XVGrace, Faith and Free Will

The doctrine about grace is now regarded by the Theology as firmly established, and there begins the exposition of the statement that upon it is based the doctrine about sanctification :

"In rejecting the error of the Protestants, who under the name of justification or sanctification of man by grace understand the mere remission of sins, although man in reality perseveres in them, and a mere external imputation of the righteousness of Christ, though in reality man does not become righteous, but as a condition for justification and sanctification recognize only faith on the part of man, the Orthodox Church teaches : (a) that the sanctification of man consists in his being actually purified from sin by the grace of God and, with its aid, becoming righteous and holy." (pp. 292 and 293.)

Here by the words "sanctification of man "are meant the sacraments. Thus, after the proofs from Holy Scripture, is quoted the utterance by St. John Chrysostom :

"The Jewish priests had the power to cleanse bodily leprosy, or, more correctly, not to cleanse, but to testify to the cleansing. But these (the Christian priests) have received the power not merely to testify the cleansing, but completely to cleanse (dTraXAaretv TravreXois), not the bodily leprosy, but the impurity of the soul."

Thus the action of grace, which heretofore was unintelligible, so long as the question was about grace in the abstract, becomes clear at once. Grace is a holiness which is communicated by the priests, and so we now can com- prehend what is meant by the statement that grace is necessary for salvation, and that man cannot be saved by good vsrorks without the sanctification through sacraments. Without the teaching about the sacraments a man will strive to become better. According to the doctrine of the hierarchy that is not necessary; what is needed is nothing but grace. To seek grace means to seek the sacraments. To seek the sacraments means to accept the sacraments from the priest. The concluding words of this article are important, because they strikingly confirm the proposition which I have enunciated that the dogma of redemption is one of the foundations of the sacerdotal institution, of the hierarchy :

"The reestablishment or redemption is nothing but the reduction of man to his original condition, in which he was before the fall. But before the fall man was actually innocent, righteous, and holy. Consequently it is necessary for him through this reestablishment to return to precisely the same condition. In other words, if those who are reestablished, or justified, remain as before in sin, without righteousness or holiness, and receive only a remission of sins, and externally cloak themselves in the righteousness of Christ, there is in that case no reestablishment properly speaking, and it is nothing but a phantasm or a seeming reestabhshment." (p. 297.)

Eeestablishment is man's elevation to the former state of innocence. Eedemption, according to the assertion of the hierarchy, has done that. But the hierarchy itself sees that nothing of the kind exists : redemption has done nothing of the kind. In what, then, is this reestabhshment to be assumed ? It is impossible to recognize that the reestabhshment consists in this, that actually good men, having learned the law of Christ, do more good than evil, because in that case only good men would be redeemed, and bad men would be in perdition. Nor is it possible to assume that the bad men are no longer bad, and that they are reestablished in innocence, because Christ has redeemed them; consequently it becomes necessary to invent an imaginary innocence and holiness, and such visible instruments for the communication of sanctity as will make it possible to assure all men without exception that, no matter how bad they may be, they are none the less holy. And it is precisely this that is invented.

But for the rearing of this artificial building, the imaginary redemption, the teaching about grace is not sufficient : there is needed a new link in this chain of deception. And so, in Art. 197, there is an exposition of that very method of self-deception by means of which men, doing good deeds, cannot regard their deeds as good, if they do not observe certain conditions established for the purpose, and unrighteous and not innocent men may in fulfilling those conditions regard themselves as reestablished, holy. This self-deception is based on the conception of faith, which is introduced into the book now for the first time, and which is understood in an intentionally most mixed up manner. What is said is that faith is the.first condition on the part of man for his sauctification and salvation. A most tangled definition of faith is given: its tendency is to substitute for the idea of faith an action A-hich is in the power of each man, and the conclusion is drawn that he who believes that he is becoming sanctified and reestablished in complete sanctity and innocence, that he alone is actually reestablished in complete sanctity and innocence. But, if one beheves that he is holy, and there is no other means for ascertaining his sanctity but the faith in his sanctity, it is impossible to assert that he is actually holy, though he may unquestionably regard himself as such. If an insane man believes that he has a tower on his nose, there can be no doubt about his actually imagining that there is a tower on his nose, but no one will think of asserting that there is really a tower on his nose. And yet on precisely such a consideration is built the whoje doctrine about the sanctification through faith. Here is the discussion :

"197. Divine grace, which achieves our sanctification, indeed extends over all men, but does not act upon them against their will, and in fact sanctifies a sinner, and thereupon saves him, only when certain conditions are observed on his part. The first of these is faith."

This unexpected introduction into the discussion of the idea of faith is particularly remarkable because all those dogmas which have been disclosed to us heretofore, beginning with the concept of God, were nothing but truths of faith. Up till now there has not once been any mention made about faith and there has not been any definition of what is to be understood by the word "faith." Heretofore it was assumed that faith was that correct knowledge of God, as indeed the Eastern Patriarchs say, that correct conception about God, which lies at the foundation of every other knowledge, and that everything else resulted from faith, but there has by no means been given that definition of faith by which it is the action of the human will. Here it turns out to be some kind of an action :

"(1) Under the name of faith in general is understood here the free acceptance and appropriation by man with all the powers of his soul of those truths which it has pleased God to reveal to us in Christ for our salvation. By faith is meant this acceptance and appropriation, because the revealed truths are for the most part incomprehensible to our reason and inaccessible to knowledge, but can be appropriated only through faith." (p. 298.)

Grace does not act against the will. Men must make an effort of will in order to accept it. Faith is a free acceptance, an appropriation of incomprehensible truths. Involuntarily there arises the question : how does the appropriation take place ? Through reason, or through the will ? Impossibly through reason, since the truths are incomprehensible; consequently through the will. What, then, is meant by "to appropriate by an effort of will "? Speaking plainly, it means "to obey." Thus faith, according to this definition, is reduced to obedience. Precisely in this way the word "faith "is understood in the Theology, though farther down, to obscure the definition, another misty definition is made, in which faith is mixed up with charity and hope. (p. 301.)

"The necessity of faith for our sanctification and salvation is comprehensible also from considerations of reason. Without faith we cannot appropriate to ourselves the truths of the divine revelation; consequently we shall not know what God has done for our salvation, nor what we are obliged to do. In this manner revelation, together with the whole house-management of salvation, will remain foreign to us, and we shall be foreign to revelation and salvation. In believing in Christ the Saviour and in his revealed word, we, so to speak, open our soul for all divine actions of salvation upon us; and in not believing, we shut ourselves up against these actions, and repel the divine assistance. For this reason, although faith is roused in us by premonitory grace and in its origin is a divine gift, it becomes on our part, the moment it is germinated in us, with our free consent, the first instrument for the actual acceptance in our soul of the saving grace, or of the divine powers that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Peter i. 3), the very first condition for our regeneration, sanctification, and salvation through grace." (pp. 303 and 304.)

Heretofore I understood faith as- the foundation of man's whole activity, but here faith is spoken of as an activity. Involuntarily the question arises: on what is the activity based, which is seeking the faith and even choosing in advance the faith, which it is seeking ? Strangest of all is the fact that nothing has been said about faith so long as the revealed, fundamental truths of faith about God, creation, man, soul (for it is necessary to believe in all that) were expounded; nothing was said about faith, but here, where it behoves the Theology to expound about sanctification and reestablishment, which do not exist, it suddenly becomes necessary to define faith, and unexpectedly faith is defined, not as the knowledge of God, but as confidence in what the hierarchs say. Indeed, under the word "faith "the Theology understands something quite different from what it is generally understood to mean. This is seen in the clearest and quickest way from the following passage of Filaret's Catechism. There is there a question about which is more necessary, faith or good works. And the answer is : "Faith, because Scripture says. Without faith it is impossible to please God." And immediately after that comes the question : "Why must good works be inseparable from this faith ? "And the answer : "Because it says. Faith without works is dead." The second answer to the question as to why good works must be inseparable from faith, because faith without works is dead, destroys the separation of faith from good works. If faith cannot exist without good works, why then separate them, and say: (1) faith, and (2) good works. This logical blunder is not an accidental one.

The same intentional blunder is repeated in the Theology. It is clear that by the word "faith "the Theology does not want to understand what the word actually means, not what Paul and the Eastern Patriarchs understand by it, and what we understand by it. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, that is, a trust in the unseen as though it were seen, in what is wished and waited for, as if it were present," says Paul. Paul says nothing about this evidence and hope being communicated by any one. "By faith we mean the correct knowledge of God and of divine subjects," say the Eastern Patriarchs. "Nobody can be saved without faith," they say further on. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, and a correct understanding about God." The same it is understood by all men to be. We perish in this life without the knowledge of God, — faith gives us salvation. All the works of salvation are by that very thing good works, and all good works are good only because they are works of salvation, which result from our knowledge of God, that is, from faith. Faith is not exactly inseparable from good works, but is the only cause of good works; but good works are inevitable consequences of faith. Consequently, it would seem impossible to ask which is more important : faith or good works ? that is the same as asking which is more important, the sun or its light ? And yet precisely such a division has been made in consequence of having given to faith a false, narrow definition, not of faith, but of trust and obedience.

The separation of faith from works, and the comparison between them, show clearly that by faith is understood something different from the definition given by Paul and by the Eastern Patriarchs, and from what the word itself means, but what it signifies here is what the Eastern Patriarchs say in another place : "We believe as we are taught to believe (Section 10)." It is evident that in Filaret, as well as in all the theological works, by faith is meant only an external agreement with what theology preaches, and this mere agreement is regarded as necessary for sanctification and salvation, and so we get here a definition not merely of faith in general, but at the same time of what men ought to believe in, and an explanation that he who believes will get great advantages, and he who does not believe will fare badly. ^ Before this, in the exposition of each dogma, there was an exposition of the dogma, say of God, the Trinity, redemption, the church, and the causes which led us to that faith were adduced, but nowhere was it said that it was necessary to believe and that it was profitable to believe. But here, instead of proofs, instead of the disclosure of truths, we suddenly hear that it is necessary to make a free effort, not to oppose oneself, but to try to believe, and that he who believes will be saved, and he who does not believe will perish.

Before this were disclosed the God-revealed truths, and it was assumed that this disclosure led us to the only aim of the teaching, to faith, that is, to the knowledge of God. Novv- an opposite method is used : we are told that in order that the truth about sanctification should be disclosed to us, it is necessary first to believe in that sanctification : believe, and then everything will be disclosed to you. But does not the whole purpose of the teaching consist in bringing me to faith ? But if you abandon that path of the disclosure of truths which lead me to faith, and tell me that it is necessary to believe what you say, as any man would say it, if he wanted to be believed, I have no longer any right to believe. If it comes all to a question of trust, my trust will depend only on the greater or lesser respect for him who is trying to convince me, and on the comparative probability of the evidence of truth. There is, however, no probability of this evidence in the teaching of the hierarchy, as we have seen heretofore, and so only one thing is left for me to do : to become frightened at the threats which are uttered against me for not believing, and, out of fear, to submit my reason to what is called grace, that is, to what the hierarchy teaches.

This attempt to submit our reason, this non-resistance to grace, we have all tried; it not only becomes inactive, but all the proofs in its favour mihtate against it, the moment a man seriously searches after truth. You say that I shall for ever ruin my soul if I do not believe you, but I do not believe you for the very reason that I am afraid that I may ruin my soul for ever. Especially now, when, after analyzing this article, it has become clear to me that the Theology, in taking up that which is most precious and important to it, the establishment of the sacraments, has itself declined to ascribe any meaning to that institution, and has been unable to justify it by anything but a naive assertion that it is necessary to believe that it is so.

By reducing in this manner the conception of faith to trust and obedience, and by dividing the inseparable, the Theology has involuntarily arrived at the question about the relation to each other of these two imaginary, unthinkable conceptions of faith, trust in what you are told, and good works, which are independent of faith. The following Art. 198 analyzes the relation of these two imaginary conceptions.

In order to understand the following article, it is necessary to keep in mind that since the earliest times when the false conception of trust in place of faith was introduced, there has arisen the question as to what saves, whether faith, or good works, and that those who have confessed this teaching have since the earliest times been divided into two hostile camps. Some say that faith saves, and others say that works save. Our Theology, with its customary method and complete freedom from all bonds of logic, affirms that both save. And here is the import of the following 198th article:

"However, no matter how great may be the value of faith, which embraces in its broader sense both hope and charity, and although this faith is the first' condition for the appropriation by man of Christ's deserts, — it alone is not sufficient for its aim. By faith alone a man may receive his justification and cleanse himself from sin in the sacrament of baptism, only when^ he just enters the kingdom of Christ's grace : he may after that receive the gifts of grace through the other sacraments of the church. But, that he may be able, after having entered the kingdom of grace, to preserve the righteousness and purity which he has acquired in baptism; that he may be able to make use of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which he has received through all the other sacraments; that he may be able to strengthen himself in his Christian life and gradually rise in Christian sanctity; that, finally, he may be able, after having completed his terrestrial activity, to appear as justified and sanctified at the terrible judgment of Christ, — for all that, in addition to faith, he needs good works, that is, those in which faith, hope, and charity, which abide in the soul of a Christian, are expressed in an external manner, as in their fruits, and which may serve as a precise execution of the divine will, which has been imparted to us in the Gospel law." (p. 305.)

After that are adduced proofs from Holy Scripture, which directly deny the whole preceding division into faith and works, and the preeminence of faith over works :

"(a) That faith alone without works is insufficient for salvation, is testified : (aa) by Christ the Saviour himself : Not every one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven (Matt. vii. 21; cf. xvi. 27); (bh) by Apostle James : Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (James ii. 24); (cc) by Apostle John : He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John ii. 4); (dd) by Apostle Paul : For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Eom. ii. 13); (b) that a Christian is obliged to show his faith, hope, and charity in good works : Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone... shew me thy faith without thy works.... For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also (James ii. 17, 18, 26); every man that hath this hope in him (in our Lord Jesus) purifieth himself, even as he is pure (1 John iii. 3); he that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me (John xiv. 21); my little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth (1 John iii. 18); (c) that men are called to the kingdom of Christ's grace for the very purpose that they may do good works : For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph. ii. 10); For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works (Tit. ii. 11-14.)" (pp. 305 and 306.)

All the texts quoted, especially those from the evangelists, show incontestably that faith cannot be separated from good works and that works are the results of faith, and consequently it would seem that this article directly destroys the whole meaning of the preceding article about the first meaning of faith. But the Theology is not in the least embarrassed by that. In the first article it contended against all the Christians who recognized salvation in works, and here it contends against those who recognize it in faith, and calmly destroys its own propositions, which does not keep it in the end from declaring triumphantly that the true teaching consists in accepting both, in spite of the fact that one excludes the other.

Indeed, no matter how irregular the separation of faith from works is, if that separation has once taken place in the conception of the behevers, it is naturally possible to affirm that either faith alone or works alone can save. If through faith we become completely purified and holy, good works evidently are superfluous. They are assumed in themselves, but no longer form an aim. But if we are saved by an effort of our will, as was said in the preceding article, it is obvious that first of all there must be that condition of will, that is, the act, and then only will there be faith and salvation. Both assertions are logical and consistent, but our hierarchy, arming itself with faith in itself, regards any logical consistency as superfluous; it enunciates both the contradictory propositions in the same breath. The concluding words of the article, which are to prove the necessity of good works, prove precisely the opposite.

« We cannot do good works except with the cooperation of divine grace, for which reason they are called the fruits of the Holy Ghost (Gal. v. 22). But since in the performance of good works we need the participation of our free will; since through this free participation in good works we express our faith, charity, and hope in God; since this participation frequently costs us great endeavours and troubles in our struggle with the enemies of our salvation, the world, the flesh, and the devil, — our Lord God has been pleased to take our good works into account, and, in proportion as we succeed in godliness with the aid of grace, he has been pleased to increase in us our spiritual gifts, in order that by its aid we may ascend from power to power, from glory to glory (2 Cor. iii. 18)." (p. 311.)

The whole part quoted is a repetition in different expressions of one and the same contradiction : we cannot do good works except through grace, but for that purpose we need the participation of our free will.

The moral apphcation of this dogma is more ludicrous than ever. Indeed, it is very hard to find any moral application for the most immoral of dogmas, whose aim it is to justify and permit vices and give an income to the hierarchy, but still we find a propos : (1) to pray to God that he may give us grace; (2) to thank God; (3) again to pray; (4) to follow the inspiration of grace; (5) man who has become as innocent as Adam ought to try to become innocent; (6) "let us walk with a true heart in the substance of faith to the throne of grace ! "