Нравственное

Salvation of the soul. Care about the soul and education of the mind. The fostering of the will. Formation of the aesthetical feeling. Care about the body. Wealth and poverty. Public responsibilities. A good name and ambition.

3. Respect and Love for the Neighbor.

Justice and mercy. Assertion of the neighbor in good morals.

4. A Christian as a Member of Society.

А. Responsibilities and virtues in the church society. Relations between the members of society. B. Responsibilities and virtues in the respect to the family. The family. Mutual relations of spouses. Parents, children, workers. Hospitality and friendship. C. The attitude towards the state. The state and morals. The civil and political sides of the state. Authority, legislation, war

Introduction.

The Concept of Morality and Moral Theology; Idea of Goodness.

Just as a universal and immutable law controls physical nature, producing order and beauty, so it is in the spiritual world — and particularly in the realm of human life — where a similar universal and immutable law reigns, establishing order and generating goodness everywhere. Both the laws have their basis in the holy, almighty and benevolent will of God. But if in the physical nature the law is realized through necessity, the law in human life is accomplished freely. There, reigns compulsion and inevitability, but here it is obligation (i.e. direction without compulsion). Free or voluntary fulfillment of responsibilities that are applied on us by law or by the will of God — as our Creator and our Redeemer — is called morality, or moral living, and more precisely — as the Christian morality.

It is this morality that comprises the subject of Moral Theology, which is a study, first, about God’s moral law and the private responsibilities of a Christian that emanate from it, and secondly, about the moral life and personal good deeds of a Christian that correspond to the law. (Because the moral evil (immorality) exists in the world, necessity obliges Moral Theology to speak about violations of the law, about sin in general and personal sins).

The fulfillment of the moral law depends on the personal higher worth of the individual — his best adornment. Neither high intelligence, nor a brilliant artistic talent, nor earthly wisdom, and more over, physical strength, can satisfy the profound deficiency in a person if there is an absence of good morality in him. And it’s only the good direction of the will that imparts the true meaning and worthiness to the other abilities (mind, aesthetic talent, etc.) as well as the human creations in the world (sciences, skills, productiveness etc.)

That’s why the Lord Savior called attention to religious-moral teachings and living according to them as being the only way (Luke 10:42). And Ap. Paul writes: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels….and though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:1-2). He commands the Christian women to adorn themselves "…not with braided hair or pearls or costly clothing….but with good works" (1 Tim. 2:9-10). However, this doesn’t mean that it is forbidden for a Christian to be adorned outwardly; it simply means not to define one’s worthiness in these adornments, that the true adornment of a person — is his good works. Consequently, with all the knowledge in different branches, with diverse earthly matters — the Christian must connect them with moral aims — always bearing in mind their moral significance — and direct everything toward this designation.

At the same time, a good moral life secures a person a higher welfare or, which is the same, genuine happiness. The idea of blessings is inseparably tied to the idea of morality. Goodness in general is the conformity of a subject or creature to its own designation or its own aim. If, for example, after God reviewed the world after creating it and acknowledged it as "good," it means that everything was in its place and everything was in accordance to its designation. Because the man’s nature contains many diverse facets (bodily, or physical, earthly and social, mental, or intellectual, aesthetic etc...), there are many diverse blessings available to him and varied forms of happiness. Blessings to him are food and water, satisfying hunger; blessings to him are productiveness and trade for gratifying earthly needs; blessing is society, as an opportunity to communicate with people, akin to him; blessings are science and art, satisfying the aspirations of truth and beauty. And there are many people that are inclined towards being content in their happiness, derived mainly from these forms of blessings. At times, even the very best among us are transfixed on one of the mentioned forms of blessings, as though it is the final or main purpose of our lives. Hadn’t we at some time eaten and drank, contrary to Ap. Paul’s directives that state: "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31), — we sit down at table without crossing ourselves or praying, forgetting that "a person eats to live, and not live so that he can eat," and consequently overindulge. Or we immerse ourselves into commercial activity to such extent, that we are left with no time, desire, or strength to pursue spiritual and higher interests. It also happens that in association or union with people akin to ourselves (eg. marriage, friendship etc...) we come to a close, as though we have achieved the highest form of happiness for a human being. We particularly value the sciences and arts far higher than their worth; we aspire towards education with a greater zeal than toward educating ourselves in conscientiousness and piety. Meanwhile, there is a higher blessing awaiting the man, in which there is a greater happiness for him. This higher blessing and greater happiness consists of communion with God, which is achieved through virtuous life. In pleasing God, a person is in the state of sonship with God and belongs to His Kingdom; and precisely this makes up the higher designation or aim for every person, and is his primary blessing. In the Holy Gospel, this blessing is presented in the form of a highly valued pearl, over which a merchant sold all his possessions in order to secure it (Mat. 13:46). This blessing that secures the happiness of a person is, of course, inner, spiritual, invisible; the Kingdom of Heaven is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17). Beyond the grave — especially at the conclusion of the earthly era and after Christ’s Second Coming — the higher happiness for righteous Christians will appear visible in all its fullness. They will then achieve complete holiness and total joy. The unity of holiness and joy represents the higher blessing. The Psalmist proclaims: "I will see Your face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your likeness" (Psalm 16:15), while Ap. Paul speaks: "Finally, there is laid for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing" (2 Tim. 4:8).

We have genuine witness of the Holy Gospel and through experience that pious people, fulfilling God’s commandments, are assisted — through God’s will — in their earthly life and in their temporary endeavors and deals. The Lord Savior said: "But seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you" (Mat. 6:33). And according to Ap. Paul’s words: "Godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come" (1 Tim 4:8). In observing earthly life, it can be uttered with King David: "I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his descendants begging" (Psalm 37:25).

It should be noted that within a human, as with any creature emanating from God, there is a strong desire to have moral happiness and an involuntary attraction towards it. Even the pagan philosopher Plato imagined the human anguish over this happiness, as akin to that of a prisoner over his freedom, like an itinerant over his homeland. There are frequent expressions in the holy books, of a person’s sighs and his urge towards higher happiness, especially in David’s Psalms, for e.g. "My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?" (Psalm 41:2). And Ap. Paul expressed his desire to depart and be with Christ, i.e. attain higher happiness beyond the grave (Phil. 1:23). The same thought is expressed by him in the following: "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come" (Heb. 13:14), "…our citizenship is in Heaven" he exclaims as well (Phil. 3:20).

In this manner, he points out the two higher facets of understanding about morality, its law containing the norms of life for a person and the unforced performance of good works. There is a third facet that needs to be added, specifically — happiness, as a result of being moral. Thus, on the one hand, Moral Theology is an instruction about the law or duty (obligation), and on the other, about virtues, and partly about the good.

Faith and Morality.

From the understanding of morality, it ostensibly follows that it presupposes faith in a personal God or religion, with which it is found in a tight union. That’s why the Apostle declares: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).

Without faith in personal, Christian God, without religion, morality would not reach the necessary base. Through necessity, faith in the unqualified meaning of the moral law and its sanctity, assumes faith in Ever-holy God, Who is not a human for Him to lie, and not a son of man for Him to betray (Num. 23:19), and whose word endures unto the ages (Psalm 118:89; Peter 1:25) and is the truth (2 Kings 7:28), and holy (Peter 1:15; Lev. 20:7-8).

Without faith in God, or without religion, there is no basis to lead moral life. However, leading moral life, we meet many impediments and often experience lack of strength. These obstacles can be removed and strength replenished by no Other than the Almighty and All-good God. This first obstacle is contained in physical nature — just as it surrounds us, it exists in our physical organism. In its turn, the physical environment of nature flows without paying attention to the life of the human spirit. But our physical organism is subject to illnesses, suffering, in general — disorders, which restrains spiritual life and activity. The second obstacle is entailed in the very spirit of a human being — in his will. Here, we sense a different law warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin (Rom. 7:23); in the consequence of which what I will do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do (Rom. 7:15, 19). In the light of these obstacles, what are we to do?

It is essential to have faith in the all-wise and good God, directing expeditiously the flow of nature and establishing human destinies in such a way, so that they beneficially serve the person, assisting him to achieve his ultimate aim (Job 28:26; 1 Kings 2:6,7; Chron. 20:24; Mat. 10:30; 1 Peter 5:7; Rom. 8:28). Also essential is the faith in the Redeemer, proclaiming and accomplishing, with the power of the Holy Spirit for the man to be "born again," and making him capable of overcoming the "other law." It’s only from having faith in this almighty assistance, is it possible to have fortitude and energy to follow this moral task. It is only with the experience of unity with God and hope for the eternal joy, is it possible to have a happy feeling and preparedness — as with moral actions — in tolerating sufferings.

Finally, without faith in personal God, there can be no authentic substance, quality or purity in morality; there can be no elevation to it. Having "plundered" God’s worthiness and honor (Phil. 2:6) and having established life upon himself, a person makes himself the central focus of his life. Consequently, the level of his morality inescapably falls and becomes corrupted by self-centeredness, egoism and pride. Morality then slips away from its ideal, which is made up of the selfless actions of genuine love. While false love for oneself is unavoidably tied the false attachment to the world and slavish subjugation to it. According to Ap. John, it is only by having a belief in personal God, Who is a complete negation of self-centeredness (egoism), does love exist (1 John 4:16). That’s why it is the highest and most worthy subject of human aspiration and yearning. A person can then renounce self-centeredness and learn about genuine love. At the same time, he could also liberate himself from his attachment and service to the secular world. It is only before the face of the only, heavenly Father are all people brothers and sisters. It was not for no reason that Blessed Augustine named the good works of the heathens "brilliant iniquities." While even though they were good deeds, they carried within themselves the destructive elements of self-centeredness. Morality, separated from religion, reminds one of the Prometheus myths, with which the contemporary educators of morality express the spiritual state of these people: Prometheus gave people their culture and civilization by stealing fire from heaven. However, he did not make them better or pious. As punishment, Zeus chained him to a rock where an eagle picked at his liver: this is the image of the human heart being eaten away by self-centeredness and passions.

As we can see from the above, faith in personal God or religion, contains the basis of morality. Religion can be likened to the roots of a tree, while morality — the trunk and branches. However, religion cannot be true if it rejects morality. It then degenerates into Pietism, Quietism, and Mysticism. That’s why Ap. James states: "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). He that loveth not his brother abideth in death, for the commandment of God is not only in that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, it is also in that we should love one another (1 John 3:23). The root can only remain alive if the trunk and branches grow from it; likewise, religion can only be healthy if it continually appears in the moral activity, develops and strengthens within it.

The tight unity of religion and morality is explained in their analogous nature, the presence of the same elements or compositions within them. Namely: true religion has a moral character, while morality has a religious character. Religion contains not only an element of dependence, but also freedom in the man’s relationship with God. There is also not only an element of freedom in morality, but also the man’s dependence on the will of God.

Nonetheless, religion and morality make up two special fields and therefore, need not be identified. Firstly, in religion, the man’s dependence in and his ordainment by God and His blessed powers are expressed more strongly; in morality, there is more room for the man’s self-determination, and his dependence on God is not so direct. Secondly, in religion the man strives towards God; in morality, he strives to please God through activities in the sphere of his own personality, his relatives and the visible world.

The relationship between moral and dogmatic theology.

Moral Theology is found in the closest relationship with Dogmatic Theology. They are akin to blood sisters. That is why for a long time they were expounded conjointly. And even today, it is possible to encounter these intricate literary works. But with the development of the studies, the theologians realized the importance of articulating these teachings separately. This was also encouraged by convenience: with the conjoint presentation, each one of the teachings would not be able to present an opportunity to reveal in all its fullness, the substance of the other. However, the more profound basis for their separation lies in the fact that each of these disciplines present themselves as a specific subject, having a right to individuality. God’s Kingdom is set up, on the one hand — God’s actions, and on the other — the man’s actions. God’s actions in establishing this Kingdom is the subject of Dogmatic, while man’s actions in this establishment, makes up the subject for Moral Theology. That’s why the subject of Dogmatic is sealed with the characteristics of divine indispensability and is the basis of faith in a human; while the subject of Moral Theology is dependant on the free will of the man, and appears as the basis of his actions. This is the mutual contrast between these two disciplines.

From this perspective, all other particular subjects that enter into them are divided among them, e.g. both Dogmatic and Moral Theology speak of the law. However, in the former, the law is examined from the standpoint of God’s revelation and the educational guidance of the human race; while in Moral Theology — from the standpoint of human responsibilities. Both disciplines speak of the Church; in the first, the Church appears as an arrangement by the divine grace, while in the latter, it is created by the faithful. "I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Mat. 16:18) — this is a dogmatic condition; strive to enrich yourself with spiritual gifts toward the Church’s edification….only let all things be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:12, 40) — this is a moral state. Likewise, teachings on regeneration and enlightenment are present in both Dogmatic and Moral Theology; in the former, the subject is examined mainly from the point of view of God’s grace, while in the latter — from the point of view of Man’s free will. God produces in us both the desire and action, according to His will (Phil. 2:13) — this is a dogmatic state; effecting your own salvation, with fear and trembling (v. 12) — is a moral state.

The relationship between Moral Theology and Moral Philosophy.

If morality is a fact that is common to the mankind and belongs to the whole humanity, then it is understandable that its teachings can have a place not only in the Christianity, but also among the philosophers and heathens. Indeed, Moral Theology developed alongside Moral Philosophy, while in the pre-Christian era; only the heathen philosophy expressed scientific moral awareness. Both these sciences are analogous and study the one and the same subject, namely — research into the laws and norms of moral living. However, because their research emanates from disparate beginnings and head towards different directions, there is a differentiation between them. Moral Theology, so to speak, moves from the centre to the periphery, while Moral Philosophy — from the periphery to the centre. Moral Theology stems from the revealed moral teachings, and strives to explicate and justify it on the basis of historical tradition and human reason. It also aims to demonstrate its correspondence with the general human needs and consequently, present it as a genuine human benefit. Apart from that, while Moral Philosophy seeks the truth, it assumes that its beginning is unknown and as a consequence, its primary thrust is nothing but the elusive X; and this X is sought with the strength and means of the human mind. Therefore, it is understandable that in the light of such circumstances of scientific research, Moral Theology cannot err. True, a theologian could incorrectly interpret certain segments of the Holy Gospel. However, in as much as Moral Theology is the authentic teaching of the Holy Gospel, it expresses undoubted truth. Generally, Moral Philosophy and the innate teachings of the mind may easily deviate into a false direction and thereby distort moral truth, presenting it as half-truth or as a complete falsity. These — as an example — are moral teachings that are formed on the basis of pantheism or materialism, and also on the teachings of Kant and the school of Herbert. The latter preaches half-truth (though it doesn’t reject personal God, it separates morality from religion, promoting deism); while the former — complete untruth, rejecting personal God. And to talk about understanding genuine morality on the heathen grounds is quite superfluous. The following words can be applied to the philosophical and heathen teachings on morality: "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it" (John 1:5).

A heathen, moreover a philosopher in the Christian era, has a conscience and moral awareness. However, this innate awareness and conscience, by themselves, are unable to attain the pure and full moral truth. Consequently, Moral Philosophy has to be completed and corrected by Moral Theology. Without theology, philosophy does not have the capacity to resolve the question of absoluteness, and likewise on the question of the origin of the evil and its defeat. Nobody knows about things of God, except the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:11).

Of course, there can exist the Christian philosophy; it is encountered where it research and conclusions are permeated with the Christian spirit and conform to its teachings. And her ability is more apparent in that, in the current times, there is not one element in a person’s spiritual life which was not created by the Christianity, having become the basis of our historical development of all our culture. However, even in this instance philosophy and theology differ: and Moral Philosophy has to be repleted with Moral Theology. In the first place, philosophy always moves in the sphere of general comprehension, and as a consequence, we shall be unable to find specific teachings about the Christian’s responsibilities (i.e. all that makes up the second part of Moral Philosophy; it has only the first, general part). And in the general first part, Moral Philosophy does not delve deep enough in its examination of the moral perceptions of a Christian, as does Moral Theology, i.e. in the section dealing with moral laws, philosophy deliberates more on the law as an abstract norm rather than as an expression of God’s personal will. Or in the segment on good works, she does not portray the personality and works of Christ the Savior as the complete expression of good works, and the source of moral regeneration and life of a Christian. Apart from that, it is an intrinsic and immutable part of Moral Theology.

The sources of Moral Theology.

If Moral Theology emanates from God-revealed moral teachings, and places God-given truth at the centre of its discourse, then consequently, its primary source is the Holy Scripture. According to an Apostle, it is God-inspirited and beneficial for learning, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16); which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (par. 15). And Jesus Christ Himself gives witness: "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). St. Hippolytus writes: "Just like a person that wants to learn earthly wisdom, cannot achieve this without studying the philosophers, likewise if we want to study piety that is worthy of God, it can be done none other than from studying the Divine Gospel."

However, the teachings on God’s Kingdom proclaimed in the Holy Gospel, had been slowly revealed in the Christian Church over many centuries. Consequently, apart from the Holy Gospel, it is essential to refer to the teachings of the Christian Orthodox Church, expressed in the creations of her Holy fathers and teachers, and in the "symbolic" books. Here we will find the repletion of the Holy Gospel in the holy Tradition — as witnessed by Ap. Paul: "Now I praise you, bretheren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you (1 Cor. 11:2), therefore, bretheren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thes. 2:15). — "It is necessary to preserve tradition — writes St. Epiphanius — because it is impossible to discover everything in the Gospel alone; the Holy Apostles left one part in the Gospel, and the other — in the tradition."

And the fact that only the Church embodies the completely authentic explanations of the Holy Gospel, follows from the promise given by the Lord Jesus Christ to the Church: "I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Mat. 16:18). He promised to send to His Apostles and their successors — the Spirit of truth, which would abide with them forever, guiding them into all truth (John 14:16, 17; 26; 16:13). From the Apostle’s words: "Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15). The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs write: "We believe that the divine and Holy Gospel is imbued by God; that is why we must believe in it unquestionably, and with that, not according to our understanding but as expounded and assigned by the Ecumenical Church. A person that speaks from himself, can err, cheat and be mislead, but the Ecumenical Church is incapable of erring." Finally, we can find models of moral living within the Church, because the Church Fathers submitted themselves to the path of piety, cleansed themselves of lusts, became churches of the Holy Spirit and God’s friends, carried within themselves the promise and foretaste of the eternal bliss.

With regard to the human reasoning, its significance lies in that it is capable to evaluate the zenith of the Biblical teachings on morality: observes the specifics of human life and on their basis, indicates people’s need towards the uncovered moral truths, and their consonance with the higher interests of humanity. In other words: by the way of critique and logical methods of philosophical learning, and from human consciousness and everyday life, the reason confirms that the Holy Gospel gives witness to the revelation. The Scriptures approve of the activity of reason in the learning of religious-moral truth; there, a person is called to: "Search the Scriptures…test all things; hold fast what is good…do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God…that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God…abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ" (John 5:39;1 Thess. 5:22; 1 John 4:1; Rom. 12:1; Phil. 1:9,10). Fathers of the Church, especially Justin the Philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Blessed Augustine, Theodoretus and others, confirm the benefits of applying the reason in learning the Christian truth. Although the Holy Scripture does warn the Christians not to be led astray by philosophy and empty deception, by human tradition and earthly constituents, and not by the spirit of Christ (Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20).

The meaning and importance of Moral Theology.

The meaning and importance of Moral Theology, by themselves, are revealed from the understanding of morality and its importance. If moral life is the carrying out of ordinances, which had been directed by God to the man, if it conveys to him personal and higher worthiness, provides him with genuine welfare and happiness, then the importance and obligation to study Moral Theology can be seen from this. It is important not only for selected individuals, for example, those in authority or educators, but for everyone without exception, because everybody is called to lead God-pleasing and moral life.

Of course, knowledge of moral rules only — by itself — does not generate morality, as Socrates thought in asserting that knowledge is a virtue, or Fichte (science is the seed of life), likewise Hegel (a logical idea is the genitor of existence). It is possible to know moral teachings and yet not to live by them. Unfortunately, it is quite common to meet such instances. These situations are presupposed by the Holy Scripture, which states: "And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes" (Luke 12:47). That is why the Lord does not call blessed those that listen to His teachings and know them, but those, who fulfill them: "blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it…If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them" (John 13:17). In order to fulfill morality, it is essential that knowledge is appended with the will. This free will is dependent upon the performing individual. Every person must have a desire, and apply his will. In any case, knowledge serves as the administrator for the will. Consequently, Moral Theology indicates and illuminates the path towards moral life, and it is this that embodies its meaning and importance. The following words of the Psalmist can be applied to this: "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Psalm 119:105).

A short outline of the history of this science.

The first centuries of the Christianity were not so much centuries of science as of life. That is why in the beginning of the Christian era, we do not meet any systematic teachings on morality. However, the early Christians can be proud of such high moral life that this is rarely seen among the subsequent Christians. The explanations on the moral thoughts of the Gospel, the Holy Scripture and its leading elements, were the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, which served as the guides for the moral living. These interpretations were conducted in the form of a dialogue, sermons on the Scripture’s theme and dissertations, or monographs on the question of the moral living.

Among the fathers and teachers of the Eastern or Greek Churches that are renowned in this regard, are Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Origen. Having received his education in philosophy, Clement injects a philosophical element into the development of the Christian moral understanding. As a consequence, he gets closer than the others to the scientific and systematic outline on moral teachings: "Admonitions to the Hellenists," "A Pedagogue" and "Miscellanies." Basil the Great delineates in pure Biblical moral teachings. He left quite a few dialogues on morality, wrote "Morals" and was the first to compile the monastic rules. The sermons of Chrysostom also embody rich educational material. In moral outlook and thoughts, Origen is very similar to those of Clement of Alexandria, but they are dispersed in his dogmatic creations on which his moral teachings are based.

Among the fathers of the western or Latin Church are Saint Ambrose of Mediolan and Blessed Augustine. Ambrose wrote a book titled "About Responsibilities," in a Ciceronian manner. Blessed Augustine left a number of works of educational character ("On God’s City," "On Morality of the Catholic Church," "About the Christian study," "On Faith, Hope and Love"), where he develops the material on moral teachings. Blessed Augustine is of enormous importance in the history of moral teachings, and his influence in this sphere continued for the period of many centuries. It is also worthy to mention Tertullian, who advocated rigorous (strict) morals, and his admirer — Cyprian of Carthage.

After Blessed Augustine (6^th century), the spirit of independent development of moral learning waned. In the West (where it was essentially studied), the teachers of the church confined themselves to either explaining dogmas, or, encyclopedic compilation and comparison of diverse opinions of the teachers of morals — the Christian as well as the heathen. This was the composition of those edifying compilations that were issued under the editorship of Boethius. At that same time, in the beginning of the 8^th century, there appeared some collections (under the editorship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Theodore), presenting the compendium of sins and their corresponding punishments, as well as submitting the former powerful methods that were held in the hands of the clergy for disciplining people’s lives. In the East, where Dogmatic was primarily being developed, works on moral teaching by Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus, appeared at that time. "Holy Parallels," written by the latter, presents itself as a rich collection of enlightening thoughts and moral rules, taken from the Holy Scripture, works of the Church’s Fathers and classic literature.

In the Middle Ages, Theology was transformed into the form of learning, and at the same time Moral Theology became a specific study. But more importantly for our study is Thomas Aquinas. In his work "Summa Thelogiae," based on the elements of Blessed Augustine, we find the complete organic system of moral teachings. The enunciations demonstrate the finesse and clarity of the author’s mind. The Catholic theology is being built along Aquinas pattern up to this day. But just like Blessed Augustine had Pelagius as his antagonist, so did Thomas Aquinas have his antagonist in the form of Duns Scott. Instead of having a theonomic point of view, he took an autonomic standpoint (of the personal self-rule); instead of faith and grace; his writings are filled with skepticism and sophistry. It subsequently served as the model for the Jesuits justification of the man’s arbitrary freedom.

This branch of middle-age theology is known under the name of scholasticism, or scholastic Theology. Scholasticism is characterized by the prevalence of reason, domination of abstract and often empty forms, surfeit of a rubric with countless divisions and sub-divisions, overwhelming the reader with a mass of diverse opinions and viewpoints of philosophers and theologians. It did not contain any life and positive revelations on the moral Christian truths. From this branch of moral teaching, there is another limb that is called mysticism. Here, the overwhelming feeling was religious. The mystics’ task was in the liberation — where possible — of moral life from the outward decrees, to guide the human soul into the more direct relationship with God, and indicate its level, by which it can elevate itself to the complete unity with God. The best works on this approach belong to Thomas a` Kempis: "The Imitation of Christ." However, some mystics understand the unity with God in the pantheistic or semi-pantheistic sense, i.e. in the sense of indifference and fusion of the divine and human natures.

In the Middle Ages, there appeared a third type of moral teaching — casuistic. Casuistry, in its essence, is based on scholasticism, but has a peculiar system for the mystery of confession. It did not involve itself in the study of general rules of moral living, but focused only on the particular "incidents of conscience." It taught how conscience can — in one or another difficult situation — avoid submission to the moral demands. At the same time, it determined the dimension (the quality of the act remained in the background) of every moral action. In such determinations of the difficulties of conscience, there is much legal sophistry. As we have seen earlier, the beginnings of casuistry were laid in the 8^th century, in the "penitentials." Casuistry flowered in the 13-15^th centuries. The most well-known works were the 4 books of Raimundo de Pennaforte "Summa de casibus poenitentiae."

The teachings of the Catholic theology on the infinite deeds, on the possibility of buying off one’s sins, on the actions of the morally indifferent, on mortal and pardonable sins, etc. led to such coarseness in casuistry that it evoked reformation. The main thinking of the Protestantism is justification by faith, and is in direct contrast to the catholic teachings on the works of the law. That is why the Lutheran religious teaching is a lyrical flow from the heart, reverential before redemption. Consequently, there is little room for examination and with the first Protestants one cannot find any systematic teachings on morality. However, in the Reformation more attention is paid to the law and works, and as a consequence, there is more area for the scientific study. At the end of the 16^th and in the 17^thcenturies, the Protestant theologians — in creating Moral theology on new elements — elevated it to the higher status of a science (Daneus, the Reformation member, and Callistus, a Lutheran). At that time, those that wrote and acted in the Catholic Church were the Jesuits.

However, abstractness and schooling pervaded into the Protestant theology, and it began to adopt the form of a new scholasticism. The Jesuits degraded the absolute moral concepts, expressed in the Holy Scripture and preserved in the Holy Traditions, to the subordinate level of authority of the visible head of the Church, and through sophistic interpretation they attempted to position it for the benefit of the head and his church. At the same time, they endeavored to make the fulfillment of the Commandments much easier possible for the sinful man. In opposition to the first, there appeared Pietism, while the antagonist to the second — Jansenism, which tried to insert simplicity of thought, warmth of feelings and strictness of demands into moral teachings…

In the 18^th century, Moral Theology enters into a collision course with philosophy and receives a new enlightenment. The Protestant theologians (in particular Buddeus and Mostgeim) place the theological teachings on the philosophical base. However, English Deism and French Materialism influence upon it unfavorably, causing the teachers to retract. Not having the strength to fight with the attackers, they limit themselves with only complaints about the corruption of morals. It was only in the figure of Kant that the theologian-moralists found a reliable ally. Kant’s "categorical imperative" was in harmony with their lofty outlook on the moral laws, and imparted stability and firmness. Kant’s "autonomy" had such an influence as to make Moral Theology — when compared to dogmatic — emerge in first place. The theologians-Kantians (De Vitte, Ammon, Schwartz, Flitt and others), engaged themselves not so much with Dogmatic as with the moral teachings. However, extreme thinking permeated into their moral teachings: they were more concerned with the subtle understanding of the moral activities, rather than with bringing them into life. To them, the Gospel was not the power or life, but just a line of moral ideas.

The intensification of this trend evoked a responsive reaction in the face of philosopher and theologian, Schleiermacher, who liberated moral teachings from Kant’s dogmatism, and replaced the incontrovertible "must" with the free "need." He pointed out the heart as the source of good and evil. He asserted that the self-consciousness of a Christian is structured on the Christian precepts; he viewed moral activities of each person as a creative process, original, and not as just a copy of the law (as with Kant). The Protestant theologian, Rote is regarded as the best exponent of this trend. However, unnecessary speculation has to be added to his deficiencies, which are incompatible with the simplicity of the Christian teaching.

Currently, the theologians and moral teachers of the West have placed as their task, on the one hand — to liberate the moral teachings from the pressures of the philosophical system, and build it simply on the Biblical and Church beginnings, while on the other hand — to impart it the scientific appearance and stability. It is in this spirit that the moral systems were written by Bemere, Schmidt, Schwarz, Wutte, Palmer, Martenson, Pheelmer, Ettinger, Dorner, Frank and others — those Protestant, and by Braun, Zeidler, Rygler, Hyrcher, Linazeman and others — those Catholic ones.

In our homeland, the Christian moral teachings were expounded in the form of the catechism. The well-known works are "The Orthodox Confessional" by Peter Mogila, the Metropolitan of Kiev (17^th century) and "The Catechisms" by Metropolitans Plato and Philaret (19^th century). At the same time, much valuable material on the moral teachings can be found in the works of our saints, especially Tikhon of Zadonsk. The moral teachings in a systematic form can be found in the works of Bishop Innocent, "Active Theology" (1819), Archpriest Kochetov’s "Features of the Active Teaching on Faith" (1824), Archpriest’s Bazhanov, "About the Christian’s Responsibilities," Archbishop Plato (1854), Archpriest Solyarsky (186 in 3 parts), Archpriest Halkolivanov (1876), Archbishop Gabriel (1885), tutor Pyatnitsky (1890), Bishop Theophanus (1891), tutor Pokrovsky (1904), under the heading — "The Orthodox Moral Theology." In the scientific sense, Archpriest Yashnev’s work "Recitation on the Christian Morality" must be placed above these systems. Archpriest Favorov’s similarly titled work (1880) can also be assigned to this higher level. He too wrote "The Outlines on the Moral Teachings" (1868).

The subdivision of Moral Theology.

Moral Theology may be separated into two parts. The first part enunciates the general teaching on the moral law and the life of a Christian, while the second — particular teaching on his responsibilities and good works (and on sin).

The first part has, in the first instance, the task of scrutinizing composite parts of morality and point out its essence, and secondly, to depict the process of the moral life of a Christian, beginning with regeneration and ending with enlightenment; the second part has its task in the reviewing of the moral relationship of a Christian with God, with his friends and with himself.

Part One

On the moral law of God

1. Moral Nature of Man.

Primordial perfection of the world and the man.

Not only in the history of philosophy, but also in the history of the Church were diverse viewpoints on the present state of Earth and Man. The most extreme of these views are known under the heading of Optimism, or Pelagianism, and pessimism, or Manichaeism.

In the optimistic view, the Earth and the man are in a normal state; they are essentially pure and good. The evil is an accidental blemish, shadow, which can be easily removed with the power and means of the person himself, with his free will. Consequently, there is no need for some extraordinary, supernatural means to overcome evil and for salvation. As well, it’s only the soaring evil that sooner elevates the charm of the landscape than in spoiling it; and therefore, it comfortably reconciles itself with good. In the main, the evil consists in ignorance, in the lack of education, in barbarism; and therefore, it will begin to disappear with the development of culture and civilization. Then harmony shall assert itself on earth; and it’s in this that higher good is made up of. According to the pessimistic viewpoint, the evil is indissolubly bound with the very existence, with the substance of everything that exists; and consequently, with the human essence. That is why a human is found not only in an abnormal and adverse state, but will always remain in that condition, because evil cannot be separated or removed from human life. As a consequence, all human ideals are nothing but phantom of imagination; all of human life is aimless, and the higher good that it aspires to is unattainable.

The Holy Scripture and the true Christianity, correct both these viewpoints, combining within itself that, which is true in both pessimism and optimism.

Thus, the Holy Scripture depicts in clear portrayals, the dark picture of deep corruptness of the man and every individual, from the days of his sinful downfall. It’s sufficient to turn to Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans chap. 1-3; 5, 12 and others (James 3:2; 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 2:3), and then compare it to the Book of Genesis, chap. 4-11. This is how Ap. Paul portrays the moral condition of the heathen world: "Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful…" (Rom. 1:21-31). And if we turn our attention to the Book of Genesis, we shall see the factual confirmation of this judgment of the human race. Cain’s fratricide was the sharp appearance of moral evil in the world. Whereupon, God pronounces the following judgment on the whole pre-Flood humanity: "And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). The depravity of the human race ended with a consequential punishment — the Great Flood. However, this example of frightening punishment, didn’t improve humanity. The evil, which soon reappeared after the Flood in the very family of Noah, soon grew and reaching its extreme manifestation during the building of the Babylonian tower. "The imagination of Man’s heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). Having given His pledge not to destroy the human race in future, God scattered it throughout the whole land so as to weaken the power of evil (Gen. 11:8). However, the evil spread unrestrainedly. Idolatry, and with it corruption and all kind of vice, strides throughout the whole history of the mankind, ending in a new state of decay before the Coming of the Lord Savior onto the earth. Such is the condition of idolatry.

Among the world of idolatry, the Jewish people were segregated. But even these people are no less than pathetic witnesses of the deep corruption of human nature. Proud with their knowledge of the law, they (prior to the Babylonian bondage) continuously were engaged in idolatry (Books of Judges and Kings). And the pastime of serving the other gods was accompanied by the sins of sensuality and of every other type, which were so often and severely condemned by the Prophets. After their bondage, there was an intrusion of a purely outer spirit, of the mechanical fulfilling of the law, completely blocking the inner moral basis and muffling the conscience. That made the Jewish people incapable of true goodness. It was through the Prophet Isaiah that God called upon the Jewish people: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? Saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When you come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto Me; new moon and Sabbath, the calling of assemblies, — I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hateth; they are a trouble unto Me; I am weary to bear them" (Is. 1:11-14). However, the extremes of this purely legalistic direction of moral life were reached out to the century when the Lord Savior appeared on the earth.

Who is not familiar with the Savior’s condemnation of the Pharisees as hypocrites, who…only make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments…pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith…blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel… cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence… are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. That’s why the Lord Jesus Christ reiterates the woe upon them (Mat. chap. 23).

Finally, if we look around and examine the Christian communities, we shall find that even here there is nothing easier than prove the existence of the sin and evil in the world, and the universal corruption of human nature. Every newspaper, every publication, every book dealing with practical life, notifies us with an abundance of information about the all possible types of sins and their accompanying calamities, with all their grief and horrors. Moral apathy, indulgences, depravity, envy, animosity, vengeance, intrigues, vanity, pride, ambition, avarice, self-delusion, hypocrisy, religious indifference, godlessness, callousness, disparaging everything holy, conflicts and bloody wars — these are all the unavoidable fellow-travelers of life and the Christian societies. One is involuntary forced to acknowledge: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51-5); who is born clean from an impure? No one. If one day of his life on earth (Job 14:4); there is no righteous person on earth who does good and doesn’t sin (Eccl. 7:20); everybody has turned away, became the same as useless; there’s no one who does good, no, not one (Psalm 14-3); if we say we are without sin, — we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1-8); the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one (5-19); for all have sinned and are denied the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). (Compare 2 Chron. 6:36, Prov. 20:9, Rom. 7:14-24, Eph. 2:2-3, 4:17-18).

Naturally, just as there are relatively righteous individuals among the Jewish people, so are there — and even more so — in the Christian communities. These people can perceive the sting of sin within them, and notice the damaging effect it produces on the others. The best people among the Israelites — instead of bringing animals for sacrifice — craved with extraordinary passion for new revelations and true reconciliation of the man with God; they realized that the Jewish people would disintegrate if they didn’t follow the path of regeneration announced by the Prophets. There are also people among the Christians, who are dissatisfied with them, those who censure and try to purify themselves, those who earnestly acknowledge the demands of the moral law and are truly engaged in improving themselves.

However, the Holy Gospel speaks of the primal perfection of both the earth and the man. From the understanding of the perfection of the Creator, it follows that the world created by Him was also perfect. "Inasmuch as by His nature, the Creator is good, — proclaims the epistle on the Orthodox faith sent by the Eastern Patriarchs — everything that He has created, has been created magnificent, and He can never be a Creator of evil." Together with His goodness, the Creator possessed an omnipotence so as to create a magnificent earth. According to the Psalmist’s perception, God created everything in wisdom, i.e. superlative (Psalm 104:24). However, there are direct citations in the Holy Scripture as to the perfection of the created earth. After God saw everything that He had made, He found it very good (Gen. 1). In the Ecclesiastes it is said, everything that God created was good at that time. In the New Testament, Apostle Paul gives witness that every God’s creation is good (1 Tim 4:4). That’s why it’s possible to agree with the optimist, Leibniz, who states that our world is the best of all possible worlds. The beauty and eminence of creation is unfolded especially in a human being, only slightly diminished from the Angels, which are crowned with glory and honor (Psalm 8:6).

Thereupon, the Holy Scripture teaches that after the sinful downfall, the remains of goodness were retained by the man. Before all else, the image of God remained with him. In pronouncing the law against shedding the man’s blood, God points out to Noah that: in the image of God made He man (Gen. 9:6), consequently, even after the man’s sinful downfall, the image of God is not taken away from him. The Eastern Patriarchs write: "We believe that the man, though having fallen through crime, stained and deprived of perfection and his absence of passion, had not lost that nature, which he received from the most gracious God; because, in the event of the opposite happening, he would have become mindless and consequently, not human." Moreover, because the man’s downfall was not as great as that of the devil, the future human life was not totally severed from God’s life, and as a consequence, it preserved within itself to a certain degree, God’s likeness, i.e. to a certain degree, the man was akin to God, conforming to the norms of a spiritual-moral being.

Particularly, the best of the people — the founders of religion, reformers of morality, philosophers etc. — earnestly strove to find the means and ways for reconciling the human with himself, towards his return to the primordial condition from which he emerged. Regarding the heathens, Ap. Paul states that not having the law, they perform according to their nature, being the law unto themselves. (Rom. 2:14). Notwithstanding the fact that Cornelius was a heathen, he is cited in the Acts of the Apostles as "a just man, one who fears the Lord" (Acts 10:2,22). And Ap. Peter attests that "in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:35). That is why Ap. Paul attests that before God’s judgment, the lawful works of the heathens is of equal worthiness to the works of the Judeans: "Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?" (Rom. 2:26). Even if in fact the mankind could not be commended for its moral deeds, at least its aims would be directed at seeking goodness or moral ideals. The better part of mankind is always willing to oppose bad inclinations and actions. Normally, people feel kind and decent inclinations — at least among the better section of them. It’s even possible to point out the somewhat moral progress of ancient people, progress in the expansion of the understanding of individuality, in the development of moral laws, regulating moral relationships between people, in the expansion of teachings about immortality, in the transition from flippant optimism or depressing pessimism, to an inclination towards their unity on a higher level.

And if the heathens did not attain that which comprises the higher essence of moral conception, they had made some preliminary work for its realization. Or, if before the arrival on earth of the Lord Jesus Christ, heathenism was in the state of moral decline and even deterioration, there was an escalation in the desire and expectation of deliverance. It can especially be said about the Jewish people that apparent realization of God’s moral law, sentient perception of sin, in the main — zealous endeavors towards fulfilling the commandments of Moses (even though mainly its customs), expectations of the Messianic kingdom — were always present with these people, which more or less made it possible for them to maintain a serious moral struggle and improvement. Genuine moral life and hope for the restoration of the mankind is particularly possible in the primordial blessed state in the Christianity. It is based on the teachings of the New Testament on the arrival of the Son of God on earth, and the mankind’s redemption by Him, and on the influence of the Holy Spirit on the Christian Church.

From all that has been said, it follows that the optimistic viewpoint (pelagianistic) and pessimistic (Manichean) cannot be considered, even though they contain some partial truth. That is why the Holy Scripture enunciates a dual outlook on our world. On the one hand, It directs not to love the world and that, which is in it (1 John 2:15); if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him (same section); friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4); the world represents a valley of sorrow and suffering (in Psalms); on the other hand, It states — for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son (John 3:16); the world is depicted as a field where God’s Kingdom is sown (Mat. 13:27). Consequently, according to the teachings of the Holy Scripture our world is like a two-dimensional entity; it’s not heaven, it’s not hell, neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but it is the portal to one and the other. Both wheat and chaff is inter-mixed.

Revelation’s teaching on the high human designation.

According to the clear teachings of the Historian and author of the Book Ecclesiastes (Genesis 2:7; Ecc. 12:7; Mat. 10:28), a human is a dual creature: sentient, or natural, and spiritual, or private.

The sentient or natural side of a person, is common with the other creatures and objects of the physical word; here, there is no higher merit and designation; there is no God’s image or likeness — there is only, so to speak, God’s vestige, only a reflection of God’s attributes. However, since the sentient or physical side in a person is joined with the spiritual side into a whole, and is designated to be its direct organ and its symbol, then even by its body, its structure and its expression, a human differentiates from animals and is superior to them.

The vertical position of the human body (as distinguished from animal’s horizontal position), the direction of the face, surveying all the environs with an elevated fixed gaze — indicates the selection of the human to be lord over nature (Gen. 1:26) and to fulfill the higher mission on earth. Of the physical organs, especially those that indicate the moral appointment of a human being, it is worthy to turn attention to the hands. Whereas organs — which correspond to the hands — of an animal only, serve to support its body and assist in securing food, the human hands have been designated for multifaceted activity. Hands make a human capable of productive and artistic undertakings and creations. A human imposes his stamp on nature with his hands. He offers his hand as a sign of friendship and reconciliation. He also thanks with his hand. He raises his hands in prayer, and blesses the young with them. Hands commit all possible types of felonies. There is even a special ability to deduce a person’s life and future by "reading" his hands (chiromancy).

It is also known that a person can only enunciate words through the association with his body, and a spoken word plays an important role in the man’s position in the outer world, as well as for his moral upbringing. Through the spoken word, the entire world surrounding the man adapts to the world of his thoughts, and assimilates with his spirit — and the man gives names to all objects. By his action in giving names to all the animals on earth, Adam ostensibly showed his knowledge of their nature, expressed in their analogous names and thereby accepting them into his custody. It is through the spoken word that God’s Spirit speaks to a person; and the Divine teachings are imprinted in words in the Bible for all generations and centuries. The association of the word with the spirit and human morality is clearly expressed in the following sections of the Holy Gospel: For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned (Mat. 12:37). In the explanation of "The Sower and seeds," Christ’s teachings are referred to as the word (Mat. 13:19). In John’s Gospel (1:1), the Son of God is called the Word.

However, the body is not just an organ of the spirit; it is also its symbol. Consequently, the man’s higher designation is seen not only through the examination of the body — as an organ of the moral soul — but also as a symbol of the spirit. It is well known that every human personality is endowed from the beginning with an individual distinctiveness that distinguishes it from all the other human individuals. And this individual uniqueness in every person is present not only in the soul, but is expressed in the body. Just as there are no two human souls that are completely alike, there are no two human bodies (in terms of outward appearance) that are totally similar. Consequently, even the physical side of a human being, encompasses a rich beginning of individual diversity that is not found in an animal’s organism, which depicts itself only as an exemplar of its breed. Moreover, there is conformity between the individual distinctiveness of the soul with the individual distinctiveness of the body (build and facial expression): as a consequence, the distinctiveness of the body expresses the spiritual-moral distinctiveness. This certainty is evidenced in our desire to see in some way, some outstanding feature in a person. This certainty is also explained in that, as soon as we meet an unfamiliar person, we look into his face and endeavor to form a first impression of him, based on the impression that he has on us. If the Gospel states that the children approached Christ confidently, exclaiming "hosanna" it’s because Christ’s face evoked this immediate effect.

Christ’s face reflected His heavenly soul. He was more magnificent than any son of humanity was (Psalm 44:3). Conversely, if the Book of Genesis states that God "appointed a sign on Cain" (Chap. 4:15), by which people would recognize Cain as a murderer and flee from him in fear, then it means that his disfigured face expressed features of his culpable soul. That is why we must also be able to interpret on the physical side, God’s handwriting in human nature and observe its elevated or heavenly make-up, noticing God’s image and likeness. It’s certainly impossible not to agree that sin had disarranged and corrupted not only the soul, but the body, and that a human, succumbing to vices, disfigures not only his soul but his body as well. However, one who is sufficiently observant and primarily has — within himself — sufficient love toward his neighbor, he will be able to notice through all the miasma of vices and iniquities, a glimmer of the divine spark. We of course would be wrong, if we wanted to fathom his inner substance from his outward appearance, if we wanted to correctly and precisely evaluate his inner being from his exterior features. If one can really say about an animal that its body is its whole visible soul, then a human being secretes his riches in his soul, which can never be expressed in all its fullness and accuracy in his outward appearance; consequently, if we are to judge the worthiness of a human being, our main focus should be directed at his soul. God’s image and likeness is contained in the soul, in the individuality of the person.

The existence of the personal state or morality is in the following: self-awareness or the intellect, self-determination or freedom. A person has mastery over these attributes: in the strength of these attributes, he is a moral being, image and likeness of God. Through the strength of our self-awareness, or intellect, we adopt a moral code. There will be a discussion on this moral code in the next chapter. At this stage, our study is of self-determination, or freedom. (Although even there is an inference of the existing law).

One must differentiate between the two freedoms: the formal, or psychological freedom (freedom of the will), and the essential (real, genuine), or moral (freedom of the spirit).

The formal or psychological freedom is the freedom of choice (liberum arbitrium), i.e. the ability to direct one’s activity towards one or another subject, select one or another path, make oneself God’s child or a slave of the sin.

The Holy Gospel finds it barely necessary to speak of formal freedom: when It speaks of a person and his activities, It presumes this freedom is a well-known and indubitable fact. Hence, having created the man, God said to him: you may eat of every tree in Eden, except that of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is expressed more clearly in Deuteronomy: I offered you life and good, death and evil: choose life so that you and your seed may live (chap. 30:15-19). Jesus, the son of Sirach writes: When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will. There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand (Sir. 15-14:17). In a censuring speech to the Pharisees, in the New Testament, the Lord concludes with the following words: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the Prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chicks under her wings, and ye would not" (Mat. 23:37). "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments," said the Lord to the wealthy youth (Mat. 23:37). "You always resist the Holy Spirit," exclaims the Apostle to the Jews (Acts 7:51). And in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: "but has power over his own will" (7:37). Methodius of Patara writes: "In wanting to respect man and make him capable of recognizing the best things in life, God gave him authority through which he can do whatever he wants; He predisposes him toward better things — but not with the intention to remove his free will, but rather like a Father that tries to convince his son to learn the sciences." The man was given the ability, through which he can submit to God and it this that constitutes arbitrary freedom. Generally speaking, it was the fathers and teachers of the Church who proved the freedom of the human will against the heathens, gnostics and "Manicheans."

Freedom of choice is confirmed through the self-observation of a person. In performing any act, we feel that we ourselves decided on such an action, that there was nothing from the outside or inside of us that compelled us with irresistible necessity. Consequently, we could have acted differently. Although we acknowledge the supporting reasons for our deed, we at least concede that the ultimate decision was ours, for which the reason and the act cannot be shifted elsewhere. No one would dare to assert that he was moved to commit an act with the same overwhelming necessity as the movement of a thrown rock. The second fact that proves the freedom of a person’s will is repentance coupled with the practice of punishment of criminals in all human societies. If a person was not free to perform a known act, if he is not at fault or the cause of it, then why repent and what reason is there to punish him? Apparently, repentance is a person’s regret that he acted in such a way and not otherwise. He is an involuntary acknowledgment that he could have acted in a different manner. In everyday actions that have no immediate bearing on the higher aims or ultimate human appointment, the freedom of will is revealed very clearly, for example, in walking down the street of a city and reaching the crossroad, I am completely free to turn left or to turn right — according to my will. (Freedom also makes itself apparent in the theoretical region, i.e. in the area of thought. It would be impossible to think without freedom. We combine our thoughts in one way or another, depending upon our need).

The determinists reject the freedom of choice. Their stance is that not one human action is without a motive or stimulus towards the activity (be it from notions on subjects or from inclination), which predetermines will, and as a consequence, is not free. However, this begs the question: how do you explain the pressure and that struggle, which is experienced by willpower before deciding on the course of action? If everything is accomplished by itself, independent of the will, and if — as the determinists think — will is just a passive or suffering side while motive is active and real, then why should the will strain itself, why struggle? This struggle is not very evident in the sphere of everyday or customary activities, but becomes manifest in unusual or significant circumstances. Motives only stimulate and give reason for the will to appear, while the cause that produces the action is that very same free will. That is why a motive becomes the cause and generates a decision or action, when the will assimilates it and makes it part of itself. Thus, it can be surmised that the last reason for decision and action of the will within the will, is that it has within itself the ability to commence a succession of new activities, be the cause for the reason of the decision and action.

The fact that the human will cannot act other than by motives, i.e. evoked on the one part by the merit of different subjects and on the other part, by their attractiveness, which is deep-rooted in natural individuality, only shows that it is not the absolute will (like God’s will), but is conditioned by circumstances i.e. limited. God’s free will is itself the source of existence and its laws. Consequently, the basis of its life and all its actions are contained solely within itself. The human will receives its topics through its outside activity; they are presented to it readymade and are not produced by it. Consequently, it is limited by them and is summoned to act by them. According to the Holy Gospel, God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11); But He is in one mind, and who can turn Him? And what his soul desireth, even that he doeth (Job 23:13). Whereas, it is stated that before acting, anyone must "be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12:2) and only then to act. Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is (Ephes. 5:17).

Он есть свет и тьмы в Нем нет, ни единой (1Ин. 1:5; Иак. 1:17). Furthermore, the human soul always lives in two realms: bright, conscious, and dark, subconscious. The substance of the latter can never be fully transferred to the former; the dark, subconscious realm always appears as the basis for the bright and conscious realm. That is why the freedom of a person, belonging to the bright realm, is always tied to the restrictions of the dark realm; dark and blind natural tendencies always serve as the basis for the evoking action from the conscious and free will — whilst in God, there are no such contrasts; His whole being and His whole life belong to the bright realm. He is light, and there is no darkness in Him at all (1 John 1:5; James 1:17).

There is also an opinion (Blessed Augustine), that, although the man was born free, through his falling out from grace, he lost his freedom and once and for all, became a captive (servum arbitrium), and that is why he is outside of the domain of redemption and grace — to which he relates as a passive vessel that can only sin. If there is freedom remaining in him, then it is only for prosaic and outward actions, and not for moral God-pleasing ones. It is impossible not to recognize the profound humility, genuine feeling and relative truth, expressed in this admission. We have already mentioned that within the means offered outside the Christianity, morality is very distant from its ideal state i.e. from the selfless activity of an altruistic love. However, if outside the Christianity absolute morality doesn’t exist, it doesn’t follow that it is impossible for it to have all types of morality. Do not we know individuals in the heathen world (e.g. Leonard), whose activities have to be regarded as virtuous, honest, unselfish, laudable! And does not God apply any distinction between the deeds that are devoted to the duty and fatherland, like Leonard, and the deeds of some coward and shameful traitor? If a normal person (living outside the Christianity) did not have any moral freedom, i.e. a chance to do good, then it would be impossible for him to be converted into the Christianity, or at least, this conversion would carry no value, as this would have been achieved forcibly; and non-conversion into the Christianity would not incur any culpability on that person. A person is not only a member of a race, which emanates from the theory of moral detention from the days of Adam’s sin — he is an individual. Consequently, having sinned through Adam by being born with his original sin and therefore — a guilty creature — a person at the same time, can either incur an even greater culpability through his new personal sins, or he can struggle with his corrupt nature, thereby diminishing his sinful burden and guilt.

The true teachings on freedom are obliged to contend not only with determinism, but with its opposite — indeterminism. According to this teaching, the human will is in a state of indifference (apathy), is found under all types of motives or inclinations, and at any given time could follow with equal ease, one or another motive — according to its personal desire; for example, a villain can become a good person instantly if only he properly assesses his own behavior. According to this teaching, the reason for the will being free is that it is independent of motives, and freedom is none other than a clear ability to choose.

Not only that this type of freedom is not needed by us as it is not confirmed either through practice or in the Holy Scripture, and it is not this type of freedom that we are promoting in our treatise and in the moral practice. We need that type of freedom that would gradually strengthen in its unwavering pursuit of goodness, and not the one that would indifferently drift over the good and evil. With indeterminist freedom, moral improvement is not feasible. According to this teaching, the more a person would strengthen in creating good and the more he curbed opportunities to the commit evil, the greater his loss of freedom would be. While the more irresolute he would be in creating good, the more freedom he would have. But who of us would agree with this point of view on freedom? As we shall see now, the essence of freedom is not confined to the formal choice. If we turn to experience, we shall see the rebuttal of the indeterminist teachings at every step of the way. With every person that we know, we tend to form some kind of impression and assume that with all possible types of situations, he would more or less sustain his habits and his character. For example, in the time of need, I would not turn to a stingy or a cold-hearted person. I would approach a charitable person who is used to helping people. Having decided to perform a dishonest act together with another person, I would not approach an honest individual, but one who is accustomed to ignoring his conscience and demeaning his dignity. If I see that a familiar person was able to overcome vile inclinations within him and is able to resist temptation, then I — in no way — would regard him as not being free, even though it is impossible for him to act against his conscience. Likewise, in the absence of, and contrary to this situation, I still see freedom in full authority.

In rejecting the teachings of indeterminism, we have passed into the second manifestation of freedom, specifically, into substantive or genuine freedom, towards moral and complete freedom. In this sense, freedom consists of a voluntary endeavor of a person towards the God-directed destiny or goodness. Consequently, this does not exclude the sin. When a person reaches a state where the choice between the good and evil has been eliminated, when he has directed himself entirely towards goodness, he then becomes completely free. Primarily, it is in this sense that the Holy Scripture refers to as freedom; it is this type of freedom that is deemed by It as being lofty and virtuous. For example, And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32); Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed (v.36); where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor. 3:17); For the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ has made me free from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2); But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does (James 1:25); So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty (James 2:12); Because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom. 8:21).

That is why, according to the Holy Scripture, true freedom is the realized one, personality akin to God — the new man, created by God in righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24), — restored to reason in the image of his Creator; true freedom is as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God (1 Peter 2:16). According to the teachings of the Holy Scripture, it is for this reason that he who commits sins is not a free man: whoever commits sin is a slave of sin (John 8:34); God came to free people from the sin and make them free children of God; "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered" (Rom. 6:17. Generally speaking, there is no mention of freedom in the Gospel on subjects that don’t relate to Christ. It is in this sense that the Lord stated: "for without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

The truth of the Biblical identification of freedom with the ultimate destiny for the man is witnessed in everyday life. Thus, when an educator encourages sensible and good aspirations of a child, then it is said that he is morally "liberating" him. Or, when the person inclined towards drunkenness or theft is persuaded to quit these vices, again it is said that he is being "liberated morally." Obviously, here the word "freedom" is understood in the sense of life’s tasks or aims; and it is in this sense that a person can be set free — contrary to his wishes. The question why a person’s endeavors towards goodness and resemblance to God are called freedom can be answered in such a way: in general, freedom is self-determination, submission to oneself and not to the strange will — it is independence. Consequently, when a person strives towards his true calling, i.e. towards goodness and God, he defines himself from his true and primal nature, and not from some type of outside or enforced matter. When he commits a sin, when he deviates from God and submits to the evil, he identifies himself not according to his true nature, but to the strange power (because the evil and sin are alien to the God-given nature of the man); consequently, he is vanquished by the outward powers and becomes a captive — by the words of the Holy Gospel, he becomes a "slave of sin." Although his will is free, his spirit is not, for it is submitted to the evil will.

The development of freedom and moral character.

Developing one’s character in freedom and morality — in the sense pointed out in the previous chapter — embodies the main task in a person’s life. Irrespective in what direction a person develops, towards good or evil, he always assumes a characteristic, i.e. alongside his free actions he imposes a fundamental stamp on his will. However, the higher calling is made up of the development of the moral character, i.e. directing the will and life towards a good path. The history of the Christian martyrdom shows what kind of will, power and strength of character a human being can attain. For love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the flashes thereof are flashes of fire, A very flame of the Lord, many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it (Song of Songs 8:6-7). Or here is an example of Mucius Scaevola from the heathen world: he quietly placed his hand into the fire for incineration to show his enemies with whom they are dealing. Obviously, not everybody, not even the Christians, are capable of the same exertion of will, and it is here that God’s and the Church’s indulgence is shown towards the man’s weaknesses. However, if everyone possesses freedom, even if it is to a minute degree, he already has the potential to struggle and to strengthen himself. With the aid of continuous struggle, he will be able to progress from level to level, and finally arrive at such potency and moral completeness that initially seemed too distant and unattainable. The Apostle says of himself: Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead. I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:12-14). These Apostle’s words express the constant and intense striving along the levels towards the moral perfection, from which he was more or less at a close distance. In another part of the Gospel, Ap. Paul compares a Christian running with other athletes in an arena. Just as the latter, having set themselves the aim to receive an earthly laurel, concentrated all their efforts without distractions in order to secure it as soon as possible, the same way should a Christian set his aim towards obtaining the heavenly laurel (2 Cor. 9:24).

The development of moral character and attaining our goals is dependant upon freedom and the efforts of the person itself. However, not from this alone. They are dependent upon God’s blissful help. The Lord stated: "Without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me" (1 Cor. 15:10). "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). According to Ap. John (ch.1:17), notwithstanding the sinful state of the man, everything given is good and every gift from above is perfect (1:17).

There will now be a discussion about the relationship of the grace and the man’s moral living, citing natural means — as well as personal rules — for the development of will and character.

2. On the Moral Law.

The attributes of the moral law.

Free will is one of the elements or one part of morality. The second element or second part — just as substantial — is the law of morality. So that a person could attain the ultimate goal, or his calling, he must be in a correct relationship with his calling, in the requisite order. The order is impossible without the law. Consequently, there must be rules in the moral sphere, which gives direction as to how a person should live in order to attain his calling.

Every real law must possess two attributes: universality and necessity — and the moral law possesses these traits. It is universal, because that very same rule that my conscience hears, is heard within by other people, producing on the basis of what was heard the positive mental notes. It is necessary, because in relation to the man, aspiring to reach its goal it represents an unfailing demand: there is no other path towards this aim than the path of fulfilling the law. In this sense, the moral law is no different to the physical one.

However there is a difference between them. Regarding the necessity of the law, we can say that it is possible in a dual sense: unconditional and provisional. Unconditional necessity reigns in the physical nature; here, the law trespasses directly into an action. In the moral sphere, the necessary law is dependent upon its acknowledgement by the man’s free will. However, this does not mean that in cases where the law is rejected by a person’s free will, its objective significance is destroyed. No, in not attaining a positive confirmation on the part of a person, it is then attained by the negative means. It influences a person, inflicting on him those destructive consequences, which are inseparable with the deviation of the matter from the law of its nature, i.e. self-disintegration, self-destruction, continuing until the person once again subjects himself to the inevitable necessity of the law. As the prophet witnesses: "But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword" (Is.1:20)

The provisional necessity of the law is called an obligation. An obligation is submission without coercion. And the Holy Scripture calls the force that obliges and commands, the authority or power. As an obligation, authority combines freedom and necessity: when a behest is performed under duress or coercion (despotism), or, where there is insufficient force to influence those unfulfilling commands, there is the absence of genuine authority.

We must note that although all people conform to and fulfill the general moral rule in the similar fashion, there is a difference between diverse people in the fulfillment of it and their actions. It depends partly on their individuality, the composition of their personality, on the diversity of their moral ability to apply the general demands of the law to the personal situations, as well as the diversity of tasks, consigned by God to various people. A moral activist does not relate directly to the moral law in the same way that a copy does to its original. If, for example, Ap. Paul encourages the Romans to "do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (Chap.12:2), what he has in mind is to awaken them to trials and knowledge. This is not only in the sense of general demands that were well known to them and which applied equally to everyone, but those that were specifically directed to the Romans by God, in that specific situation as they were found, and with those spiritual gifts, which they possessed. And in the spiritual sphere "there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit." The greatest moral wisdom is not in just knowing the general prescription of the law and rules, but in understanding them, and knowing how to apply them to life’s circumstances.

It is sufficient to point to the Bible’s examples of Isaac and Jacob, Martha and Maria, Apostles Peter and Paul, to show examples of the varied storehouse of the moral living — in the strength of individual diversity. In order to prove the essentiality of the individual element in the moral living, one can point to spouses’ love: this is the basis of every moral society. Love, in particular, conjugal one, has been mandated to us by the law, although it cannot direct the person to the subject of this love. While this is the personal choice of an individual, the law — in any case — still applies. This can be said of any moral action, although in the other instances the individual element may not be as evident. Thus, for example, the law directs us to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of the others, for the society. But it does not determine the entire private instances and circumstances of this sacrifice. It depends on each person’s individuality: one sacrifices himself as a soldier, the second — as a doctor, another — as a pastor of the Church, the fourth — as an academic, another — as a friend etc. In these sacrifices, some give their lives, while others struggle for justice. Every person acts in conformity to his individual circumstances in the moral world, and according to his personal initiative. However, this should not be treated as a contradiction to the general moral law. Of course, a contradiction is possible, but then we are deviating from the moral path. As long as we retain the correct point of view, within the limits of the law and not in opposition to it but in the womb of the very law, each and every one of us contributes something of ourselves. Everyone is obliged to give something from himself and interpret the moral law in private and unexpected situations, and seek the means to adapt the law in the each separate case.

By making a distinction between the essentiality and generality of the moral law, and the essentiality and generality of the physical one, we obtain a clear understanding about duty and its relationship to the law. What is a duty or obligation? A duty is an acknowledgment by an individual of his obligation to fulfill a prescribed law under the certain circumstances. The law applies to all people, and everybody is subjected to the higher authority. Whereas a duty or obligation, it relates to a specific person, to an individual being. We fulfill the law — we carry out our duty. That’s why we say: "It’s my duty, I carry out my responsibility," and not: my law, I carry out my law.

Teachers of morality with empyreal leanings suppose that the moral law appeared from the human experience. According to their thinking, the idea of obligation is not a prior but a posterior one, i.e. it is not a primal idea that is a part of human nature. It formed with the passing of time, engendered by the civilization and passed on from generation to generation. It is only based on the habit and tradition. It appeared like any other moral, from benefit and sympathy, i.e. people’s involuntary inclination towards favorable life and sympathy, similar to theirs. However, in the opposition to this theory, there is a general idea of obligation and the impossibility for people to eliminate it. If I became conscious that the idea of obligation has no substantial meaning and is not linked to my nature, I would then be able to free myself from it. However, I can never be in this situation to do this. The inherited transfer of meaning of the good and evil can only explain the habit of obedience, but certainly not its necessity. Kant, while acknowledging the idea of obligation as the prior one, calls its source the human intellect. Nevertheless, the man’s intellect is not the authority that could empirically insist and order its execution without fail.

Such an authority can only be the holy and omnipotent will of God. Consequently, the latter basis of the idea of obligation is the will of God. "There is only one Lawgiver, Who is able to save and to destroy" (James 4:12) exclaims Apostle James. God does everything, whatever He wants (Psalm 113:11). We often read in the Holy Scripture — this is the will of God, this is His commandment, this is what God wanted. Ap. Paul exhorts the Christians: "to be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12:2). God’s will contains the ultimate source and all human legislation, and all authority: "For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Rom. 13:1). It was Heraclaedes who noted that "all human laws obtain their nutrition from the divine law." Consequently, obeying or disobeying the human authority, is like obeying or disobeying God: "Therefore whoever resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves" (Rom. 13:2).

The Conscience.

God’s will becomes known to a person in two ways: firstly, by his personal inner being and secondly, through the revelations or laws, communicated by God and incarnate the Lord Jesus Christ, and recorded by the Prophets and Apostles. The first means of communication or God’s will is called inner or natural, while the second — outward, or paranormal. The first is of the psychological nature, and the second — historical.

Apostle gives clear testimony of the existence of the inner, or natural, moral law, stating: "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15). And on the basis of this law, written in their hearts, the written laws appeared among the heathen people, serving as a guide for communal living, and educating each individual person in moral freedom. While these morals and laws were not perfect, without them the society would have been far worse, because complete wantonness and dissoluteness would have appeared among them. As the wise declare: "Where no wise guidance is, the people falleth" (Proverbs 11:14).

The presence of the natural law of morality in every person is made known by the personal conscience. Having spoken on the matter of the law, written in the very nature of the heathens, the Apostle adds: "their conscience also bearing witness" (Rom. 2:15). The conscience exists in all three known psychic powers: knowledge, feeling and will. The very word conscience (from to aware, know), and also the ordinary sayings: the conscience spoke, conscionable or unconscionable — shows that there is an element of awareness in it. Furthermore, the feeling of joy or sorrow within the conscience, peace or turbulence makes it akin with feeling. Finally, we sometimes utter: my conscience is holding me back from this, or my conscience is forcing me to do this. Consequently, we relate the conscience to the will. Thus, the conscience is a "voice" (as is commonly expressed), arising from the original combination of all three psychic abilities. It arises from the relationship of a person’s self-consciousness with his self-determination and his actions.

совести. The conscience has the same importance for an action as the logic has for thinking, or just as the feeling of rhythm, beat etc. — for poetry, music etc. Consequently, the conscience is something that is primogenital, innate in a person, and not something that had been produced, imposed. It always testifies of a person’s divinity and the necessity to fulfill God’s commandments. When the seducer was tempting Eve in Eden, the conscience that was on guard appeared instantly, announcing the prohibition of the violation of God’s law. Eve said: "And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (Gen. 3:2-3). That is why even the ancients use to say about the conscience: est Deus in nobis i.e. it is through our conscience that we feel not only that which is human, but above the human level — the divine side. According to the words of wise Sirach, God had implanted His eye in the human heart (17:7). The essence of insuperable power and grandeur of the conscience is in human designs and actions. You cannot bargain, agree upon or come to an arrangement with conscience: a conscious is incorruptible. There is no need for discussion or reasoning in order to hear its decision: it speaks immediately. Just as soon as a person thinks of doing something wrong, the conscience appears instantly, cautioning and threatening him. Immediately after he commits a vile act, his conscience immediately chastises and tortures him. No wonder it is said that it is not the person that controls the conscience, but the conscience controls the person. A person is dependent on his conscience.

How does the conscience work? By its activities, the conscience differentiates between the legislative and judgmental (punishable). The first is a gauge for measuring our actions, while the second is the result of such measurement. Ap. Paul names the legislative conscience as a witness to deeds (of heathens; Rom. 2:15), while in another section: "I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 9:1). However, the Holy Scripture speaks more on the judgmental conscience. Thus, as with Adam after his sin, Cain after committing fratricide, Joseph’s brothers after their unwarranted vengeful act against him — they all experience torment in their souls, by their consciences. The second Book of Samuel speaks of a broken heart, i.e. about the conscience’s judgment (chap. 24:10). In David’s Psalms, more than one reference is made to such a feeling in a person. The New Testament speaks that when the scribes and Pharisees brought an adulterous woman to the Lord Savior, that "being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one" (John 8:3). In the Epistles of Aps. Peter and Paul, the sections speaking about the conscience say more on the judgmental conscience, i.e. rewarding or punishing.

What are the states of the human conscience? Because the conscience is an innate voice heard in the very nature of a person, as a consequence, it is in a very tight contact with the state of the person’s soul, depending upon its moral development — from its education, lifestyle and background in general. The Holy Scripture confirms this impression. Above all else, the task of the history of Revelations is to clearly disclose the law, so that the man could agree with it through his personal understanding. Ap. Paul recognizes the gradual growth of moral wisdom in a person, and demands this when he says: "For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb. 5:13-14). And again: "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (Rom. 12:2). The development and perfection of the conscience depends on the cultivation of the mind, as well as the perfection of the will. Strict uprightness and partly — love for truth and harmony in practical actions with theoretical knowledge — these are the main basis of clarity, incisiveness and vigor of the conscience (conscientiousness). At the same time, the external auxiliary means are: the upbringing of parents, the voice and example of the better part of society, but mainly — the Holy Scripture, clearly revealing moral truth in all its purity and justly censuring human vices.

If the conscience is found dependant on the general state of a person, mental and moral, developed under the influence of his surrounds — both as individuals as well as whole nations, which are often perverted — then it is for this reason that the conscience is heard differently by different people, sometimes contradictory. As examples, let us remember the Inquisition, about the heathen people’s practice of killing their weak newly-born and their old and infirm. Often, even among us, one may perform — with the clear conscience — an act that outrages the conscience of another. Finally, the conscience in a person may speak differently at different times. It follows from this that the conscience does not appear the same with everyone, that its voice can be sincere or insincere — either in varying degrees. That is why in his Epistle to the Corinthians, Ap. Paul speaks of weak or deviate consciences, about the consciences of idols, i.e. consciences that acknowledge idols as real powers (1 Cor. 8:7,13). Consequently, the idea that a person’s conscience contains "a complete and organized moral law that is constant," and at times of deviation and moral degeneracy, all he has to do is look to his conscience in order to understand his digression, his deformed condition and revert to the better path.

The history of life of the heathens and their conversion to the Christianity does not support this opinion. The history not only states that not all peoples have the same codes of law, but that with the conversion of the heathens to the Christianity, this was not limited to just reminding them of their consciences. Difficult and lengthy effort ensued; requiring uninterrupted and persistent influence on the heathen’s whole being, on his whole consciousness. That is why the struggle of missionaries with the heathens’ superstitions and morals are far from easy — which it would have been, if this opinion had been correct. Nonetheless, this struggle is possible, it gives results and the heathens are converted to the Christianity. This indicates that the opportunity to reform one’s conscience and be governed by its correct and pure directions is open to all people. Every person is the image and likeness of God.

Rightness or wrongness, certainty or doubt (probability) — these are the traits of the legislative conscience. We call the judging conscience as calm or disturbed, peaceful or turbulent, consoling or tormenting. The Holy Scripture calls it good, pure, uncorrupted or evil, corrupt, defiled, scorched. Appearing before the Judean Sanhedrin, Ap. Paul testified that he had lived in all good conscience to this day (Acts 23:1). Ap. Peter exhorts the Christians to have a good conscience, "that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed" (1 Peter 3:16, 21). In Ap. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, he expresses his certainty that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live honorably (13:18). He directs the clergy to hold "the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience" (1 Tim. 3:9), and speaking of himself, mentions: "I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men" (Acts 24:16). In his Epistle to the Hebrews, when called upon to the approach with the true heart and complete faith, the heart being cleansed from iniquity with a sprinkling (Christ’s Blood — Baptism), the Apostle names conscience as either evil or iniquitous. In his Epistle to Titus, when he speaks of people, the Apostle refers to the conscience as "defiled": "their mind and conscience are defiled." "They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work" (Titus 2:15). "In latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron" (1 Tim. 4:1-2). Here the word "seared" is used to mean the agonizing realization of guilt.

In the terms of power or energy, the conscience is called decisive or scrupulous. There is the conscience, similar to the latter, which is suspicious. It is typical of the people that are prone to depression and distrust the sin-cleansing measures. Under the influence of passions and earthly tumult, the conscience is often poorly heard by a person and thereby becomes muffled. If the conscience’s voice is frequently muffled, it grows softer and softer, it begins to ail, and this process ends with its death, i.e. the state of being unconscionable.

However, speaking of the unconscionable state, we do not mean the nonexistence of the chastising powers of a person’s conscience, but only the absence of his conscionableness, i.e. trampling all God’s and the man’s laws and rules, the decline of all moral feelings. Of course, the storms and din of this world can smother even the chastising conscience. But even in these situations, the judging conscience makes its presence felt in a person. It then emerges in the form of mysterious depression, melancholy, anguish, the state of hopelessness. When the vices and earthly din subside (which occurs during the length of one’s life, and especially before death), then the angry conscience descends on the person with all its fury. It then produces an alarm and fear within the person, and an agonizing expectation of the impending retribution. Cain, Saul and Judas, Orestes can serve as examples. Consequently, the conscience can be either an Angel-comforter, or the devil-tormentor.

We cited all the quotes of the Holy Scripture that related to the human conscience. All that remains is to point out one part of Ap. Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians; it reads thus: "‘Conscience’, I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?" (1 Cor. 10:29). These words present the conscience as an individual case: it means that every person has his own individual conscience. It therefore follows that I must beware of raising the voice of my conscience on the law degree of the others, thereby do harm to my own conscience. I must treat other consciences with consideration and graciousness, just as I would do with my own.

The Law of Moses.

God did not confine Himself to just creating the man and equipping him with the moral strength. Having created the man, as a good Father, He educates him. This education assumes itself as an influence from without. That is why having given the man an inner law, God completed him by the measure of his needs and the outer law, which is called Revelations. Consequently, there is not only no difference between the first and the second laws, but they in fact complement one another.

As can be seen from the Book of Genesis, that before the sinful downfall of the first man, God used to appear and instruct Adam in Eden. He gave him specific laws on the sanctity of Eden, on the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of the good and evil, and apparently, on the consecration of the seventh day of the week (Gen. 2:3). However, the need for the Revelation laws developed especially after the sinful downfall, when the moral feelings and consciousness became blunted and distorted. That is why Ap. Paul writes that the law was given because of our transgression, i.e. the result of our sinful downfall (Gal. 3:19). Indeed, the law that we currently have in the Bible is tightly bound to the man’s corrupt state. When the man’s conscience became dimmed and distorted, the help arrived through Moses in the form of commandments, which expressed God’s will. Ap. Paul also indicates another meaning of Moses’ law: the law came later thus increasing the offences (Rom. 5:20), an offence is recognized through the law (3:20), and further: without the law an offence is dead because when the law arrived, sin was awakened as corrupted human nature is inclined to do that which is forbidden (7:8,9), and in another section: "law brings about wrath" (4:15). All these statements indicate that the law was given not only to explain God’s will to the people, but also to reveal their own personal corrupt state. In order to treat an illness, it is necessary first to reveal its hidden contaminant. Ap. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians expresses a more general meaning of the Old Testament law, where he refers to it as a mentor or guide towards Christ (3:24), i.e. he gives it an instructive meaning. The law had to discipline the lives of the Jewish people and induce them to act in accordance with the decrees of God’s will, making them righteous and holy. However, finally, they had to be convinced that the law alone was not sufficient to attain that goal ("but no one is justified by the law in the sight of God" (3:20), because an offence is known through the law). The new, indispensable, higher assistance was needed — and it was revealed with the coming to the earth of the Lord Savior. The heathens acknowledged the essentiality of such help by taking paths based on the historical experiences, while the Jews — on the revealed law.

The Old Testament moral law, enunciated through the 10 Commandments in précis, was given amid lightning and thunder and begins with the majestic and stern words: "I am the Lord thy God!" The majestic and powerful Legislator, demanding obedience — this is the first thing that the Old Testament instills and demands from people’s education, especially from such coarse people as the Jews with their proclivity towards the heathen inclinations. God speaks and people should only listen and fulfill. With this, every directive was accompanied with a threat of instant punishment for non-fulfillment, and a promise of a reward for its fulfillment: I am your Lord God, a jealous God that punishes the children of fathers of the third and fourth generations that hated Me, while granting mercy up to a thousand generations to those that love Me and fulfill My commandments (Exodus 20:5-6). The contents of the law should wholly encompass a person’s life and his attitude. The first 4 commandments speak of a person’s correct attitude towards God, while the last six — correct attitude towards people. By fulfilling these commandments as well as other private directives in the Pentateuch, a person assumes the correct attitude towards himself. There are also decrees dealing with the attitudes towards animals, eg. Don’t muzzle the ox’s mouth when he is milling the corn (Deut. 25:4).

With regard to all the possible attitudes of a human life, the decrees of the law stretch out even to the most trivial aspects, directed mainly at the apparent side of life. This explains why the status of the law is expressed mainly in a form of exclusions: nearly all the commandments commence with the words: "Thou shalt not." Because of its prevailing judicial character, the Old Testament moral law does not rigorously differ from the customary and civil laws, which are just as sacred to ancient Israel as the moral law. The dictates of these three laws in the Pentateuch are intermixed among themselves. Notwithstanding on the definitive demands in every instant to agree the human will with that of God’s, Israel’s heart and its will continually separated from the demands of the law. Consequently, in order to reunite it, it is necessary to often repeat the commandment — thou shalt not do this or that. On the strength of all these circumstances, by the Apostle’s expression, the Old Testament law is the law of slavery (Gal. 5:1), and by itself, was incapable of giving the man a new heart and save him: "no one is justified by the law in the sight of God" (Gal. 3:11). They could not redeem their sins with sacrifices: "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin" (Heb. 10:4).

Nonetheless, the Apostle states that the law is sacred, just and good (Rom. 7:12). While the Law of Moses is by itself complete, it is limited in the light of the imperfection of time and the people that received it. The Pentateuch reflects very clearly the completeness of the law and the need for the complete life that corresponds to it. Thus God, speaking in the law amid thunder and lightning, is the same God that granted assurances to the Patriarchs, and also led the Israelites out of Egypt: consequently, through the strictness of the law, God reveals His goodness and grace, and through the law, God leads the man towards goodness and redemption. Although an ardent and strict guardian of the truth, Moses was named the meekest man on earth (Num. 12:3). Furthermore, although the law was directed against the outward and vile actions, the frequent reiteration in the law — thou shalt not covet — shows that not only the criminal acts are prohibited, but even the most secret thoughts and wishes that are directed to the detriment of the neighbor, and the destruction of the moral essence of a person. The main Christian law, that of love, is also found in the Old Testament: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deut. 6:5), "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Lev. 19:18). Although the ceremonial Law of Moses kept the Jews in a strict check with its physical side, it had a symbolic meaning, i.e. by means of the visible subjects; it wanted to evince the spiritual and unseen subjects. As examples, all the directions about clean and unclean food, about the non-mixture of various grain, farm animals, even the threads in clothing etc. were aimed to show the idea of sensible differentiation — the idea established by God and the very nature of order and cleanliness. The main purpose of the ceremonial law — the service of high priests and sacrifices, accompanied by many emotional signs — were but a mere shadow of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1), i.e. pointing to that event — "the very image," as expressed by the Apostle — which is accomplished with the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Gospel Law.

The idea of the instructional meaning of the law in the Old Testament contains the basis of its relationship with New Testament times. In the instructional, there is always something — with age — that has to be set aside, while there is also something that has to be preserved by the learner. That which is retained becomes clearer to him — proportionate to his level of development. At the same time, the new means for the higher life are imparted to him.

The ceremonial law, which carried the reformative meaning and instructed the Israelites in the system of visible forms and outward actions, is revoked in the New Testament. This revocation had been prophesied by the Prophets (sacrifice and oblation to cease, "upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate" Dan. 9:27), and testified by the Apostle "having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in the ordinances (Eph. 2:15). This does not mean that with the advent of New Testimony era, the idea of ceremony itself had lost all the meaning. So long as the man lives on earth and the visible, sentient earth has meaning to him, he will be in need of rituals. That is why rituals also exist in the Christian world. But they are simpler, purer, inspirited. Apostle Paul directs the Christians to glorify God "in your body and in your spirit" (1 Cor. 6:20). Ap. Peter calls the Christians live stones: "are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 2:5). However, as the ritual side has a secondary meaning in the New Testament era, the Lord Jesus Christ gave only general directives in this regard (with teachings as with His own example), leaving more specific determinations on the church services and church legislature of subsequent times. Particularly, the idea of the moral law, declared in the OT, is fully supported by the NT. And not only the idea, but the whole cohesive moral law has significance and strength in the NT, as the embodiment of unalterable and eternal truth. That is why Christ declared: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Mat. 5:17).

Jesus Christ continued to build on the foundations established by the Prophets in ancient times. However, his structure is more complete: He simultaneously fulfilled and completed the law. Firstly, He liberated the moral law from its ties with the judicial arrangement, with the law of outward deeds, and elevated it not only to the level of deeds but, more importantly, the inner state — disposition of the heart. This is evident from the Sermon on the Mount. They heard what was t