VICreation, Angels and Devils

Such is the doctrine about the Trinity in the radical Christian dogma, as expounded in fifty pages. On this dogma are based, and with its refutal are refuted, the dogmas about the Redeemer and Sanctifier, and every one of the dogmas which refer to the house-management of our salvation. I reject this dogma. I cannot help rejecting it, because, by accepting it, I should be renouncing the consciousness of my rational soul and the cognition of God. But, while rejecting this dogma, which is so contrary to human reason, and which has no foundation either in Scripture, or in Tradition, I still find inexphcable the cause which has led the church to profess this senseless dogma and so carefully pick out the imaginary proofs to confirm it. That is the more surprising to me since that terrible, blasphemous dogma, as expounded here, can apparently be of no use to any one or in anything, and since it is impossible to deduce any moral rule from it, as indeed is evident from the moral application of the dogma, — a collection of meaningless words, which are not connected in any way. Here is the application of the dogma :

"(1) All the persons of the Most. Holy Trinity, except the common attributes, which belong to them according to their essence, have still other, especial attributes, by which they differ from each other, so that the Father is indeed the Father and occupies the first place in the order of divine persons, the Son is the Son and occupies the second place, and the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost and occupies the third place, although by their divinity they are entirely equal among themselves. To each of us the Creator has given, in addition to the properties which we all have in common by our human nature, special properties, special talents, by which our special calhng and place is defined in the circle of our friends. To know these faculties and talents in ourselves, and to use them for our own benefit and for the benefit of our friends and for the glory of God, so as to justify our calling in this way, is the unquestionable duty of each man. (2) Differing from each other in their personal properties, all the persons of the Most Holy Trinity are, none the less, in a constant mutual communion : the Father is in the Son and in the Holy Ghost; the Son is in the Father and in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost is in the Father and in the Son (John xiv. 10). Even thus we, with all our differences according to our personal qualities, must observe the greatest possible communion and moral union among ourselves, being bound by the unity of essence and the bond of brotherly love. (3) In particular, let the fathers among ourselves keep in mind whose great name they bear, even as the sons, and all those who are begotten from the fathers, — and, keeping this in mind, let them see to it that they sanctify the names of father or son which they bear, through an exact performance of all the obligations imposed upon them by these names — (4) Finally, keeping in mind, to what disastrous results the Eastern Christians have been led through their arbitrary reasoning on the personal essence of God the Holy Ghost, let us learn to cling as fast as possible to the dogmas of faith of the teaching of the word of God and the Orthodox Church, and not to cross the eternal boundaries which our fathers in faith have set."

Thus it remains incomprehensible why this dogma is confirmed. Not only is it senseless and not based on Scripture or on Tradition, and nothing comes of it; in reality, according to my immediate observation of the believers, and according to my own personal recollection of the time when I myself was a believer, it turns out that I never believed in the Trinity and never saw a man who believed in the dogma of the Trinity. Out of a hundred men and women among the people not more than three will be able to name the persons of the Trinity, and not more than thirty will be able to say what the Trinity is, and will not be able to name the persons, but will include among them St. Nicholas the Miracle-worker and the Mother of God. The others do not even know anything about the Trinity. Among the masses I have not come across any conception about the Trinity. Christ is called the God-man, as it were, the eldest of the saints. The Holy Ghost is entirely unknown, and God remains the incomprehensible, almighty God, the beginning of everything. Nobody ever prays to the Holy Ghost, no one ever invokes him. In the more cultured circles I have also not found any belief in the Holy Ghost. I have met very many who very fervently believed in Christ, but never have I heard the Holy Ghost mentioned except for the purpose of theological discussion. The same was true of me : during all those years when I was an Orthodox believer the idea of the Holy Ghost never entered my mind. The belief in and definition of the Trinity I have found only in the schools, and thus it turns out that the dogma of the Trinity is not rational, not based on anything, is good for nothing, and no one believes in it, while the church professes it.

In order to comprehend why the church does that, it is necessary to investigate the further exposition of the church, and I proceed to do this. It would be a useless labour in the consequent investigation to point out all the errors, contradictions, senseless statements, and lies, for the investigation of the first two chapters about the most important dogmas has sufficiently demonstrated to the reader what the methods of reasoning and the expressions of the author are, I will now give a short exposition of all the dogmas, in their general interrelation, giving the pages and pointing out the chief propositions which are adduced in confirmation of the dogmas. I do this in order from the general connection of the whole teaching to elucidate the meaning which may not become evident from the separate passages.

I repeat what was in the beginning, so as to proceed consistently.

There is a God, and he is one (Art. 13). He is a spirit (Art. 17). He has an infinite number of attributes; his attributes, as revealed to us, are as follows (Art. 19). His attributes in general : unlimitedness, self-existence, independence, unchangeableness, omnipresence, eternity, almightiness. The attributes of his mind (Art. 20): omniscience and all-wisdom. The attributes of his will (Art, 21) : goodness, freedom, holiness, truth, justice. God, in addition to that, has persons. He is one and three persons. The persons are independent and inseparable (proofs from Holy Scripture, Arts. 26, 27, and 28). All three persons are equal to each other, though some have thought that one is more important than the others. But that is not true; they are all equal : the Father is God, the Son is God and consubstantial with the Father; there are adduced disputes which prove the opposite, and proofs from Holy Scripture which prove the opposite, and discussions about one God not being subject to another, but that both have equal power. The same is true of the divinity of the Holy Ghost. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have personal properties. Art. 32. Many controversies are cited about the personal attributes, and finally there is an exposition of the dogma that the personal attribute of the Father consists in. this, that he is not generated, but begets the Son, and produces the Holy Ghost (p, 263.)

"(a) Entirely in a spiritual manner and consequently without any suffering, without any sensuous secretion : because the essence of God is immaterial and simple; (h) he begets and produces since eternity and for eternity : for there has been no time when the Father has not been the Father of the Son and the producer of the Holy Ghost, just as there was no time when he was not God, and what has never begun cannot be said ever to end; (c) he begets and produces in such a way as only he alone knows and he who is born from him and proceeds from him, but of the creatures none can comprehend it; (d) finally, beginninglessness and causelessness are exclusively appropriated by God the Father only in relation to the other persons of the Holy Trinity, but by their divinity the Son and the Spirit are also beginningless and causeless, or, rather, the whole Trinity is co-beginningless and co-causeless." (pp. 263 and 264.)

"41. The personal attribute of God, the Holy Ghost." (p. 267.)

A controversy of over fifty pages about the question from whom the Holy Ghost proceeds, whether from the Father and the Son, or from the Father alone. The dispute is settled by an analysis of external proofs. The proofs are as follows :

"Who, putting his hand on his heart, will have the courage to affirm that we, who believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, have deviated from the truth ? Who will dare, in all conscience, to rebuke us for observing a heresy ? If we are rebuked for an error or a heresy, it would be just as right to rebuke for it all the holy fathers and teachers of the church; the same as to rebuke the (Ecumenical Councils, not only locally, but altogether the whole ancient church; the same as to rebuke the Word of God itself for error and heresy^

Who, we repeat, will be bold enough to utter such blasphemy ? "

Then follows a moral exposition of the dogma of the Trinity, which was quoted before„ One cannot help but come to the conclusion that the simplest, clearest application of all the preceding controversies is that one must not speak any foolishness; above all, one must not teach what nobody can understand, and, more important still, one must not impair the chief foundations of faith, love, and charity to your neighbour.

Then follows "Division II. Of God in his general relation to the world and to man. Chapter I. Of God as the Creator." God has created the world^

Here is the way the church teaches about it : "Unquestionably God is the creator of all visible and invisible creations. First he produced through thought all the celestial powers, as exalted psalmists of his glory, and created all that mental world which, through the grace given to it, knows God and is always and in everything devoted to his will. After that he created out of notliing this visible and material world. At last God created man, who is composed of the immaterial rational soul and the material body, so that from this one man, thus composed, it might be seen that he is the creator of both the worlds, the immaterial and the material." (p. 351.)

After that, as always, follows a controversy : "Some assumed that the world was eternal; others admitted its emanation from God; others again taught that the world was created by itself, by accident, from the eternal chaos or from atoms; others taught that God has formed it from coeternal matter; but no one could rise to the concept of the production of the world out of nothing by the almighty power of God." (p. 352.) All these opinions are refuted in Art. 55 : ''God created the world out of nothing." 56, ''God created the world not from eternity, but in time, or together with time." (p. 360.)

The farther one reads the book, the more one has to marvel. It looks as though the problem and purpose of the book consisted in keeping out rational comprehension, not the comprehension of the divine mysteries, but simply the comprehension of what is being said. I can imagine a man who admits that God created the world. Well, what more do you want ? He does not care to inquire any farther into the teaching. No, they demand of him that he should recognize that the world is created not from something, but from nothing, not from eternity, but in time. On this point there is a controversy, and it is proved to him that the world was created in time or, more correctly, with time. "Prescience or predetermination were in God before existence." It says, "At one time the world did not exist," that is, it says, if God's prescience be admitted, that when there was no time, God knew the future. And when it says, "At one time the world did not exist," and time did not exist, it says that there was time (for "at one time "means time) when there was no time. And when it says that "God created time," it says (since the verb is used in the past tense), there was a time when God created time.

57. The world was created by all three persons. This is proved by Holy Scripture, and is expressed thus :

"The Father created the world through the Son in the Holy Ghost; "or "everything is from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost; "however, not in the sense that the Son and the Holy Ghost performed some instrumental and slavish service at the creation, but that constructively they performed the Father's will. (p. 365.)

58. The manner of the creation. The world was created (1) through reason, (2) through willing, and (3) through the word :

"God created the world according to his eternal ideas about it, quite freely, by the mere beck of his will. The plan of the world creation had been predetermined since eternity in his ideas; the free will determined to materialize this plan; the beck of his will actually materialized it."

Particularly fine is here the word "ideas."

59. The incitement toward the creation, and its purpose. God created the world for this reason :

"We must believe that God, being good and all-good, though all-perfect and all-glorious in himself, created the world out of nothing for the purpose that other beings, glorifying him, might partake of his grace." (p. 370.)

The purpose of God is glory. Proofs from Holy Scripture and then :

60. The perfection of the creation and whence evil comes into the world. The question is, Whence comes the evil ? and the answer is that there is no evil. And the proof for this is as follows :

"God is a supremely all- wise and omnipotent being, consequently he could not have created the world imperfect, could not have created a single thing in it which would be insufficient for its purpose and would not serve for the perfection of the whole. God is a most holy and all-good being, consequently he could not be the cause of evil, either physical or moral, and if he had created an imperfect world, it would have been so, because he was unable to create a more perfect one, or because he did not want to. But both assumptions are equally incongruous with the true concept of the highest being." End of the article, (p. 376.)

There is no evil, because God is good. But how about our suffering from the evil ? What sense was there in asking ? How can there be any evil, when there is none ?

61. The moral application of the dogma is that it is necessary to glorify God, and so forth.

62. About the spiritual worid. "Angels are incorporeal spirits, endowed with reason, will, and power. They were created before the visible world and before man —; are divided into nine forms —; and the evil angels themselves were created by God as good, but became evil by their own will." (p. 377.)

And again, as always, there comes a controversy with those who spoke differently of the angels and the demons. Then proofs from Holy Scripture that there are angels of various orders.

"65. By their natures the angels are incorporeal spirits, more perfect than the human soul, but limited."

They were created after the likeness of God, and have mind and will. Proofs from Holy Scripture.

66. Number and degrees of angels. The celestial hierarchy.

The number of angels is legion, that is, very large. There are various classes of celestial powers, (p. 396.)

There follows a controversy with Origen about the orders of the angels, and it is proved that there are nine classes of them. (p. 397.)

"The angels are divided into nine classes, and these nine into three orders. In the first order are those who are nearer to God, such as thrones, cherubim, and seraphim; in the second order are dominions, principalities, and powers; in the third order are angels, archangels, and beginnings. This division is based partly (a) on Holy Scripture, at least in this respect that in Holy Scripture we meet with the names of all the orders of the angels, as given here — but mainly (h) on Holy Tradition." (pp. 198 and 199.) ^ "Of the private opinions the most noteworthy is this, that the division of the angels into nine orders embraces only the names and orders of those that were revealed in the Word of God, but does not embrace many other names and classes of angels which have not been revealed to us in this life, but will become known to us in the life to come."

67. Various appellations of evil spirits and the authenticity of their existence. In addition to the angels there are the devil and his angels.

"That this devil and his angels are accepted in Holy Scripture as personal and actual beings, and not as imaginary beings, is to be seen (1) from the books of the Old Testament, (2) still more from the books of the New Testament." Then follow proofs.

68. The evil spirits were created good, but they themselves became bad. How the good could have become bad is not explained, but there are many proofs from Scriptures. The devils became bad, some fathers of the church say, immediately before the creation of the world, while others say that the devils remained for a considerable time in the state of grace, (p. 406.) The devils became bad not all at once :

"At first one only fell, the chief of them, then he drew after him all the rest. This chief devil, according to some opinions, had been, previous to his fall, the very first and most perfect of all created spirits, who excelled before all the hosts of the angels; but according to the opinion of others, he belonged to the order of the supreme spirits (ra^Ldpxoiv)f to the leadership of which the lower orders of the angels were subject, — indeed he was among the number of those among whom the Lord apportioned the government of the parts of the world. The others, whom the fallen morning star drew after him, were the angels who were subject to him, who therefore could easily be carried away by his example, or suasion, or deception." (pp. 406 and 407.)

What sin caused the devils to fall ? Some say, because they mingled with the daughters of man, others say through envy, and others again say through pride.

"There have been various opinions as to what the pride of tlie fallen spirit, which formed his first sin, consisted in. Some, on the basis of the words of Isaiah (xiv. 13, 14), have supposed that the devil took it into his head to be equal with God in essence and to sit on the same throne vdth him, or even dreamed of being higher than God, for which reason he became God's antagonist who exalted himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped (2 Thes. ii. 4). Others supposed that the fallen morning star did not wish to bow before the Son of God, having been envious of his privileges, or because he saw from the revelation that this Son of God would suffer some day, and so doubted his divinity and did not wish to acknowledge him as God."

How deep the devils fell, and whether God gave them time for repentance, is also determined (p. 410); it is declared that previous to the creation of the world the devils had a chance to repent, but after that they could no longer do so.

69. The nature of the evil spirits, their number, and degrees. The nature of the devils is the same as that of the angels; the number of the devils is very great, and it is assumed that there are orders among them too. From this is made (Art. 70) a moral apphcation of the dogma. The apphcation of the dogma is here more startling than in the previous cases, but here for the first time this application has a definite purpose :

"(3) The angels of God are all equal among themselves in their nature, but are distinguished according to their powers and perfections, and, consequently, there are among them higher and lower angels; there are those who rule, and those who are subject; there is an invariable hierarchy, estabhshed by God. Even thus it ought to be with us : in all the unity of our natures, we differ from each other, by the will of the Creator, through our different faculties and distinctions; consequently among us, too, there ought to be higher and lower, rulers and sub- jects, and in our societies God himself arranges the order and hierarchy, enthrones his anointed ones (Prov. viii. 15), gives all the lower powers (Eom. xiii. 1), and ordains for each man his service and place." (p. 415.)

For the first time a definite rule is patched on a dogma.

71. Soon after the creation of the angels and the devils, God created the material world in this fashion :

"In the beginning God created from nothing the heaven and the earth. The earth was without form and void. Then God successively produced : on the first day of the world, light; on the second, the firmament or visible heaven; on the third, the gathering of the waters on the earth, the dry land, and the plants; on the fourth, the sun, moon, and stars; on the fifth, fishes and birds; on the sixth, four-footed animals living on the dry land." (p. 416.)

72. Moses' account of the origin of the material world is history. A proof is given that history began when there was no time.

73. The meaning of Moses' account of the creation is six days. It is argued that all of Moses' words have to be taken in their literal sense.

74. A refutal of the objections made against Moses' account. In refutal of the false opinion of the rationalists that there could not be any day and night when there was no sun, the following is said :

"Nowadays, indeed, there could be no day without the sun, but at that time it was possible. For that only two conditions were needed : {a) that the earth should turn around its own axis, and (b) that the light-bearing matter, which existed even then, should be brought into a quivering motion. But it cannot be denied that the earth began to turn around its own axis with the very first day of creation; nor that the Creator could in the first three days by his immediate power bring the light-bearing matter into a quivering motion, just as now, beginning with, the fourth day, it is brought into motion by the celestial luminaries, which have received this power from God." (p. 423.)

It is necessary to repeat word for word and quickly to admit that God brings the light-bearing matter into motion by his immediate power, as though his problem did not consist in creating the world, but that the manner of the creation should agree with the Bible, rather than admit any departure from the words of Moses, which might harmonize his account with our concepts and knowledge of zoology, physics, and astronomy. The whole history of the creation in six days has to be understood word for word; thus the church commands. This is a dogma.

75. The moral application of the dogma. This application consists in the necessity of attending mass on Sunday and sanctifying the seventh day.

"76. The Lord our God, at the end of the creation, produced man, who belongs equally to the spiritual world, by his soul, and to the material world, by his body, and so he is, as it were, an abbreviation of the two worlds and has since antiquity justly been called the little world." (p. 427.), "God in the Holy Trinity said : Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness (Gen. i. 26). And God made the body of the first man, Adam, from the earth; breathed into his face the breath of life; brought Adam into Paradise; gave him for food, besides the other fruits of Paradise, the fruits of the tree of life; finally he took a rib from Adam during his sleep, and from it created the first woman. Eve — "(p. 427.)

77. The essence and meaning of Moses' account of the origin of the first men, Adam and Eve. This account of Moses is to be taken in the sense of history, and not in the sense of an invention or myth, because Moses and the holy fathers understood it in a historical sense. On the other hand it says (p. 429) : "It is to be understood in the sense of history, but not in a literal sense."

The question as to what is meant by understanding in a historical but not a hteral sense remains unanswered.

78. The origin of Adam and Eve and of the whole human race. According to the established order, there follows a controversy. Here are those with whom the controversy is carried on :

"This truth has two kinds of enemies : in the first place those who affirm that there existed men on earth before Adam (Preadamites), and that, therefore, Adam is not the first ancestor of the human race; in the second place, those who admit that with Adam there were several progenitors of the human race (Postadamites), and that, consequently, men did not originate from one root."

As in many other passages of the book, it is evident that the point is not in the refutal, for there is no refutal, but only in giving utterance to a dogma. A dogma is only the product of a controversy. Consequently it is necessary to put forward that against which an argument is adduced, in order to be able to say wherein the teaching of the church consists. Here, of course, are victoriously refuted the proofs of the first on the basis of Holy Scripture, and the proofs of the second from physiology, linguistics, and geography, — on the basis of those same sciences which are interpreted to suit its own purposes. These proofs of the unity of the human race are remarkable only for this, that here, almost under our eyes, takes place the formation of what is called a dogma, and what, in reality, is nothing but the expression of one particular opinion in any controversy. Some prove that men could not have had one progenitor, others prove that they could. Neither can adduce anything conclusive in their defence. And this dispute is not interesting and has nothing in common with the question of faith, with the question as to what constitutes the meaning of my life. Not one of the disputants is disputing for the sake of solving the scientific question, but each because a certain solution is needed by him. This confirms their tradition.

The Theology adduces proofs that God could have counted days, when there was no sun, by saying that he shook the matter; but to prove that all men originated in one man, we read on p. 437 :

"Nowadays the best linguists, after prolonged labours, have come to the conclusion that all languages and all dialects of man are to be referred to three chief classes, the Indo-European, the Semitic, and the Malay, and cjme down from one root, which they find in the Hebrew language, while others do not define it." (p. 437.)

The Theology says that it knows all about it in this matter. And these ignorant words pass unnoticed in the world of science; but let us imagine that the composer of the Theology, which is quite possible, will turn out to be a father of the church in three hundred years; then his words will serve as a confirmation of the dogma. In another five hundred years God himself who shakes matter may become a dogma. Only such reflection gives an explanation to those strange, wild utterances, which now are taken as dogmas.

79. The origin of each man and, in particular, the origin of the soul. All men originated from Adam, "still, none the less, God is the Creator of each man. The difference is this, that Adam and Eve he created directly, while all their descendants he creates indirectly, by the power of his blessing, which he gave to our first fathers soon after the creation of the world, saying : Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." (p. 439.)

Then follow texts of Holy Scripture, and then a minute determination by the church when the soul of man is created :

"The holy church, believing in the divine Scripture, teaches that the soul is created with the body, but not together with the seed from which the body is formed does it receive its existence, but, by the will of the Creator, it appears in the body soon after its formation." (p. 440.)

When this formation of the body takes place it does not say. For the purpose of elucidation the following is said :

"At the time when the body is formed it becomes capable of receiving the soul."

If that does not explain the matter, what follows explains whence and from what the soul is created by God. Here we again have a controversy. Some have said that the soul originated by itself from the souls of the parents, while others have said that it came from nothing, directly from the seed. All are wrong :

"God creates the human souls, just as he creates the bodies, by force of the same blessing, to be fruitful and multiply, which he gave to our forefathers in the beginning, — he creates them not out of nothing, but out of the souls of the parents. For, according to the teaching of the church, although the souls of men receive their existence through creation, the stigma of the ancestral sin passes to them from the parents, — and this could not be, if God created them from nothing." (pp. 441 and 442.)

80. The composition of man. Man consists of two parts, of the soul and the body, and not of three parts. As usual, there comes after that a dispute and confirmations from Holy Scripture. The dispute is directed against those who assert that man consists of three parts, of body, soul, and spirit. That is not so, — he consists only of body and soul.

81. The properties of the human soul are the following : "(1) It is an independent essence, separate from the body, (2) immaterial, simple (spirit), (3) free, and (4) immortal." (pp. 449-453.)

There follow proofs from Holy Scripture. But what is this soul of mine ? What connection is there between it and the body ? Where are the hmits of the soul and the body ? From the definition of the properties of the soul directly result these questions. But there are no answers for them. What is so provoking in this teaching is that it compels you to put questions to which there can be no answers. As the definition of the attributes of God have abased and destroyed in me the conception of God, even so the definitions of the properties of the soul and its origin abase and lower in me the conception of the soul. God and the soul I know as well as I know infinity, not by means of definitions, but in an entirely different way. The definitions destroy this knowledge in me. Just as I know beyond any doubt that there is an infinity in number, so I know that there is a God and that I have a soul. But this knowledge is unquestionable for me only because I was inevitably brought to it. To the certainty of the infinity in number I was brought by addition. To the certainty of the knowledge of God I was brought by the question, "Whence am I ? "To the certainty of the soul I was brought by the question, "What am I ? "And I know beyond any doubt that there is an infinity in number, and that God exists, and that my soul exists, when I am led to this knowledge by means of the simplest questions.

To two I add one, and still one, and again and again, or I break a stick into two, and again into two, and again and again, and I cannot help recognizing infinity. I was born from my mother, and she from my grandmother, and she from my great-grandmother, and the last from whom ? And I inevitably come to God. My hands are not I; my feet are not I; my head — not I, my feelings — not I, even my thoughts — not I; what, then, am I ? 1 = 1, I = my soul. But when I am told that an infinite number is first or not first, even or odd, I no longer comprehend a thing, and even renounce my conception of infinity. The same do I experience when I am told about God, his essence, his attributes, his person; I no longer understand God. I do not believe in God. The same, when I am told about my soul and its properties. I no longer understand about it, and do not believe in my soul. No matter from what side I may approach God, it will be the same : the beginning of my thought, of my reason, is God; the beginning of my love is he again; the beginning of materiality is he again. But when I am told that God has fourteen attributes, mind and will, persons, or that God is good and just, or that God created the world in six days, I no longer believe in God. The same is true of the conception of the soul. When I turn to my striviQg after truth, I know that this striving after truth is the immaterial foundation of myself, my soul; when I turn to the feeling of my love of the good, I know that it is my soul which loves. But the moment I am told that this soul was placed in me by God from the souls of my parents, when I was in the womb of my mother, and my body was able to receive it, I do not believe in the soul and ask, as ask the materialists : "Show me that of which you speak ! Where is it ? "