Article 1: On Spirits (Part 1)

“On Death” was written with a purely ascetic purpose. A demand for greater theological precision gave rise to those additions which were incorporated at the present edition. Certain objections had been raised against some of the teachings of the Orthodox Church set forth in the “On Death.” These objections arose from teaching encountered in Western writers. For this reason it is deemed not superfluous to acquaint the children of the Orthodox Church with the Western opinion concerning spirits, paradise, and hell, and to expose the groundlessness and falsity of that opinion. Our information concerning the above-mentioned subjects is drawn from the Western writer Bergier.1

Quotation 1. “A spirit is an immaterial being, distinct from the body.” Such is the definition the Western writer gives to spirit in general. From this definition God is not excluded, and is thereby placed in the same category as all spirits. This is not stated here with clarity, but it is clearly discerned, as will be seen further on—especially in the article in which the Western writer discusses spirits in general.2

Quotation 2. “An angel is a spiritual, rational being, of the first rank in dignity among created things.”3

Quotation 3. “The soul is a spiritual, thinking being, the principle of life in man.”4

Quotation 4. “The Fathers of the Church hold differing opinions concerning the nature of angels. Some, such as Tertullian, Origen, Saint Clement of Alexandria, and others, held that angels are always clothed in a subtle body. Others, such as Saint Basil, Saint Athanasius, Saint Cyril,5 Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint John Chrysostom, and others, regarded them as purely spiritual beings. Such is the opinion of the whole Church;6 but Holy Scripture testifies that angels frequently appeared clothed in a body; therefore we see no reason why the opinion of Tertullian should be considered dangerous.”7 It will be demonstrated further on that the Western writer’s appeal to the Eastern Fathers is erroneous.

Quotation 5. “Many philosophers of our age have pressed their prejudiced judgment to such a point that they have ventured to assert that the writers of Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church did not ascribe to the word ‹spirit› the meaning which we give to it; that by this word they understood only a very subtle substance, a being of a fiery or airy nature, inaccessible to our senses, but by no means a being absolutely immaterial.”8 The judgment here called prejudiced is in fact the correct one. Neither Holy Scripture nor the holy Fathers gave to the word “spirit” that meaning which the Westerners only recently began to assign to it. Holy Scripture and the holy Fathers acknowledge, confess, and proclaim the perfect immateriality and independence from space and time of the one Spirit-God. They use the word “spirit” to denote moral qualities. But in all cases where “spirit” denotes an animate or inanimate object, both Scripture and the Fathers plainly understand substance—subtle substance, distinct from gross substance. The expression that created spirits are beings of a fiery or airy nature belongs specifically to the Fathers, as will be proven further on by more precise quotations from them.

Quotation 6. “We acknowledge that in all known languages there is no word properly and exclusively used to denote an immaterial being. Since imagination proved insufficient to devise such an expression, recourse had to be made to metaphor to serve in its place. Most of the names given to it signify spirit, breath—a sign of life.”9

Quotation 7. “But all human beings, having no concept of philosophy, distinguished by natural judgment between the living, active, self-moving being—the principle of motion—and the dead, passive being incapable of motion. The former they called spirit, the latter body, or matter. This distinction is as ancient as the world itself, and is universal wherever man is found. All were so convinced of the lifelessness of matter that they assumed the presence of spirit wherever they perceived motion.”10 Upon this foundation—so very uncertain—the Western writer builds his teaching concerning spirits.

Quotation 8. The essence of the question is brought to the following:

“When the writers of Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and the ancient philosophers speak of God, of angels, of spirits, do they regard them as dead, passive, motionless beings, or as beings that feel, think, and act?”11 It is evident: God, the Creator of spirits, is here placed in the same category of beings as the spirits He has created.

Quotation 9. “The writers of Holy Scripture and the holy Fathers, who acknowledged creation, understood that God acted by His will alone: God said: let there be light, and there was light.12 Can a material being be a creator?”13 The Western writer acknowledges that created spirits also are absolutely immaterial: therefore, by his own objection, spirits must be acknowledged capable of creating from nothing, since this capacity is attributed to absolute immateriality. Here again God is placed in the same category as created spirits, and one can see the effort, by means of such a conflation—while defending the perfect immateriality and spirituality of God—to defend the Western Church’s opinion concerning the perfect immateriality of created spirits.

Quotation 10. “We have little need to know whether the ancients thought or not that every spirit is always clothed in a subtle body; for us it is enough that these two beings were never confused.”14 The Fathers did not consider spirits to be clothed in a body; rather, they considered their very substance to be a subtle body.

Quotation 11. “We acknowledge, however, that in Holy Scripture the word ‹spirit› does not always denote an immaterial being. Since the distinguishing property of spirit is activity, the ancients called ‹spirit› every active cause, such as wind and whirlwind.”15 A precise definition of the meaning which Scripture and the Fathers gave to the word “spirit” will be seen further on in the quotation drawn from the works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem.

Quotation 12. “Unbelievers say that before Descartes16 philosophers and theologians attributed spatiality to spirits.” This shows from what time the Western Church adopted its present opinion concerning spirits. The writer does not dispute this. He adds: “Even if this were true, nothing would follow from it, for despite Descartes there are still philosophers who, while admitting an essential distinction between bodies and spirits, maintain that the latter do not exist in complete independence of space.”17 There are, it must be noted, philosophers—but not theologians; Western theologians have unanimously acknowledged the independence of created spirits from space, on a par with God. For the latest philosophers, if they are acquainted with the positive sciences that explain matter, it is entirely impossible to acknowledge either the independence of a limited being from space, or the immateriality of such a being on a par with the immateriality of the unlimited Being, God. Descartes borrowed his opinion from the ancient pagan philosopher Plato. Descartes sees no connection, no affinity—to use the technical language of chemistry—between spirit and matter. This is true with respect to God alone: for the annihilation of affinity between things requires an infinite difference between them. In this way God alone differs from everything. While rejecting all relation of the soul and spirits to space, Descartes at the same time assigns the soul a place in the pineal gland—thereby plainly contradicting himself. In this way he confines the soul to space and matter, placing it in dependence on space and matter. From this there follows, as a necessary consequence, the concept of the materiality of the soul, which stands in a natural and involuntary connection with the body. Both the opinion of Descartes and that of Plato rest solely on arbitrary assumption, and not on a precise deduction from science, as all the sciences that deal with matter require in their current state of development. For this reason the system of Descartes and Plato can and must have no standing in science: the place of this system is in the history of science, alongside other obsolete knowledge which was accepted by all or many in its time as truth. This system, being contrary to Holy Scripture, must have no place whatsoever in Orthodox theology: for with its acceptance, the teaching of Scripture concerning paradise and hell—in which created spirits will enjoy blessedness and endure torment in a definite relation to space and matter—must be rejected. The very existence of created spirits must be denied! For if the soul is not bounded by the body and has no affinity with it, then the soul, by making known to us its presence in the body, is no longer a being but merely a phenomenon, like sound and other phenomena in nature. The Church writers of the second century, the holy martyr Justin18 and Tertullian,19 refuted the teaching of Plato with complete satisfaction. Bergier himself remarks that “the teaching of Plato concerning God, angels, and souls, if accepted, undoubtedly undermines the most fundamental principles of Christianity.”20

Quotation 13. “A theologian must know on what grounds the writers of Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church are accused of ignorance concerning the nature of spiritual beings, and of believing that God, angels, and human souls are corporeal beings.”21 Would it not be more fitting for this theologian, acknowledging his knowledge to be ignorance, to turn to a diligent study of Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church, in order to draw from them true knowledge? Let us note: God is here again placed in the same category of spiritual beings as created spirits and the human soul.

Quotation 14. “The first truth which Sacred History teaches us is that God is the Creator, that He created all things by His Word or by the simple act of His will: therefore He is pure Spirit. This same History teaches us that God created man in His own image and after His own likeness. Therefore man is not body alone: he is rational, active, free in his will, as God is.”22 The Western writer lacked only the candor to state his opinion outright: that man’s soul is the same kind of being as God. This, however, follows as an inevitable consequence from such reasoning. God differs from created spirits and the human soul completely—not only in essence but in attributes. His attributes are unlimited, and His essence is unlimited. The attributes of created spirits are limited: their essence is therefore of necessity also limited. If their essence is limited, then their spirituality also is limited. The spirituality of God, on the contrary, is boundless: it is perfect and absolute spirituality. An image is in no way required to be of the same substance as its original. We see this in human likenesses. Both a portrait and a statue may bear the closest resemblance to the original, yet it does not at all follow that their very substance is identical with the substance of the original.

Quotation 15. Gregory the Theologian (of Nazianzus) says that “an angel is a being of fiery nature, or a rational spirit (breath). According to Methodius, souls are rational (noetic) bodies. If we are to believe Cassian, a Roman priest, the spirit of man has the same form as the body, and is diffused through all parts of the body. Finally, Saint Augustine acknowledges that the soul is in some sense a body.”23 Blessed Augustine is particularly esteemed by the Westerners. They give him the first place among the Fathers of the Church and call him divine. The opinion of Augustine placed the Western writer in an awkward position.

Quotation 16. “The ancients often confused the concept of body with the concept of substance. They called ‹body› every limited being, defined by place, every being subject to accidents and changes. In this sense they said that God alone is incorporeal.”24 These ancients are none other than the Fathers of the Church. The Western writer, in setting forth their opinion, does not approve it. It is evident: he would have wished the Fathers had not expressed themselves thus, so that the more recent Western teaching concerning the perfect spirituality of angels, demons, and human souls—a spirituality identical and equal to the spirituality of God—might not have encountered an insurmountable barrier in the Tradition of the Church, that is, in the writings of the Fathers.

Quotation 17. “Father Peter, having cited in chapter 2 passages from the Fathers which seem to assume that angels are corporeal, cites in chapter 3 a very great number of these holy teachers who affirmed the perfect spirituality of the heavenly spirits.”25 How far this can be trusted we shall see further on. For his part, Bergier named as those who regard angels as purely spiritual: Saint Athanasius the Great, Saint Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. He did not mention Gregory the Theologian, since the latter had been shown to hold a contrary opinion (Quotations 4 and 15).

Quotation 18. “In their disputes with heretics the Fathers sometimes let slip expressions that were incorrect, borrowed from ancient philosophy. This arose from the fact that human language—always very inadequate for expressing theological subjects—could not be brought in a short time to such precision as it possesses today.”26 In order to vindicate an opinion recently adopted by the Western Church, its writer labors to give the impression that the Fathers borrowed their expressions concerning spirits from ancient philosophers.

Quotation 19. Mosheim says that “the ancient philosophers distinguished in man two souls: namely, the sensitive soul, which they also called spirit and conceived of as a subtle body, and the bodiless, indestructible, immortal soul. At the death of a man both souls separated from the human body and remained always united, yet without mingling, so that one soul could be decisively separated from the other. This critic (Mosheim) supposes that the Fathers of the Church preserved this philosophical opinion within Christianity.”27 The teaching that man possesses both soul and spirit is found both in Holy Scripture28 and in the holy Fathers. For the most part both words are used to denote the entire invisible part of the human being; in that case both words have an identical meaning.29 The soul is distinguished from the spirit when this is required in order to explain the invisible, deep, and mysterious ascetic struggle. The spirit is the name given to the rational power of the human soul in which the image of God is imprinted, and by which the human soul is distinguished from the soul of animals—for Scripture also ascribes souls to animals,30 which are called irrational, yet which also possess life, instinct, and their own sensations, referred to as their souls even in Holy Scripture. The Venerable Macarius the Great, in answer to the question “Is the mind (spirit) one thing and the soul another?”, replied: “Just as the members of the body, though many, are called one man: so too the members of the soul are many—mind, will, conscience, thoughts that accuse and acquit—yet all these are united in a single rational faculty, and are members of the soul; yet the soul itself is one—the inner man.”31 In Orthodox theology we read: “As for the spirit, which, on the basis of certain passages of Scripture,32 is regarded by some as the third constituent part of man, according to the words of Saint John of Damascus it is not something distinct from the soul and independently subsistent like it, but rather the higher side of that same soul; as the eye is to the body, so the mind is to the soul.”33

Quotation 20. “Let us suppose for a moment that perhaps some Fathers of the Church truly held such a view. From this it already follows that these Fathers, like the ancient philosophers, had a very clear concept of perfect spirituality,34 since they attributed it to the rational soul, which they called νόος, mens (mind, spirit), insofar as it was distinguished from the sensitive soul (ψυχή, anima, soul), which they conceived of as a very subtle body. It also follows from this that the Fathers, although they may have held that angels are always clothed in a subtle body, did not for that reason confuse them with bodies; and acknowledged them as properly spiritual beings.”35 As has already been said, the Fathers did not regard angels as clothed in a subtle body: they regarded their very substance as a subtle body.

Quotation 21. “To speak the truth, the Fathers, compelled to submit to the common mode of expression, were brought into the same difficulty as the philosophers had been. Necessity forced them to explain the nature, properties, and actions of the soul by means of expressions borrowed from material objects—for no language in the world can offer any others. Thus some of the Fathers used the word ‹body› in a sense similar to that of the word ‹substance›, since the latter was not used in Latin in the same meaning as it is used by us. Others called the mode of existence of spirits their form (image, appearance), and their actions, movement. Still others denoted the presence of the soul throughout all parts of the body by the word ‹diffusion›, and so on. All of this consists of metaphors; to found conclusions upon them is absurd (foolish).”36 It is evident: the Western writer supposes that spirits possess neither any form nor any movement. Such is the inevitable conclusion for a follower of Descartes. It is impossible to have movement for one who has no relation whatsoever to space. Movement requires space. A being possessed of movement necessarily stands in a certain relation to space—that is, it occupies a definite place in space. A being that occupies a defined place in space must necessarily have its own appearance, its own form. A being that changes places must necessarily have movement. To acknowledge movement is to acknowledge dependence upon space; it is to acknowledge materiality. The denial of movement and dependence on space for created spirits must inevitably be joined with the denial of the existence of created spirits—with the rejection of all that Holy Scripture declares concerning the actions of these spirits. Throughout Scripture, movement of spirits is spoken of, their change of place, and their appearance.

Quotation 22. “Let us suppose that the Fathers gave poor explanations of those passages of Holy Scripture in which the bodily actions of demons are spoken of, and that they erroneously attributed to these spirits subtle bodies, human tastes and inclinations. This error is purely abstract, on a very obscure question, and touches no dogma of the Christian faith. It does not follow from this that demons are by their nature material beings, or derived from matter; only that they have need to clothe themselves in a subtle body when God permits them to act upon bodies.”37 What is this? — A dressing-room. If spirits need to clothe themselves in bodies each time they appear to men, then for such bodies—assumed only temporarily, assumed with each apparition—an extensive storeroom would be required; or else each apparition of a spirit would need to be preceded by the creation of a body for it. The matter is simpler: spirits appear in their own nature when the eyes of those people who see spirits are opened.

The Western writer calls the teaching concerning spirits a very obscure question that belongs to no dogma of the Christian faith. This cannot be agreed with. Every science is obscure to those who have not studied it; it remains considerably obscure even to those who have studied it insufficiently and superficially. Results attained by certain sciences appear incredible to those uninitiated into the mysteries of science. The measurements performed by trigonometric instruments were called sorcery by our simple folk, and someone who for the first time saw an astrolabe smashed it, recognizing in it the work of witchcraft. A knowledge of spirits—as precise and detailed as possible—is necessary for Christians. The very purpose of Christ’s coming to earth consists in destroying the works of the devil and abolishing the devil.38 From this it follows: not knowing what the devil is, we cannot know what Christ has done for us; the very dogma that Christ came to earth to destroy the works of the devil and abolish him must remain unexplained for those who do not take care to obtain a proper understanding of spirits. — God placed enmity between the seed of the woman Eve and the seed39 of the serpent Satan—that is, between human beings, who are naturally the seed of the woman, and demons, who are the seed and children of Satan through the disposition they have borrowed from him: the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking40 to devour someone among us; we must wage unceasing war against principalities and powers and the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.41 Being in such a dangerous position—being constantly at war and under the gleaming fiery42 dagger of our most malicious enemy and murderer—we need to know this enemy in as much detail as is possible for us, in order to oppose him with all proper resistance, and to guard ourselves against him in every respect. Without such knowledge one may very easily remain in communion with him without noticing it, all the more so because he always conceals himself under the appearance of good.43 This has befallen very many, who perceived nothing of their wretched state: and while the Jews proclaimed themselves sons of God,44 God, standing before them face to face, declared to them that they were children of the devil.45 The holy Fathers consider a most thorough knowledge of spirits to be critically necessary and strive to impart it.46 A lack of sound knowledge concerning spirits leads either to direct denial of the existence of spirits, or to indirect denial. The indirect denial of the existence of spirits may with full justice be called the Western abstract understanding of them, under which all participation of spirits in the activity of humanity—as set forth in Scripture and the Fathers—must be rejected. Together with this, of necessity the significance of the Incarnation of Christ must also be rejected, and thereby the proper understanding and confession of Christianity is perverted. Whence comes this unhappy phenomenon? From life in the spirit and system of the rulers of this world, as the Lord said to the Jews.47 The fallen spirits take the greatest care to act in secret and remain undetected.48 When they do so, their actions receive the greatest scope for development. By this sign let those know who deny the existence of spirits—openly or covertly—that they have entered into decided subjection to demons and into union with them, having been estranged from God.

Quotation 23. “The prophet Elijah, wishing to raise a certain child, said to God: O Lord my God, let the soul of this child return to him.49 The narrator adds that the soul of this child returned to him, and he was raised to life.”50 This testimony greatly troubles the Western writer, since it expresses the movement of the soul—which, as we have seen, he denied, calling such expressions concerning spirits mere metaphors. Bergier, having mentioned that Scripture contains many such passages, said nothing either about the movement of the soul or about its dependence on space, but turned only to reproach materialists for denying the resurrection.

From the quotations we have made we arrive at the following general conclusion: the Westerners, having in recent times accepted many teachings foreign and contrary to the Orthodox Church, have recently accepted a teaching also foreign and contrary to it—concerning the perfect immateriality of created spirits—and have attributed to them spirituality of the same degree as God possesses. They have placed God, the Creator of all and of everything, in the same category of beings as created spirits, acknowledge their independence from space, deny in them the bodily capacity for locomotion, and in a word attribute to their nature properties identical with those of God—while, however, continuing to regard them as created and limited. This teaching contains a manifest contradiction: it destroys itself. The Western writer thinks to ground his opinion on Holy Scripture, on the Fathers of the Church, and on science. In these three respects we are obliged to present a satisfactory refutation, which must at the same time serve as a witness to the correctness and sanctity of the teaching imparted by the Orthodox Church.

God is an all-perfect being, having nothing in common with created beings. He alone—He and none other—is properly Being. I am He Who is, He said of Himself.51 I am the life,52 said the Lord of Himself: for as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself.53 The existence and life of rational creatures differ from the Life-God as the light shed by objects illuminated by the sun differs from the light flowing properly from the sun—the source of light. The being and life of creatures are the faintest reflection of the being and life that are properly the attribute of God. Saint John of Damascus says: “The Good, all-good, and supremely good God, being Himself all goodness, in the immeasurable wealth of His goodness did not permit goodness—that is, His own nature—to remain alone with no one to share in it. For this reason He created rational and heavenly Powers, then the visible and material world, and finally man, from both rational and material nature. And so all that He has created, by the very fact of its existence, participates in His goodness: for He is being for all, and all things exist in Him—not only because He brought all things from non-being into being, but also because His power preserves and sustains all that He has created. Living creatures especially participate in His goodness, both in their being and on account of their life; and still more so rational creatures—both for the reasons just stated, and because they possess reason. For the latter (that is, rational creatures) are somewhat closer to Him, although He is incomparably higher than all.”54 All the holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church reason in like manner. Saint Athanasius the Great: “It would be unreasonable to regard as equally honorable what is different in nature. What do they have in common, or what comparison is there between the Creator and the things created by Him?”55 Saint Basil the Great: “In creation there is nothing that resembles the Creator: on the contrary, it is in all things unlike the Creator.”56 Saint Dimitri of Rostov cites the words of Saint Sylvester, Pope of Rome: the image and likeness of God and of angels are not the same, “for neither is their nature and power one, but the nature of God is one and the nature of angels is another.”57 Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria: “All created nature, in relation to God, is like cattle; for this reason even the Heavenly Powers (angels) may be called sheep.”58 The Venerable Macarius the Great, defining the relation of the human soul to God—to the divine essence—says: “He is God, and she is not God; He is Lord, and she is a servant; He is Creator, and she is a creature; He is Maker, and she is what is made; there is nothing common in His and her nature, but it is only by His infinite, inexpressible, and inconceivable love and by His compassion that He has been pleased to dwell in this creature, in this rational creation.”59