parable of the two brothers" [168]. "If we could imagine," he says, "that someone were to suggest to a Gnostic whether he wished to choose the knowledge of God or eternal life, and if these two things, which are perfectly identical, were separated, the Gnostic would not hesitate to choose the knowledge of God, recognizing that the possession of faith, which ascends from love to knowledge, is desirable in itself." Regardless of whether it is pleasant or unpleasant, beneficial or not for a person. "If you are a slave," says St. Gregory the Theologian, – be afraid of beatings. If you are a mercenary, keep one thing in mind: get it. If you stand above a slave and a hireling, even a son, be ashamed of God as a Father; do good, because it is good to obey the Father. Though you hope to receive nothing, pleasing the Father is in itself a reward" [170]. "Perfection," in the words of another Gregory (of Nyssa), "is not slavish (douloprepwV), not for fear of punishment to shun a vicious life, nor from the hope of reward to do good, trading a virtuous life with certain conditions and contracts; but losing sight of everything, even that according to the promise of hope is observed, to think only that it is terrible to lose God's friendship, and only to recognize that it is precious and desirable to become God's friend; This, in my opinion, is perfection in life" [171].

But the most important, so to speak, irreconcilable accuser of mercenary good deeds finds itself in the person of St. John Chrysostom, who can sometimes be pointed to as its defender. He directly reveals the real source of this good deeds in self-love, in the absence of love for God and Christ. "What do you say, faint-hearted, miserable man? – exclaims the saint: – you are set before you to do something pleasing to God, and you stand in thought about the reward? If, having done this, you were to fall into hell, then should you have delayed? On the contrary, should not a good deed be undertaken with greater zeal? Do you do what is pleasing to God, and seek another reward? Truly you do not know what a great good it is to please God; for if you had known this, you would not have equaled any other reward (with this good). Do you not know that your reward will be greater when you do what is due, without hoping for a reward?" [172], "We," says the saint in another of his works, "are in such a pitiful frame of mind that if there were no fear of hell, perhaps we would not even think of doing anything good. That is why we are worthy of Gehenna, if not for other faults, then precisely because we fear it more than Christ. Not such, but completely opposite were the feelings of Blessed Paul. We are condemned to hell because our dispositions are different. If we loved Christ as we ought to love, we would know that it is harder than hell to offend the beloved. But we do not love, and therefore we do not know the greatness of this punishment... Although we always live in sins and vices; but as soon as we do a little good, even if it costs some reward, following the example of wicked slaves, we calculate and hang out to the last little what payment we are due for it. But you will receive a great reward if you do not do it in the hope of a reward. To speak of rewards and to calculate them in advance is more a hireling than a faithful servant. We must do everything for Christ, and not for reward. For this reason He threatens hell, for this reason He promises the kingdom, that we may love Him. Therefore, let us love Christ as much as we ought to love: this is the high reward, this is the kingdom and pleasure" [173].

Some are trying, contrary to the voice of the oo. Church, to justify good deeds because of the reward by the consideration that, although it may not be entirely moral, it is useful. It is necessary, they say, to see what reward is available in a given case; Christians, on the other hand, have in mind a reward that surpasses all; moreover, the expectation of this reward compels Christians to cling to God, to be moral, etc. But this consideration can only prove the reasonableness and prudence of such good deeds, but not the purity of its motives. In addition, the quality of such good deeds, its depth and durability are very doubtful. "A horse," says St. John Chrysostom, "should be especially surprised when it can walk smoothly without a bridle; but if he walks upright because he is held by the reins and the bridle, then there is nothing surprising in this: then this slenderness must be attributed not to the nobility of the animal, but to the strength of the bridle. The same must be said of the soul: it is not surprising if it behaves modestly when it is oppressed by fear; no, then show me spiritual wisdom and perfect good manners, when temptations have passed and the bridle of fear has been removed" [174]. And this is quite understandable. If a person does good only because of reward or out of fear of punishment, then his entire moral development can be subjected to very strong doubts. Suppose he is now doing good; but, after all, his soul does not participate in this good and does not value it; After all, the meaning of life for him is self-gratification. It is only necessary to assume that circumstances have changed, that it has become more profitable for man to do evil than good, and then all his virtue, like a plant without a root, will disappear instantly, and then it will turn out that the heart of man is not at all with God, although he revered Him with his tongue. "Let none of you," said St. John Chrysostom to those who have not yet been baptized, "approach virtue as a hireling, as an ungrateful, as something difficult and unbearable; on the contrary, let us approach it with zeal and joy. If a reward had not been promised, would it not have been necessary to be virtuous? But let us be virtuous, at least because of the reward. Is it not shameful, is it not extremely unscrupulous to say: if you do not give me a reward, then I will not be chaste? To this we may say this: Though thou preserve thy chastity, thou shalt never be chaste if thou wilt do it for the sake of a reward; for you do not value virtue in the least if you do not love it for its own sake" [175]. Like the Pharisee and any lawyer in general, such a person will be in good order, even irreproachable, but his heart will still be sinful, alien to God, precisely because virtue, pleasing God, is for him only a means to gain his personal well-being, and by no means an end in itself, which would make sense of his entire life. "Virtue," says St. Gregory the Theologian, "must be unselfish if it wants to be a virtue; which has only good in mind" [176], i.e., virtue in the proper sense. "Those who truly love God," says St. Macarius of Egypt, "decided to serve Him not for the sake of the kingdom, as if for purchase and gain, and not because of the punishment prepared for sinners, but as attached to the one God and at the same time to their Creator, realizing by natural order that slaves are obliged to please the Lord and Creator" [177].