XIVDivine Grace

Section II. Of divine grace as a force with which the Lord sanctifies us. This whole division expounds the Saviour's special relation to men. Section I. expounded the conception of the church, that instrument by which the human race is saved; now, it would seem, ought to be expounded those means by which men are saved, but that will be expounded in Section III. This 2d section will expound wherein the salvation will actually consist. It is this doctrine that will be expounded in this section. This doctrine is called the doctrine about grace. What is meant by the word "grace "?

Art. 183 begins with various definitions of grace:

"1. Under the name of divine grace is in general understood all that which the Lord gives to all his creatures without any deserts on their parts (Rom. xi. 6; 1 Peter v. 10)."

That is the definition of grace. Then follow subdivisions.

"For that reason divine grace is divided into natural and supernatural To natural grace belong all natural gifts of God to the creatures, such as, life, health, reason, freedom, external well-being, and so forth. To supernatural grace belong all gifts which are communicated by God to the creatures in a supernatural manner, in addition to the gifts of Nature, when, for example, he himself directly enhghtens the mind of rational beings with the light of his truth, and strengthens their will with his power and cooperation in matters of godliness. This supernatural grace is divided into two species : into the grace of God the Creator, which he communicates to his moral creatures that abide in a condition of innocence; he communicated it to man before his fall, and even now imparts it to his good angels; and into the grace of God the Saviour, which he has given more properly to fallen man through Jesus and in Jesus Christ (Tit. iii. 4)." (p. 248.)

This latter subdivision is further subdivided into three parts: grace is divided into (1) the incarnation of Christ and the redemption; (2) extraordinary gifts for the advantage of the church, such as prophecy, miracles, and so forth, and (3) — "Last, by grace is understood a special force, a special action of God, which is communicated to us on account of the deserts of our Eedeemer, and which achieves our sanctification, that is, which, on the one hand, purifies us from sin, renovates, and justifies us before God, and, on the other, confirms us and turns us back to virtue for eternal life. In this latter sense grace forms the proper subject of the dogmatic teaching about it." (p. 249.)

This latter subdivision contains in it three more particular conceptions.

"(1) It is : (a) a special force, a special divine action in man, as is to be seen from the words of the Lord himself to the Apostle Paul : My grace is suffi,cient for thee : for my strength is made perfect in weakness, and then from the words of St. Paul : Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me (2 Cor. xii. 9). {h\ It is given to us for nothing, on account of the deserts of Jesus Christ, as the same apostle teaches us : For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; bemg justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Eom. iii. 23, 24). (d) It is given to us for the sake of our sanctification, that is, for our purification and justification, for our success in godliness and salvation. That is confirmed by the f ollovv^ing passages in Scripture : Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue (1 Peter i. 2, 3), and so forth. This sanctifying grace is, for the greater clearness of its teaching, subdivided into two particular kinds. It is called external in so far as it acts upon man externally, through external means, such as, the Word of God, the preaching of the Gospel, miracles, and so forth; and internal, in so far as it acts directly in man himself, destroying the sins in him, enlightening his reason, exciting and directing his w411 toward the good. It is called temporary, when it produces special impressions upon a man's soul and cooperates in his special good deeds; and constant, when it abides constantly in man's soul and makes him righteous and pleasing before God. It is called premonitory, when it precedes each good deed and incites man to commit good deeds; and accompanying or coactive, when it accompanies each good deed. It is called sufficient, when it imparts to man sufficient force and convenience to act for his salvation, though it may not be accompanied by the action itself on the part of man; and real, when it is accompanied by the action itself and produces in man saving fruits." (pp. 249 and 250.)

Thus there are in all fourteen different kinds of grace, and all those will be properly disclosed. All the contrary opinions will be refuted, and everything will, according to the usual method, be confirmed by Holy Scripture. In no part of the doctrine, so manifestly as in the doctrine about grace, will the remark be confirmed that the less the doctrine is necessary in order to explain the meaning of life to man and to guide him to union with God, the more has the church been talking about it, the less it is com- prehensible, and the more controversies, lies, malicious attacks, wars, and executions have taken place because of it, as we know from history. Indeed, what can be more remarkable, for uselessness, than this remarkable teaching about grace, about what, according to the definition of the Theology, is given by God to his creatures without the least desert on their part. One would think that according to this definition grace is the whole of life, everything, for everything is given to us by God without the least desert on our part, and that therefore the relation of man to grace is the relation of man to life. So it is, but since the Theology understands man's relation to life in the most perverse manner, all the discussions about grace reduce themselves to the attempt to lower the meaning of life to a most monstrous and crude conception.

First it takes the account of the creation of man, in which Holy Scripture expresses in the person of Adam the relation of man's freedom to grace, that is, to the external world. The whole account is taken by the Theology in the historical sense only. Adam fell, and the whole human race perished, and before Christ there was no relation of man's freedom to grace, that is to life, there was no life, and men did not do wrong. Christ came and redeemed the whole human race, and then, speaking strictly, according to the teaching of the Theology, there was again destroyed the relation of man's freedom to grace, to the external world, for according to the church teaching man became all holy and now does only what is good. But, as we know, nothing of the kind has ever happened, and the whole meaning of the Old Testament and Gospel teaching and of all moral and philosophical teachings consists only in finding a solution of the contradictions of good and evil, which are struggling in man. Although theology asserts that man after his redemption became entirely good, it knows that that is an untruth. It is not true that all men were bad before the redemption and became all good after that, and so the Theology sees that the question, as it stood before Adam, — whether to eat or not to eat the apple, and as it stands before us, — whether to live or not to live according to the teaching of Christ, is still standing before men, and so it was compelled to invent a doctrine by which the question of what man must do should be supplanted by the question of what he ought to confess and speak. And for that purpose is invented the teaching, at first, of the church, and now, of grace.

But, as we shall later see, this teaching about grace is insufficient, and there is invented another, a new teaching about faith, which is to cooperate in the obfuscation before people of the chief rehgious and moral question as to how men ought to live. It is impossible connectedly to render this teaching about grace in the manner in which it is expounded. The more you penetrate into it, the less you comprehend it. You read and fail to understand, not only what is being expounded, but even why it is all expounded. Only after reading the whole Theology through, after reading the chapter on the sacraments and on the mysteries, and recalling the contradiction with reality, which is put in the dogma of the redemption, is it possible, at last, to divine the cause which made them invent those strange aberrations, and to explain to ourselves that remarkable doctrine.

The explanation of the doctrine about grace I find to be as follows : the hierarchy (for exactness' sake I will from now on use this word instead of the obscure "church ") teaches us that Christ redeemed the human race, destroyed sin, evil, death, diseases, and the unfruitfulness of the earth. In reality nothing of the kind has been destroyed; everythiug was left as of old. How, then, justify the unjustified assertion ? In order to justify it, it is necessary to attach to the salvation of the human race by Christ another condition, without which this salvation cannot take place, so as to have the right to say that the redemption took place, but is not active, because men did not observe the condition with vi^hich alone it is active. That teaching is grace. The Theology says outright :

"Divine grace is necessary for the sanctification of sinful man in general, that is, in order that the sinner shall be able to come out from his sinful state, become a true Christian, and, in this manner, make his ow^n the deserts of the Eedeemer, or else be changed, purified, justified, renovated, and then abide in godliness and attain eternal salvation." (p. 259.)

Thus the redemption became active only on condition that grace be obtained, and so the non-acliievement of the redemption is explained by the absence of grace, and the whole aim of the believers is now directed toward obtaining grace, and grace is transmitted through the sacraments. This sanctification by sacraments, that is, the drawing of people toward sacerdotal rites, forms another cause for the teaching about grace. Thus the teaching about grace has two causes, one — logical, an explanation of the statement that the whole world has changed, whereas it has not, and the other — practical, the use of sacraments and mysteries as means for obtaining grace.

The doctrine about grace is, on the one hand, an inevitable result of a false premise that Christ by his redemption has changed the whole world, and, on the other, it is the foundation of those sacerdotal rites, which are necessary for the believers, in order to throw dust in their eyes, and for the hierarchy, in order that it may take advantage of its sacerdotal calling. This teaching about grace is in itself striking by its complexity, entanglement, and absolute barrenness of contents. If previously some parts of the teaching involuntarily reminded one of a man who pretended before a public to measure hundreds of yards of the imaginary hair of the Virgin, this teaching may be compared with the action of this man, who, after measuring the imaginary hairs, should make it appear that the hairs which he has measured out have become tangled and he is trying to unravel them. Besides, this teaching about grace, the purpose of which is to pull the wool over the eyes of the believers because of the non-achievement of the promise of redemption, and to increase the income of the clergy, bears in itself that terrible germ of immorality which has morally corrupted the generations that confess this teaching. If a man is going to believe in the deception that he can be cured from diseases by the grace of the chrism, or that he will be immortal if he receives the grace, or in the concealment of the fact that the earth continues to be unfruitful, — all these deceptions have been comparatively harmless, but the deception about man's being always sinful and impotent and about the uselessness of his striving after good, if he does not acquire grace, — this teaching cuts down to the root everything which is best in human nature. The immorality of this teaching could not help but startle all the best men who have lived amidst this confession, and so against this side of the doctrine — about the relation of man's freedom to grace — have risen the more honest men in the church itself, and so this question has been complicated by endless controversies, which until the present divided the different creeds.

In Art. 184 there is an exposition of these controversies about grace :

"The dogma about grace which sanctifies sinful man has been subject to very many mutilations on the part of the heterodox and heretics. I. Some of these have erred and still err, in a greater or lesser degree, as regards the necessity of grace for man. To these belong the Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Socinians, and rationalists. The Pelagians, who appeared in' the beginning of the fifth century in the Western church, taught as follows : ' Since Adam by his fall in no way impaired his nature and consequently his descendants are born without any natural corruption or original sin, they may by mere natural forces attain moral perfection and have no need for that purpose of any supernatural divine aid and force/ Against Pelagius and his followers first of all rose St. Augustine, who wrote very many works in refutal of them. There rose also many other pastors of the church, and both in the East and in the West there met in a short time more than twenty councils which unanimously condemned that heresy. The defenders of the truth unanimously maintained : (a) that man, who has fallen and is born in original sin, cannot in himself create any spiritual good without the aid of grace;

(b) that by it are to be understood not merely the natural forces of man, the law of Moses, the teaching and example of Jesus Christ, external aids, but the supernatural power of God, which is inwardly communicated to man's soul;

(c) that this grace does not consist merely in the remission of former sins, but offers real assistance in keeping man from committing new ones; (d) it not only illuminates reason and imparts to it the knowledge of what is to be done and what avoided, but also gives it the strength to carry out what has been found good, and pours love into the heart; (e) it not only makes easier for us the execution of the divine commands, which we are supposed to perform by ourselves, though inconveniently so, but acts as an assistance, without which we are not abje to execute the divine law and to do the good which cooperates in our salvation.

"At the present time the teaching of the Orthodox Church, as directed against the heresy of the Pelagians, may be seen in the three following rules of the Council at Carthage, which is accepted among the number of the nine local councils, and which met to refute Pelagius : ' If any one says that divine grace, by which men are justified in Jesus Christ our Lord, is active only in the remission of sins already committed, but does not in addition to that furnish any assistance, unless new sins be committed : let such a one be anathema. For divine grace not only gives the knowledge of what is proper to do, but also inspires us with love, that we may be able to carry out what we know.' ' If any one says that the same divine grace, which is about Jesus Christ our Lord, aids us only in keeping us from sinning, since by it is revealed and manifested to us the knowledge of sins, so that we may know what to seek and what to avoid, but that by it are not given to us the love and the power of doing that which we have found good to do : let such a one be anathema. For both are the gifts of God, both the knowledge of what is proper to do, and the love of the good which it is proper to do.' * If any one says that the grace of justification is given to us so that what may be performed by our free will may be more conveniently done through grace, for, without receiving divine grace, we have been able, though inconveniently, to perform the divine commandments : let such a one be anathema. For of the fruits of the commandments the Lord has not said : Without me you will do inconveniently, but he has said : Without me ye can do nothing.' "

That, according to the Theology, is the first error. The second error consists in this, that to some God has given grace and has preordained them to the judgment, while to others he has given grace and has preordained them to salvation. This is the way it has to be considered :

"We believe that the all-good God has preordained to glory those whom he has chosen from eternity; and whom he has rejected he has turned over to the judgment, not, however, because he wishes in this manner to justify some, and leave others and judge them without cause : for that is not characteristic of God, who is common to all, and is not a revengeful Father, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. ii. 4); since he foresaw that some will make good use of their free will, while others will not, he has preordained some to glory, and others he has condemned. Of the use of freedom we judge in the following manner : since divine goodness has given us the divine grace, which, like the light illuminating the path of those who walk in darkness, guides us all, those who wish freely to submit to it (for it assists those who have it, and who do not oppose it) and to fulfil its commands, which are absolutely necessary for salvation, for that reason receive a special grace, which, cooperating with them and strengthening and constantly perfecting them in divine love, that is, in those good works, which God demands of us (and which also the premonitory grace has demanded), justifies them and makes them preordained; but those, on the contrary, who will not obey and follow grace, and who therefore do not fulfil the divine commandments, but, following the instigation of Satan, make ill use of their freedom, which God has given them for the purpose of arbitrarily doing good, are given over to eternal condemnation. But what the blasphemous heretics say of God's preordaining and condemning, without paying any attention to the works of the preordained or the condemned, we regard as madness and ungodliness." (pp. 255 and 256.)

The error cannot be rendered in one's own words; here it is :

"In regard to the nature of the sanctification or justification, as taken in its broad meaning, the Protestants assert that it consists : (a) not in that the divine grace acts inwardly on man and actually, on the one hand, purifies him from all sins, and, on the other, cooperates with the renovated, righteous, holy; (h) but in this, that, by God's will, the sins are pardoned only externally and are not put against the man, though in reality they remain in him, — that Christ's righteousness is put to his account only in an external manner. Such is the teaching of the Lutherans and of the Eeformers. The teaching of the Orthodox Church is of an entirely different kind. Speaking of the fruits of the sacrament of baptism, in which properly takes place our justification and sanctification through grace, the church teaches :

"' In the first place, this sacrament destroys all sins : in babes — original sin, and in grown persons both original and arbitrary sin. In the second place, it reestablishes for him that righteousness which he had in the condition of innocence and sinlessness.' And in another place : * It cannot be said that the baptism does not free from all former sins, but that they remain indeed, but no longer have any force. It is extreme ungodliness to teach in that manner; it is an overthrowing of faith, and not a confession of it. On the contrary, every sin which exists or has existed before the baptism is destroyed and is regarded as though it did not exist or had never existed. For all the forms under which baptism is represented show its purifying power, and the utterances of Holy Scripture give us to understand that through it we receive complete purification, which is seen from the very name of baptism. If it is a baptism by the Spirit and by fire, it is evident that it offers complete purification, for the Spirit purifies completely. If it is light, every darkness is dispelled by it. If it is regeneration, everything old passes away; and this old thing is nothing but the sins. If the man who is baptized is divested of the old man, he is also divested of sin. If he is invested in Christ, he with the same becomes sinless through baptism (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, Section 16).'" (pp. 256 and 257.)

186. The necessity of grace for the sanctification of man in general. It is proved by Holy Scripture, and this is the way it is determined by the councils :

"If any one asserts that for our purification from sins God waits for our desire, and does not confess that the desire itself to purify ourselves takes place in us through the emanation of the Holy Ghost and his cooperation, he contradicts the Holy Ghost." (p. 262.)

It is not permitted to believe that God is waiting for our desire to purify ourselves, but we must believe that the Holy Ghost, that is, the same God in another person, produces this desire to purify ourselves. If the desire has already taken place and I am myself a creature of God, and the desire is directed toward God, it is evident that this desire must not be acknowledged as anything else but as having emanated from God. All these utterances remain completely unintelligible, if we do not keep in mind the aim toward which they lead. This aim consists in replacing the tendency to do good by the external actions of the sacraments which impart grace. Further :

"If any one asserts that a man may, by the force of his nature, think rightly, or choose something good, which refers to eternal salvation, and agree to receive the saving, that is, the evangelical, sermon without the illumination and instigation of the Holy Ghost, he is seduced by a heretical spirit (Eule VII.)." (p. 262.)

A man cannot wish for anything good without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is imparted through grace; grace is communicated through the sacraments; and the sacraments are communicated by the hierarchy.

187. The necessity of grace for faith and for the very beginning of faith, or for a man's conversion to Christianity. "Divine grace, which is necessary in general for man's illumination and salvation, is necessary in particular for his faith and for the very beginning of the faith in the Lord Jesus." (p. 263.)

Proofs from Holy Scripture and decrees of a council :

"If any one says that the increase, as well as the beginning of faith, and the very disposition toward it, by which we believe in the justification of the ungodly and proceed to the regeneration in the sacrament of baptism, are in us not by the gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who directs our will from unbelief to belief, from godlessness to godhness, but takes place naturally, — such a one proves himself to be an opponent of the apostolic dogmas (Rule V.)." (p. 267.)

The meaning of the decree is that the believers must acknowledge that the change from godlessness to godliness cannot take place naturally, but is only the result of grace, that is, of some unnatural, external action. But if our will is completely directed by the Holy Ghost, then what free will has the Theology just been speaking about when it said that God wants all men to be saved, but that he foresaw that some would make good use of their free will, while others would not ? If he wants to save and everything depends on him, why does he not save ?

"188. Being necessary for the very conversion of man to Christianity, for his faith, and for the beginning of faith, divine grace remains necessary for man even after his conversion, so that he may fulfil the evangelical law for a worthy life according to Christ." (p. 271.)

Proofs from Holy Scripture conclude with this :

"Although man may be inclined toward good before his regeneration, and choose and do moral good, nevertheless, in order that he may be able after his regeneration to do spiritual good (for the works of faith, being the cause of salvation and being performed by supernatural grace, are generally called spiritual), it is necessary for grace to premonish and guide, so that he cannot by himself do works that are worthy of a life according to Christ, but can only wish or not wish to act in accordance with grace." (p. 274.)

The meaning of this discussion is still more definite, and its expression is much bolder. Here it says distinctly that, although a man may be able to do good deeds without grace, he loses the possibility of doing good deeds the moment he accepts the teaching of the church, and can only wish for it, by invoking the aid of the hierarchy. But even the desire for grace, as has just been said, is given only by the Holy Ghost, that is, again by grace. The Theology is evidently moving in a magic circle.

"189. If without divine grace man cannot become a believer, or believe in Christ, or do deeds that are worthy of a life according to Christ, it follows naturally that without the cooperation of divine grace man cannot abide in the Christian faith and godliness to the end of his life."

Here it says that the cooperation of this external grace is not exhausted by baptism and faith, but that for the salvation the constant aid of the hierarchy is needed. All that would seem to be clear, but now follows Art. 190, which refutes the heretics. In this and the following articles the whole disconnection of the teaching becomes manifest.

The hierarchy needs a teaching which would reduce the whole teaching about life to a teaching about the sacraments, but that cannot be expressed outright : the immorality of such a teaching is too obvious. Besides, there have been many controversies in regard to this question. Some reflected consistently : if grace saves, the free efforts of man are useless; others said : if the free efforts of man are needed, the whole thing lies in them, and grace is imparted to them; but our Theology refutes both, and itself becomes entangled and persists in that tangle.

"Contrary to the errors of the Calvinists and Jansenists, which are that God gives his grace only to a few men, whom he has unconditionally preordained to righteousness and eternal bliss, and therefore gives an invincible grace, the Orthodox Church teaches: (a) that divine grace extends over all men, and not only on the preordained to righteousness and eternal bliss; (b) that the preordainment of some by God to eternal bliss and of others to eternal damnation is not unconditional, but is based on the foreknowledge whether they will take advantage of the grace, or not; (c) that divine grace does not embarrass man's freedom, does not act invincibly upon it, and (d) that, on the contrary, man takes an active part in what divine grace works in him and through him (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, Section 3)." (pp. 277 and 278.)

The preceding article defines man's salvation in such a way that it obviously no longer results from his efforts, but completely depends on the communication of grace from without. Consequently there had naturally to appear the reflection : if salvation depends not on man, but on God, and God is omniscient, some people are predetermined to salvation, and others to perdition. But the Theology does not agree with the Calviuists.

191. Divine grace extends over all men, and not only over those who are preordained to righteousness and eternal bliss. Proofs are adduced to refute the Calvinists. And here it turns out involuntarily that in refuting the Calvinists the Theology refutes all the decrees of the councils, which determined that man cannot save himself by his own efforts.

"St. John Chrysostom : ' If Christ lighteth every man that Cometh into the world (John i. 9), how then do men remain without illumination ? He actually illuminates everybody. But if some, voluntarily closing the eyes of their intellect, do not wish to receive the beams of this light, their abiding in darkness does not depend on the nature of the light, but on the ungodliness of those who by their wiU deprive themselves of that gift. For the grace has poured forth on all, and those who do not wish to make use of such a gift must, in justice, blame themselves for their blindness.' St. Ambrose: *He rose, like a mysterious sun, for everybody; if some one does not believe in Christ, lie deprives himself of the universal benefit.' St. Augustine : * God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved (John iii. 17). And then as to the physician : he came to cure a patient; and he who does not wish to keep the commands of the physician achieves his own ruin. The Saviour came into the world, — why is he called the Saviour if not because it is his aim to save the world, and not to condemn it? Do you not wish to be cured by him ? You will be your own judge.' "(p. 280.)

Before this it was said in the councils that he who asserts that for our purification from sins God expects our consent, and that we can choose the good, is not right, but here it suddenly turns out that a man must choose by all means. Then follows Art. 192, which is to prove that there is a predetermination, and that there is no predetermination.

"3. St. Paul teaches distinctly that divine predetermination is based on prescience, saying : For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son..., moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified (Eom. viii. 29, 30). He did not simply predestinate, says the apostle, but he predestinated, because he foreknew; whose deserts he foresaw, those he preordained, or, as St. Jerome expresses himself : * Of whom God knew that they would be conformed to the image to his Son in their lives, those he preordained to be conformed to him in the glory itself.' "

This whole article about predestination bears upon itself the distinctive character partly of the Byzantine but more especially of the Eussian theology. Here is repeated what we find in all debatable passages of the Theology. Some theologians say that the whole matter is in works, while others say that the whole matter is '356 CRITIQUE OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY in grace. Either may be proved with a certain degree of consistency, but Kussian theology never takes the trouble to analyze thought and to go consistently from deduction to deduction. It says : You say it is grace, then we will generalize it and say : it is both works and grace, and it does not in the least trouble itself about the fact that one excludes the other. It strings out a few unintelligible sentences, quotes the fathers of the church, and comes to a conclusion, imagining that the question is solved. Proof from Scripture.

"4. The doctrine about the unconditional predestination of God is contrary to common sense. Common sense is convinced that God is just and that, consequently, he cannot without any cause preordain some to eternal happiness, and others to eternal damnation. It is convinced that God is infinitely good and, consequently, can not without any cause condemn any one to eternal perdition. It is convinced that God is infinitely all-wise and, consequently, cannot give man freedom and yet embarrass it by his unconditional predetermination and take away the whole moral value of its actions." (p. 286.)

This discussion directly ignores everything which has been said against it in the previous articles. And with this obvious contradiction the whole argument is closed.

Art. 193 still more mixes up the matter. Here there is a contradiction in every word : "Though God worketh in us to do of his good pleasure (Phil. ii. 14), and we are not able without his grace to undertake anything, nor accomplish anything truly good : still that divine power, working in us and through us, in no way embarrasses our freedom and does not draw it invincibly to the good." (p. 286.)

What does that mean ? Translating the sentence into intelligible language, it turns out that grace does not embarrass our freedom, but we can do nothing good without it. Where is the freedom ? According to this defi- nition it consists only in doing all kinds of evil. The whole discussion is of the same character, so that in conclusion it says :

"5. Common sense on its side cannot help but remark that if divine grace embarrasses man's freedom and draws it forcibly to the good, then every merit is taken away from a man's good actions, every incitement to do good, and in general his whole morahty is undermined, and the cause of it all is God himself! Can such ideas be admitted ? It is true, reason cannot explain in what way the mighty power of God, acting upon man, leaves his freedom intact, and cannot with certainty define their mutual relations; but none the less this mystery must be for us above all doubt, since we have so many grounds for belief that man is not only not deprived of liberty under the influence of grace upon him, but also actively takes part in its action, which takes place in him and through him." (p. 288.)

That is, in other words, the Theology confesses that it does not understand anything of what it has said, but that it thinks that it is necessary to believe in that mystery, that is, in something meaningless and contradictory, which it is even impossible to express.

Art. 194 continues the tangle, proving that man takes an active part in what divine grace accomplishes in him and through him.

"St. Theodoret : * The apostle called it a gift of God not only to believe, but also to suffer gloriously (Phil. i. 29), without rejecting the participation of the free will (of man), but teaching us that the will. in itself, deprived of grace, cannot achieve anything good. Both are necessary : our readiness, or desire, to act, and the divine cooperation. And as for those who have not that desire it is not enough to have the grace of the Spirit, even so, on the other hand, the mere desire, not strengthened by grace, cannot gather the riches of the virtues.' "(p. 291.)

Thus the article asserts that a man who cannot do anything good without grace at the same time takes part in the action of grace. Leaving out the absurdity, contradictoriness, and immorality of the whole doctrine, one asks himself involuntarily : For what and for whom is that wanted ? And if any one needs it, what is that tangle for ? All right, a man cannot do anything without grace : then say so. But no, the proof is given that man cannot be saved without grace, and yet he must look for that grace, and cooperate, and through the whole tangle it would seem impossible to answer the question what it is all for. And if we did not know what is going to follow, we should get no answer. But there is a direct answer : grace, as understood by the hierarchy, is not the grace of the Calvinists, a preordained salvation, but the grace of the hierarchy, — its sacraments, and these have to be sought for.

The sacraments are transmitted to the flock by the priests, and the priests get money for them. Consequently it is impossible to be saved without grace, and grace must be looked for in the sacraments. What is bad about it is that with that is not only destroyed the whole moral significance of the teaching of Christ, but every moral teaching is obscured by the search after these sacraments which can be bought for money. But what is to be done ? Without it there would be no hierarchy. Consequently the whole doctrine about grace is very important. That alone can explain to us the wonderful doctrine about grace.