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].

St. Tikhon of Zadonsk beautifully describes this servile good deeds. "Many Christians," he says, "having come to their senses of their sins, with which the majesty of God has angered, pity and grieve for no other reason than for the sake of the torment prepared for sinners. This sorrow comes from self-love, as everyone can see; for they regret their next destruction, and not for God, who was angry and offended by their sins. Such people, if they did not hope for their sins to be punished for their sins, and if it were possible to live forever in peace and always sin, would never cease to sin. For they depart from sins, not for God's sake, but for the fear of their own destruction. And thus the unrighteousness of the heart, the selfishness and deceit of the heart are known. For we all do for God's sake, turn away from evil, and do good. For as God creates all things for our benefit, so must we all do for His glory. This is the righteousness of the heart. For it is not true and right pity to pity and be contrite for the sake of the fear of Gehenna; but the best and most perfect is required of a Christian. This sorrow can also be the beginning of true sorrow for God, for by such fear a person can be aroused and know his error, and thus come to sorrow for God, as we read enough of such examples in the history of the Church, but it is impossible to call him true sorrow for God... True pity and sorrow for God consists in the fact that a Christian should be crushed and pitied, not for the sake of deprivation of eternal life and the punishments that follow in hell, but for the sake of the fact that he did not revere, love, and listen to God, His Creator, Redeemer, and Providence, Whom he must honor, love, and listen to above all else. This is true sorrow for God. A Christian should grieve over this, that he did not give God his due. Such a person who has sorrow, even if there is no eternal life and hell, will grieve, weep and be ashamed; and curse yourself... Such sorrow comes from love, and is true, Christian, righteous sorrow according to God" [178].

In this way, the very essence of Christianity is distorted in the legal understanding of life: the loftiness and spirituality of the idea of God is lost, while man is left in his former, pre-Christian selfish disposition.

Но, если так, если это жизнепонимание по самому существу своему противоположно христианскому и если оно единодушно отвергалось Словом Божьим и отцами Церкви, – то как понять приведенные выше изречения, в которых это жизнепонимание как будто бы признается? Прежде всего, в весьма многих случаях Слово Божие и отцы Церкви, указывая человеку на вечное блаженство праведников и вечные мучения грешников хотят выразить лишь ту мысль, что святость есть истина, а грех – ложь, и потому первая имеет в себе залог торжества, вечна, а второй необходимо должен привести к погибели, к посрамлению». Никто своим беззаконием не укрепит своей жизни» (Иез. 7, 13). Другими словами, это – убеждение в том, что наш святый Бог есть Единый Истинный Бог, и Его закон есть единое истинное устроение жизни, есть единый истинный закон бытия. Если за гробом нет ничего, иди если за гробом и праведников и грешников ожидает одинаковая участь, тогда добро и зло одинаковы по достоинству, оба они одинаково условны, временны. Добро не имеет никакого преимущества пред грехом, оно даже является более слабым, чем грех, потому что в этой жизни грех нередко торжествует. Но это приводит уже к мысли, что и Бог, повелевающий делать добро и Сам святый, не есть на самом деле Господь всего, учение Его, следовательно, не есть безусловная истина и т. д., и т. д. Поэтому-то мы и должны держать всегда в уме „чаяние жизни будущего века», чтобы наша жизнь по вере имела смысл. Если не будет того дня, когда можно будет «видеть различие между праведным и нечестивым, между служащим Богу и не служащим Ему» (Мал. 3, 18), в таком случае правы те, которые говорят: тщетно служение Богу и что пользы, что мы соблюдали постановления Его?… потому что в этом мире лучше устраивают себя делающие беззакония» (ст. 14 – 15). «Каждый истинно разумный, носящий на себе образ Божий и сочувствующий высокому и небесному, не захотел бы ни жить, ни воскреснуть вместе с прочими, имеющими жить людьми, если бы не надеялся заслужить похвалу от Бога, как добрый раб, и удостоиться каких-нибудь почестей, говорит вполне справедливо св. Григорий Нисский (т. VII. 447). Это не наемническое нежелание делать добро иначе, как только за соответствующую плату, а прямое требование здравого смысла, потому что в противном случае, добродетель не имеет для себя никакого достаточного основания, добродетельный человек не может дать отчета в своем уповании. Наоборот, веруя, что Господь есть, и что Он есть Бог истины и святости, и что, следовательно, Он не допустит, чтобы зло на веки торжествовало, – праведник и «не стыдится» своего упования, он «держит свое лицо, как кремень» и «знает, что не останется в стыде», потому что «близок оправдывающий его» (Ис. 50, 7 – 8), потому что «спасение Божие пребудет вечно и правда Его не престанет» (51, 6).

В таком смысле должны быть понимаемы и те очень многие места в Св. Писании, где праведники недоумевают, что «яко путь нечестивых спеется», или что праведники унижены, что закон Божий в поругании. Мы будем очень далеки от духа Слова Божия, если поймем все такие недоумения в смысле самолюбивого недовольства, ропота на Бога; в смысле требования себе платы за исполнения закона. Недоумения эти происходили оттого, что уничижение праведников и вообще истинной веры, благочестие представлялось как бы несогласных с истиною Божьей. Если зло торжествует и не видно конца его торжеству, то не оно ли и есть истинный закон бытия? Неужели же не Бог управляет миром, неужели следовать закону Божию есть не больше, как заблуждение? Возможность так подумать (не для них, а для не ведущих Бога) и мучила совесть ветхозаветных праведников: торжество зла давало повод врагам глумиться над законом Божьим. «Чистым очам Твоим не свойственно глядеть на злодеяния и смотреть на притеснения Ты не можешь. Для чего же Ты смотришь на злодеев и безмолвствуешь, когда нечестивый поглощает того, кто праведнее его» (Авв. 1, 13). Свои личные страдания здесь совсем не на первом месте, неправильность, неестественность порядка вещей мучит праведника. Поэтому, если дело в одних личных страданиях, если праведнику доказано, что его Бог есть истинный Бог и непременно господствует над злом, тогда о своих страданиях праведник может и не вспомнить и о своей личной судьбе может и не позаботиться: пусть он сам страдает и даже будет страдать вечно, он все-таки знает, что верит в истину и что истина победит. Весьма ясно раскрыта эта мысль в книге Иова. Иов терпеливо переносит свои несчастья и не отпадает от Бога не потому, что он думает о награде, а просто потому, что верует в Бога. Поэтому на искусительный совет жены Иов даже и не упоминает о будущем воздаянии, а просто еще раз исповедует свою веру в Бога: «если мы от Него получили доброе, что из того, если теперь получим злое», что бы ни было с нами, полезно ли было бы для нас исполнять закон Божий или бесполезно; от этого ничего не переменяется, истина остается истиной, Бог, по-прежнему, есть Бог. Слушая не совсем искренние рассуждения своих друзей, Иов мучился и роптал, но опять таки потому, что, при сознании своей невинности, не мог он своих несчастий считать наказанием; если же они не наказание, то где же их смысл и справедлив ли Господь? Рассуждения друзей, таким образом, приводили человека или к лицемерию (в душе чувствуя, что страдания не заслуженны, все-таки говорить, что они заслужены, защищать правду Божию лицемерием, за что Иов и обличает своих друзей) или же искреннего заставить усомниться в Боге. Поэтому-то Иов и просит, чтобы ему дано было видеть Господа, дано было предстать пред суд Божий. Когда же Господь является и открывает Иову и друзьям Свое величие, Иов повергается в прахе и пепле, но вполне успокоенный: теперь его очи видели Господа, о Котором он слышал только слухом уха, его вера нашла себе неопровержимое доказательство, истина торжествует. Об избавлении от страданий он даже и не упоминает: его Бог, на самом деле, есть Бог, есть истина, для него это главное.

Таким образом, торжество добра необходимо предполагается его истиной; вечное блаженство праведников есть свидетельство об истинности Христова учения. Если добро и зло имеют одинаковые права на существование, или не имеют его, одинаково вечны, тогда нет оснований выбирать первое, закон бытия, в таком случае, «да ямы и пиемы». Это одно из весьма важных оснований, почему необходимо при учении о добродетели указывать на следующее за нею вечное блаженство.

Но нам скажут, что в Св. Писании и творениях отцов Церкви встречаются не только указания на будущее торжество добра, как на залог его истинности, но и прямые попытки побудить человека к доброделанию обещанием награды, попытки, по-видимому, говорящие в пользу опровергаемого нами правового жизнепонимания.

Ввиду всего вышесказанного, мы можем решительно ответить, что для таких попыток нужно искать причину не в учении, а вне его, их нужно понимать, как неизбежны уступки обычному человеческому настроению.