Dogmatic theology based on the writings of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow

Contents Introduction to dogmatic theology The subject of dogmatic theology Natural knowledge of God The insufficiency of natural knowledge of God The importance of reason in dogmatic theology Sources of doctrine Holy Scripture is the main and main source of doctrine On the importance of Dogmatic Theology The importance of the truths of faith for our mind The teaching of the Christian faith “dispels the darkness of doubt and ignorance” The truths of faith console in suffering They contribute to the improvement of our heart Dogmatic truths The meaning of the truths of faith in public life Christian dogmas form a true sage from him The meaning of the truths of faith at the present time The meaning of dogmatic Theology in relation to the sources of dogma The task and method of dogmatic Theology The plan of dogmatic Theology The concept of science A. About God Himself in Himself About the Holy Trinity The relationship of the persons of the Holy Trinity among themselves. The hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son. The personal property of the Holy Spirit. How is the unity of the Divine preserved in the existence of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity? The unity of the supreme principle and nature of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The unity of Divine properties. Their spirituality The main properties of God The Greatness of the Divine. God is above the conditions of time About the omnipresence of God About the freedom and omnipotence of God About the goodness of God The holiness and truth of God The relationship of God's goodness to justice About the omniscience and wisdom of God Conclusion from what has been said about the unity of the Divine B. The relationship of God to the world I. Creation of the world The world is the creation of God. Participation in the work of creation of each Person of the Holy Trinity. The motivation for the creation of the world. The general foundations of God’s relationship to the world. The creation of the world in a certain order of time. Creation of the invisible world. The existence of the angelic world and the concept of it The creation of the visible world. “The universal preparatory action of the creative force” Six days of creation Creation of man. Composition of human nature Image of God in man Creation of husband and wife General view of the creation of the visible world Days of creation Why was one type of creatures produced before another? Why was man created after all the creatures of the visible world? II. The Providence of God about the world About the Providence of God in general The necessity of the Providence of God about the world and its reality The Providence of God in comparison with creation. Its manifestation in relation to various types of creatures. Special Providence of God for man before his fall. Paradise is the place of man’s original dwelling. God's care for the development of the mind and morality of the first man God's covenant with man in paradise What would happen if man fulfilled the terms of the covenant with God? The most special providence of God about man after his fall. About the sin of man and its consequences. The origin of sin. The beginning of sin in the devil The Fall of the first parents The severity of the first sin About the consequences of sin The heredity of original sin The homogeneity of sin and its consequences in the human race The universality of sin The consequences of sin in relation to nature b) “On the causes and principles of human salvation” The only source of all bliss is God Traits of the image of God in man after the fall The powerlessness of man in the matter of salvation. The need for God's help for his salvation. How God's mercy is attracted to fallen man. Eternal predestination for the salvation of people. The Incarnation of the Son of God is a means predetermined by God for the salvation of people. Its Necessity How could the God-man satisfy the truth of God? c) “On the gradual action of restoration in relation to the entire human race, or on the universal grace-filled economy” a) Preparation of the human race to receive the Savior. Why does the salvation of man occur not suddenly, but gradually? Changing God's relationship with people after sin Disaster, as one of the means to restore the fallen Disasters heal and stop the evil of sin God's blessings, as a positive means for attracting a sinner to God Death of the righteous Temptation, as a means for strengthening a person in virtue Resolution of perplexities that arise at the sight of suffering God's providence about human societies Instruments of Divine providence about fallen man The need for special providential relations of God to to the fallen man of the Epiphany; their goal is the Covenant of Grace Preservation of faith in the true God and the development of the messianic idea during the patriarchal times of Egyptian Slavery. Divine rule among the Jewish people Changing the “covenant of grace” into the “covenant of works.” The Law of Moses The doctrine of the Messiah in times under the law The providence of God about the pagan nations Signs of the fulfillment of times Why did the Savior appear after quite a long time? C) About the Face of Jesus Christ and the work of salvation He accomplished. The essence of the dogma about the incarnation of the Son of God Jesus Christ is God and man The meaning of the hypostatic union of Divinity and humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ The birth of Jesus Christ, alien to original sin. His conception by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit The high moral dignity and purity of the Virgin Mary The Virgin Mary is the Mother of God and the Ever-Virgin The greatness of the Face of the God-man and His incomprehensibility for our minds The service performed by Jesus Christ for the salvation of people The prophetic ministry of Jesus Christ. High dogmatic teaching of the New Testament Moral teaching High Priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. The cross He bore The sinlessness of Jesus Christ Christ suffered for the sins of all people The Savior suffered voluntarily, out of love for the Heavenly Father and for the world The deepest foundation and original internal composition of the cross of Christ The meaning of Christ's suffering on the cross for us The Royal ministry of Jesus Christ The Descent of Jesus Christ into hell. Resurrection from the dead The meaning of the resurrection of Christ in the matter of saving people. What did hell, earth and heaven become after the resurrection of Christ? The Resurrection of Christ “confirms us unshakably in faith, and consoles us with perfect hope,” and love for God arouses the Ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven D) About the gradual effect of restoration in relation to each person. a) About the gracious kingdom of Christ and grace About the continuation of the royal ministry of Jesus Christ after his ascension into heaven. The necessity of this The actual existence of the gracious kingdom of Christ and its relationship to the kingdom of glory The concept of the gracious kingdom of Christ Christ rules the kingdom of grace in part directly The grace of God Himself The origin of grace and its effect on man The necessity of grace The universality and accessibility of grace Grace does not restrict human freedom Faith, as a necessary condition for the action of grace on the one being saved Saving living faith, manifested in appropriate deeds Hope, as necessary companion of living faith The inextricable connection between faith, love and hope Man’s own strengths in the matter of salvation b) About the means through which the grace of God acts on man. About the general grace-filled calling to salvation The voice of grace in supernatural revelation The special grace-filled means of salvation are the word of God and the sacraments. About the Church of Christ General concept about the Church About the earthly Church The foundation of the Church is Christ. How does the Supreme Creator, the Head of the Church, create the body of the Church? Extraordinary builders of the Church Equality of apostolic power The need for a permanent hierarchy The basis of legal shepherding in the Church Three degrees of hierarchy Shepherds as instruments of the supreme power of Christ About the sacraments About the grace of baptism The external side of the sacrament The Divine establishment of the sacrament About anointing About the sacrament of communion. The concept of it The fruits of the sacrament The necessity of the Eucharist The outer side of the sacrament The sacrament of repentance The sacrament of unction The sacrament of marriage The sacrament of the priesthood The earthly Church, as a means of uniting and sanctifying the believers. The earthly Church also receives sanctification through communion with the heavenly Church. The visible and invisible Church. The unshakable existence of the Church until the end of the world. Continuous stay in the Church of the Grace of God. c) About the final fate of man Personal immortality of man from the point of view of reason A look at immortality in the Old Testament Death, according to the teaching of the New Testament General resurrection from the dead. The true resurrection of the righteous for eternal life The fate of man immediately after death The state of the soul of the deceased immediately after death Incomplete reward for deeds immediately after death The prayer of the Church for those who have died with faith How “the effect of prayer can extend so far, The final determination of the fate of man at the second coming of Jesus Christ The general resurrection from the dead and the final judgment of people The judgment of people will be carried out through the mediation of the saints Eternal bliss of the righteous Eternal torment of sinners New heaven and new earth On the characteristics of the dogmatic teaching of M. Philaret “It was difficult to find a person poorer and weaker in the flesh,” the preacher said about the famous Moscow hierarch Filaret (born in 1782, died in 1867) in his funeral homily 1 . But it is incomparably more difficult to find a person so richly gifted by nature, so remarkable for his extensive and fruitful activity, which required extraordinary effort of mind and will. We do not undertake to depict all the greatness of a genius personality. We will touch on Filaret’s life as much as is necessary for our goal. During his studies, Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov - that was Philaret’s name before becoming a monk - had to endure the scarcity of material resources and, given the imperfect methods of education at that time, experience the general difficulty of education. In 1827, he wrote to Gabriel Tverskoy: “If you prefer the old order of schools, then I don’t understand you. We studied together at the Lavra. What's enviable there? The whole trick was to write poetry by November 18th. Theology was taught to us by an immature teacher, at least diligently. How were we taught philosophy? What can we say about the historical sciences? This shortcoming is more sensitive to me than to you, when I, having learned, was forced to teach church history” 2. After completing his studies at the Sergius Lavra Seminary, Drozdov was retained there with the rank of teacher. In order to successfully teach others, Vasily Mikhailovich spared no effort in his own self-education, in replenishing his school knowledge. At first (in 1803) he was a seminary teacher of Greek and Hebrew; three years later - a teacher of poetry and Lavra preacher, after a year and a half - a teacher of higher eloquence and rhetoric. In 1809, Filaret was demanded to St. Petersburg and made there an inspector of the St. Petersburg Seminary and a teacher of philosophical sciences; in the same year, the position of rector of the newly established Alexander School was added to these positions. In February 1810, he was transferred to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy and taught there first dogmatic theology and church history, and from July of the same year - history and church antiquities. In 1812, he gave instructions to those who completed the course at the seminary for holding clergy positions, guiding them in reading the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Holy Fathers; and in March of this year it is determined by the rector of the St. Petersburg Academy and professor of theological sciences 3. From then on, Filaret’s especially intensified activity began. “Never,” he says, “have I worked so hard as when I was the rector of the St. Petersburg Academy” 4 . His studies at the academy were supplemented by extraneous works. Philaret’s activities in the bishop’s departments are still extensive and intense. He has no free time; He seeks rest in a variety of activities and in easier work. So, for example, he wrote to Eminence Parthenius: due to ill health, “I cannot work much and am often forced to lie down and listen to the reader or dictate, which I am not keen on” 5 . Filaret was positively overwhelmed with work. This is what he wrote to one of his friends, Archimandrite Anthony: “They give more to do than you want and my laziness can do. One bishop is at a loss: should a bigamist wear a surplice: they send me a decree so that I answer him about this difficulty. One governor noticed that people were freezing in a snowstorm, unable to find their way to the village: I must tell you whether to ring the bell. In both capitals they want to give the burial to the tax farmer: I have to look into the matter and explain that there will be grumbling against the tax farmer and the authorities. One bishop wrote a history of the Russian Church: they ask me if it needs to be corrected, and so that I am not lazy in answering, they add that the Sovereign Emperor knows about this. But I still don’t know how to hurry” 6. In parallel with his difficult, complex official work, which, apparently, should have absorbed all his free time, a number of remarkable works of his pen go on and are not interrupted until the death of the saint, one listing of which would take up a lot of space: “All his works are over 700, not counting several volumes of letters published after his death, and God knows how many volumes published and unpublished, mostly motivated in detail, of his resolutions on diocesan affairs over the fifty-year period of his episcopal activity" 7 . Currently, 505 of all his words and speeches have been published. A researcher of Philaret’s life, amazed by the enormity of his work for the benefit of the church and the fatherland, involuntarily asks: what was the basis of this activity, what force supported the tireless worker? It is not uncommon to see selfish activities. Was it not self-interest that gave strength to our unusually useful figure? Hardly anyone would dare to give such an explanation for the saint’s selfless labors. The whole nature of his activity speaks against this; his remarkably modest lifestyle and his charity deprive this assumption of any basis. Was it not ambition, or the desire for glory, that brought up such a wonderful figure? This assumption is destroyed by the undoubted humility of the great man. Here is what, for example, Filaret wrote in 1822 to N.I. Grech, who asked him to write some autobiographical information: “a real biography is difficult to write early; and it’s even more difficult to write your own impartially. If you would like to have a short biography from me, here it is. Khudo was learned; studied worse; I use even worse what I have been taught and studied; much mercy of the Lord and the condescension of people” 8. This was not said for the sake of words. That it was Filaret who had such a view of his activities can be confirmed by numerous other pieces of evidence 9 . Filaret’s activities reveal not ambition, but a fair concern for his honor, which falls with any violation of the requirements of duty and accepted obligations. And Filaret, indeed, put his duty, the responsibilities of his ministry, and the interests of the Orthodox Church above all else. Thus, he wrote regarding the prohibition of his Catechism, considered and approved by the Holy Synod: “It would not be a great concern if doubt threatened only the personality of the person who was the instrument of this matter, but does it not threaten the hierarchy? Isn’t the church in danger?” “If they want to insult their face through the case, let them. But should we allow the firmness and trustworthiness of the church government to be undermined and the peace of the church to be disturbed? - he wrote another time on the same occasion 10. For the cause of the church, he was ready to endure troubles, which indeed happened in his life. “I am guilty,” he wrote, “only of the rule: putting the need and benefit of the public above pleasing a private individual” 11 . How was this unselfish and selfless figure of church and state formed and how was he supported? Reviewing the activities of M. Philaret and studying his character, his prevailing, basic mood, one cannot help but come to the same conclusion as our famous modern preacher, who had the time and convenience to study the character of the great hierarch, came to. “It seems to us,” said the preacher, “that the dominant feature in the spirit of the deceased saint was the integrity and complete sincerity of his faith, which imparted deep meaning and extraordinary fruitfulness to all his activities” 12. Only a living Christian faith, imbued with a consciousness of responsibility before God, can explain the intensity and fruitfulness of the activities of Metropolitan Philaret. Understanding the motives for the activities of the great saint should not only be interesting for every thinking person who meets such a rare figure, but should also be important for everyone. It is important to know what kind of mood can bring up a useful, selfless public figure. With the same brilliant abilities that M. Philaret possessed, but without his living Christian faith, such a figure as he was could not have been formed. If it is important for us to know that the Christian faith lay at the basis of all the activities of the metropolitan, then it should be no less interesting and important to find out what it was based on, what, by the way, it was based on, what content this faith itself had. Faith, as a belief in the truth of something, is a purely formal mood. The fruitfulness of this belief depends on its content - on what we believe. An atheistic worldview can also be taken on faith, as is very often the case - it can be a person’s basic conviction; but with consistent application of it to business, what should happen from the consistent implementation of the Orthodox Christian worldview will not happen. The religious views of M. Philaret could not then serve to explain his life if we noticed in him a discord between his words and his beliefs. But we don't notice this. “I cannot,” wrote Filaret, “say something of which I do not feel convinced.” In view of all this, we set the goal of our work, first of all, to study and bring into system the dogmatic teaching of the Metropolitan. Philaret, which necessarily had to reflect his basic beliefs. The dogmatic teaching of M. Philaret, clarifying for us his basic beliefs, is valuable for us mainly from a purely theological point of view. In Philaret’s writings we will find a deep and strictly Orthodox disclosure of the dogmas of faith, expressed in precise, concise and strong language. For the science of Orthodox Christian dogmas and, in general, for the correct development of religious consciousness, this should be of significant importance. The perfectibility of revealed teaching is possible only in this sense, that is, in a gradual understanding, in an accurate and systematic presentation of a doctrine given once and for all, unchanged in its content. Possessing rare abilities - a mind capable of the most subtle analysis and deep contemplation, Filaret, in addition, had completely favorable conditions for deep understanding, accurate understanding and expression of Christian teaching. In the first period of his activity, moving from one subject of study to another, he had to increase his own knowledge in these subjects. Knowledge of Hebrew and Greek gave him the opportunity to become familiar with the original language of the Bible. The interpretation of Holy Scripture developed his exegetical abilities. Reading the writings of the fathers and teachers of the church gave him reliable guides in the correct understanding of Christian teaching. Studying dogmatic theology and philosophy directed his mind to sublime and deep contemplation of Christian truths. Living faith, eliminating doubt about the truth of Christian teaching, limited the flight of its rational research. The comparison of imperfect and unsuccessful attempts to solve the highest questions of existence in philosophy with their categorical and undoubtedly correct solution in Revelation developed in M. Philaret a love for the study of the contemplative truths of Christianity. “You know, I think,” he wrote to his father, “that I love theology, because I find consolation in it; but now I must engage in cold philosophy” 13. The study of church history sharpened Filaret’s inherent ability to notice the ways of God’s Providence in life, and historical facts confirmed the broad beneficial influence of Christian truths on people’s lives. Teaching poetry and higher eloquence developed in him the ability to express his thoughts picturesquely, but at the same time, accurately and correctly. In addition to these conditions, which explain to us the importance of Philaret’s dogmatic teaching, one more thing cannot be overlooked. Before publishing an essay, the Metropolitan often had it reviewed by knowledgeable people. Here's proof of it. “I am sending you, Father Rector, something about the text of seventy interpreters. – he wrote Archimandrite. Eusebius, later Archbishop of Mogilev, when he was rector of the Moscow Academy. – Read and say what comes to your mind. If you want to watch this with some of your senior employees, I’m not against it, remembering the proverb: a mind is good, but two are better. The matter requires general concern."... Upon receiving comments on his article, he writes gratitude to Eusebius: "Having read yours, Father Rector, some examples to explain my provisions on the text of the seventy, and one expression, I thank you for both, as for helping me, who wrote and writes hastily, with a lack of memory, aids and time" 14 . “Thank you, Father Rector, for considering the sermon,” the Metropolitan wrote another time. “I am not giving the one in which there were dubious expressions to Moscow on your instructions, but I am sending it to you so that the censors can see whether the corrections are satisfactory.” When it came to replacing an inaccurate expression with a precise one: you would do well if, along with the remark, you proposed a draft expression that you find best. I would have better understood the power of the remark, and the matter would have ended sooner when I accepted your project. Now my project must be sent to you: because I do not want the censors’ signature to cover a word that, after a doubt, is unknown to them. I say this for similar cases that may occur” 15. It should be noted that these letters do not refer to the first years of M. Philaret’s activity, but to the time when he was already at the height of fame (1844–5). If at such a time he was so careful when publishing his works, then even greater caution in such matters can be assumed in the previous period of his activity. “Having served thirty years in the rank of bishop,” he once wrote, “I feel in some cases the need to consult with archpriests, students of my students.” 16 ... The Orthodoxy of M. Philaret is attested by the Holy Synod, which examined and approved his Long Catechism. Thus, the theological teaching of Philaret, which has passed through the censorship of competent judges, important in addition to this, acquires even greater value for the Orthodox theologian and, in general, for every believer, as the work of the best representatives of the Orthodox Church. After all this, without exaggeration we can say that the teaching of M. Philaret has the power of authority for the Orthodox theologian. More than one Russian theologian listens to his teaching: Filaret, as a wonderful theologian, is known outside of Russia. For the Orthodox dogmatist, the dogmatic teaching of M. Philaret is of particular importance. Given its high merits, the dogmatic teaching of M. Philaret should have very important significance in the history of the science of dogma. Indeed, without any exaggeration we can say that there have never been such Russian theologians as Filaret before. Hardly any of the Russian theologians understood Orthodox teaching as deeply and correctly as Filaret. Before him, Orthodox dogmatic teaching did not have such an inimitable, strong, precise, concise expression in Rus'. To evaluate Philaret’s merits for Russian theology, one must keep in mind the state of Orthodox dogmatic theology before his time. Shortly before Philaret, Russian theology had just begun to free itself from the forms of scholasticism and from incomprehensible Latin. The first attempts in this kind were made quite successfully by M. Plato and Hieromonk Macarius (“Eastern Orthodox Church Teaching”). But they are in many ways inferior to the works of Filaret. They do not have such a pure and deep understanding, such an expression of Orthodox teaching, as we see in Philaret. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, two trends were clearly visible in Russian theology. One of them arose during the time of Peter Mohyla, who set up his college in Kyiv, modeled on scholastic Catholic schools. With such a structure of the collegium, Orthodox theology inevitably had to be influenced by scholasticism and, unnoticed by itself, assimilate some Catholic views that were not reconciled with the purity of Orthodox teaching. The main representative of this trend in the 18th century was Stefan Yavorsky (“Stone of Faith”). His contemporary, Feofan Prokopovich, brought up hostile to Catholics and with sympathies for Protestant theologians, became the head of a new trend, which, drawing content from Protestant sources, inadvertently repeated some Protestant views. This direction prevailed over Catholic influence. According to Feofan Prokopovich, theology was taught in schools; school textbooks were adaptations of his works. Regarding the shortcomings of the theology of Prokopovich and all his followers, Filaret, considering the history of the Bethany Seminary, spoke as follows: “Theological provisions in which justification by faith without mention of works and sacraments are called rituals, if the censor allows it to be published, then not only himself, but also the academy will be criticized for unorthodoxy, and rightly so. The Bethany rector Gideon, in simplicity of heart, wrote about justification, looking into some foreign book, finding that it was similar to what was said in the epistles of the Apostle Paul, and not caring whether these epistles should be understood in accordance with the epistle of the Apostle James" 17. The influence of Protestant sources was reflected to some extent in the theologies of M. Plato and Archimandrite. Macaria. “A strange matter fell into my hands,” Filaret wrote. – Should we be allowed to publish some of the catechisms of Bishop Plato, about which the censorship committee doubted, because some do not include the Lord’s Prayer, some speak only of two or three sacraments, there is an expression: a sacred rite, which he applies to the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist - considering the Holy Scriptures to be the basis of the teaching of faith, he is silent about traditions? “It is not convenient to leave these inaccuracies, which the present century not only looks at, but it is also difficult to touch with bad hands the work of good hands” 18. Philaret’s merit at such a time lies, first of all, in the fact that he stood firmly on the basis of pure Orthodoxy, alien to the extremes of Protestantism and Catholicism. As a student of Plato, who entered life at a time when the influence of the Jesuits was growing, Filaret, understandably, had to protect Orthodoxy from being carried away not by Protestant extremes, but by Catholic ones. We see this, indeed, both in the opposition to his reforms by Count Protasov, and, by the way, in an earlier period of activity - in his “Conversations between the testing and the confident about Orthodoxy” and in the “Exposition of the differences” between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The first essay records conversations that Philaret conducted at the request of Prince. Golitsyn, with his nephew, who had converted to Catholicism. The second was written at the suggestion of Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna, who wished to become more familiar with the differences between Orthodox and Catholic teachings. In the last work, some find features of Protestant teaching. Indeed, it contains expressions reminiscent of the teachings of Protestants, and mainly the words: “the only pure and sufficient source of the teaching of faith” is Holy Scripture. But from these words of Philaret and from his further explanations, where he proves that the Holy Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation and that there is no need to supplement it with a new source, one cannot conclude that he rejects the significance of tradition as a source of doctrine. He looked at tradition only as a secondary source of doctrine, and at Holy Scripture as the main one, which we will talk about in detail later. The word “single” does not exclude tradition as a source of doctrine: because Filaret, who was distinguished by his precision in expression, says not just “single... source,” but “single pure.” .. And in this case, there is nothing non-Orthodox in Filaret’s words. Tradition in its entirety cannot be considered a pure source of doctrine: it contains a human element that cannot be confused with the frank, apostolic. Both Philaret’s teaching about Holy Scripture, found in his “Exposition of the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches,” and his entire composition are easily explained from the circumstances and purpose of writing the essay. Philaret’s task in writing this work was to briefly, without tiring details for the Empress, but at the same time, as clearly and expressively as possible, present to the August reader the wrongness of Catholic teaching. To achieve this, Philaret did not need to expound the entire Orthodox doctrine, but only needed to take points of disagreement between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. A comparison of these points should have given a clear understanding of the differences between Orthodox and Catholic teachings. Further, Philaret should have opposed the Catholic provisions with reasons that would destroy them. Filaret did just that. Catholicism, for example, teaches that tradition, inseparably, in its entirety, is a source equivalent to Holy Scripture. Filaret contrasts this position with the Orthodox one: “the only pure and sufficient source of the teaching of faith is the Revealed Word of God, contained in Holy Scripture.” Philaret’s thought, in comparison with the teaching of Catholics, is absolutely correct, although taken separately it is somewhat one-sided. Catholicism, then, uses tradition to confirm such provisions as in St. The Scriptures find no basis for themselves and are completely new dogmas. Philaret contrasts this error with the doctrine of the sufficient completeness of Holy Scripture, which does not need to be supplemented from tradition with new truths, but only requires tradition to interpret and confirm the truths given in Scripture. Catholics, further, teach about a treasury of supererogatory good deeds. Filaret objects: “good deeds are the fruits of faith and grace, and therefore do not constitute any merit of their own in a person.” As no one blames the ap. Paul for the doctrine of justification by faith, St. James for teaching about the necessity of good works; so no one can blame Filaret for his somewhat one-sided judgments, which are fully explained by the purpose of his writing. To judge Filaret’s views on this or that subject, for this you need to take not just one of his works, but all of them. Philaret himself was aware of the one-sidedness and, therefore, of a certain mischievousness of the “Exposition of Differences” and did not want to publish his work without corrections, written in haste and at a time when he was just entering life and was under the influence of his teacher, the benefactor M. Plato, in whose catechism there is no mention of tradition. In what order should the dogmatic teaching of M. Philaret be presented? Both in response to this question and to how to generally present Philaret’s dogmatic teaching, we would like to say and, as far as possible, fulfill what the saint himself said and did, speaking on the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, instead of his own word, the word of Gregory the Theologian. This is what he said then, starting to pronounce the words of St. Gregory: “I will only be the server of the meal, and your host is Saint Gregory: my mouth, his word” 19. Our host will not be Gregory the Theologian, but Filaret, compared to the famous ecumenical theologian. As the basis for the dogmatic system we are compiling based on the writings of Philaret, we will use his own plan, written by him for the teaching of Dogmatic Theology in the St. Petersburg spirit. academy. This plan is found in the “Review of theological sciences in relation to their teaching in higher theological schools” 20. It is clear that we cannot follow this plan slavishly, in all its smallest details. The order of the particular thoughts of a dogmatic system must necessarily be determined by the relation in which they are found in the writings of Philaret himself, as well as by the way in which it is generally more convenient for them to be in a harmonious system. Our independence will mainly manifest itself in this. See, for example, letters from Filar. to Parfeniy Chertkov: 11, 14–15, 17, 22–24, 27, 34, 36–40. “The meager strength in my early years, despite the considerable difficulties of my career, did not promise me later years,” said the eighty-five-year-old old man. Words, ed. 1885, 5–579. “Readings in General. l. spirit. enlighten." 1871, 48 pp. Words of Filaret, memories of him. Ed. O. N. and Dr. R. 1874 p. 29. Letters to Parfeniy Chertkov, see letter 24. Letter to Filar. to Anthony vol. 2, p. 464. "Russian Star." 1883 4, 40–41. “Readings in General. love spirit. enlightened." 1872 6, 114. See, for example, his letters to Muravyov: 8, 43, 55, 67, 97, 112, 113, 140, 188, 189, 205, 284, 286, 288, 301, 307, 314, 333, 355, 375, 386, 404, 431 and 446. Letters to Metropolitan Seraphim. Sushkov - Notes on the life of Philar., adj. 50, 52; compare 186–196, 270–1. "Shower. Thu." 1873 January, 132. Word from Archpriest A. Klyucharyov (now architect Ambrose Kharkov). “Right. About." 1868 1, 39. "Russian Vestn." 1883 1, 324. “Readings in General. love spirit. enlightened." 1882 Dept. 3. Letters. Phil. to Eusebius 32, 34 p. "The Wanderer" 1883 10, 149. Letters to the architect. Anthony, vol. 3, 62. 63 pp. Words and Speeches, ed. 1874, 2, 422. “Read. in General love spirit. Enlightened." 1872 4, 58–61.