1845 г.

April 4. Minutes of a committee meeting written by Metropolitan Philaret on the publication of edifying books for public reading At a meeting of the committee on the publication of edifying books for public reading, The protocol was signed by: Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, Joseph, Bishop of Dmitrov 166; Assumption Protopresbyter Vasily Platonov; Paraskeviev Archpriest Peter Pokrovsky 167; Nikoloyamsk priest Vasily Blagoveshchensky; Chamberlain State Councilor Prince Leonid Golitsyn; chamberlain Count Mikhail Tolstoy; member Vasily Koptev 168. May 7. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the outline of moral theology compiled by a special committee At the same time, returning to your Excellency the outline of moral theology, I add my comments on it. From them, in my opinion, the conclusion should be that the outline requires revision and improvement in some parts. Notes on the outline of moral theology I. In the introduction to this science it is said that it is divided into two essential parts; and at the end of the same article, not two, but three parts are calculated. It would be better to define the three parts directly by a clear conclusion, and avoid confusion and contradiction in the numbers. II. The names of general ethics and particular ethics do not quite correspond to these parts of science. Let us take for comparison the plan of the Latin theologian Schenkel 169 . He calls the doctrine of duties to God, oneself and one's neighbor, which is here called private ethics, general ethics, and private ethics he calls the doctrine of duties related to special states and titles, for example, the positions of parents, the Lord, warriors, and clergy. Here the application of the names of general and particular is clear. Not so in the terminology of the notes. Under the title of private ethics there is a part of the summary, which has the title: general responsibilities, and then: private responsibilities. This is somewhat confusing. The relationship between the general ethics so called in the summary and the particular ethics is not exactly the same as between the general and the particular. In the so-called private ethics there are very general concepts, for example, the concept of duties to God; and in the so-called general ethics there are very specific concepts, for example, the concept of suspicious conscience (conscientia scrupulosa), about the state of self-delusion. Consequently, the terminology is not entirely accurate. The so-called general ethics contains not so much ethics, or legal teaching, as preparatory to it and the basic concepts assumed in it, which are the essence: law, free will, conscience, grace-filled help, moral action. However, these inaccuracies should not be entirely blamed on the abstract, but partly on the subject, which is displeasedly punished by scientific architectonics. But it is advisable to look for a more precise and clear structure of the parts of active theology. The following terminology, without changing the plan, seems to present less confusion: 1. Active basic theology. III. In the 1st section of general ethics, the doctrine of the revealed or Christian law is assigned, and then the types of this law are shown: the Old Testament and the New Testament law. And here the terminology is confusing. The concept of revealed law is generic, and the concept of Christian law in relation to it is specific, equivalent to the concept of New Testament law. IV. In section 2, under the title: about the forces necessary to fulfill the moral law, it talks about conscience and will. There is incompleteness here. Sound reason is also the strength necessary for the fulfillment of the moral law. For a being without reason cannot fulfill the moral law. And there is a need in the science of morality to talk about the relationship of reason to moral actions according to its state in fallen man in relation to the knowledge of the moral law. V. Section 3 talks about actions in accordance with the moral law, or about virtues. And here there is an inaccuracy in terminology. Virtue is not an action, but a skill of good actions. The abstract corrects itself when it further speaks of virtue and not of virtues. Virtues in particular belong more to the private than to the general. VI. Section 4 declares the main rules for applying actions. But which ones? since there is not even a hint of this, it is impossible to accurately determine the merits of the teaching and it is not careless that the notes should be a faithful guide to mentors. This remark can be made more than once while reading the summary. VII. In attributing faith exclusively to the mind, love-will, hope-heart, there is a lack of strict accuracy. The Word of Christ commands us to love God not only with our will, but also with our mind and heart. According to the apostle, he believes in the truth with his heart. VIII. Skepticism is not that hesitation in faith and indifferentism mean more than coldness in faith. IX. What vicious hope is is not clear. X. Prayer is related decisively to external worship and not with strict accuracy. The Catechism of the Holy Synod, not without reason, refers to the internal Divine service the actions of prayer, which are actually spiritual, such as calling on God and thanking Him. XI. The sacredness of times, places and actions is proposed. There is incompleteness here. This division does not fit, for example, reverence for the Divine body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, and veneration of icons. An icon is neither a time, nor a place, nor an action, but an object. XII. That the confession of God is recognized as an extraordinary action (extraordinaria), this cannot be considered accurate. There is an ordinary and daily duty to confess God. The church commands this duty to be fulfilled when it commands the confession of faith, or otherwise the symbol of faith, to be read every day in church. XIII. Isn’t it more typical to classify the teaching about monasticism as asceticism? XIV. The teaching on duties to the Most Holy Theotokos mentions the duty to honor Her icons. Why does the summary teach to venerate the icons of the Most Holy Theotokos, and not teach to venerate the icons of Christ the Savior? XV. The duty to heed and obey the suggestions of the guardian angel presupposes that these suggestions are clearly known to everyone, so that the duty can be fulfilled. But is everyone able to clearly hear and discern what their guardian angel is telling them? XVI. Responsibilities to others are proposed in the outline before responsibilities to oneself. But, as according to Christian teaching, one must love one’s neighbor as oneself, and therefore, through the concept of obligations to oneself, one must come to the concept of obligations to one’s neighbor: then the doctrine of obligations to oneself must precede. XVII. First, responsibilities are offered to our neighbors as Christians, then as people. It's better the other way around. The general must precede the particular. XVIII. In indicating the duties to the Orthodox living: to believe with them as St. teaches. church, there is something unsatisfactory. Why is this applied only to the living? Shouldn’t it also, and isn’t it even more important, believe together with the dead, for example, with the holy fathers? To believe is a duty to God, and not to one's neighbor. XIX. Mention is made of duties to members of the representative church, or pastors. We have the names of pastors, clergy, holy councils, holy fathers: is the artificial name of a representative church still needed? And is it convenient to use it when the concept of representative is confused and transformed by the use and abuse of other types of objects? Isn't it more appropriate to replace it with the name of the church of the clergy, as opposed to the collective (collectiva)? XX. The first duty to all the dead, according to the summary, is to pay them their last debt according to the charter of the church. This means that the duty to the dead consists in fulfilling the last duty to the dead. This is not the kind of language science requires. The expression: to bring alms is subject to the same remark. XXI. The duty towards the dead is not to slander. But this is not said about the living. Does this mean that there is an obligation not to slander the dead, but there is no obligation not to slander the living? XXII. The duty towards the non-Orthodox is not to shun them. This may be permitted, sometimes recommended, for good purposes, but there is no general and necessary obligation for this. The Apostle (2 John 10) rejects this obligation when he says: And do not rejoice in him. XXIII. Whether self-respect and self-love should be offered as duties, or assumed to the proper extent as natural feelings, is a matter for the compilers of the notes. The Word of God offers the commandment: you will love your neighbor as you love yourself, presuming love for yourself to be naturally existing and known, and therefore, without offering a special commandment: love yourself. Self-respect is so close to pride, and so incompatible with humility, self-love is so close to pride, that, it seems, it would be more careful to put, instead of them, the duty: 1) in relation to life as a gift and property of God; 2) in relation to the dignity of man as created in the image of God; 3) in relation to well-being, as a means for the two previous types of self-preservation. If ifika does not find it necessary to formally proclaim the obligation to eat and drink: is it any more necessary to formally proclaim the obligation to love oneself? XXIV. Relating the duty of preserving life to one body demeans the importance of this duty. Not preserving life, if there is a violation of an important duty because the corruptible body is destroyed not in accordance with the order of nature, then even more so because the soul leaves a temporary life, not in the order of God’s providence, and is disastrous for immortal life. XXV. In the rules for using synopses, as well as in synopses of dogmatic theology, there is a judgment about educational books on moral theology that have been used until now, that they are close to foreign systems, which are all imbued with the spirit of their religion, and some with so-called rationalism. Therefore, the remark made on this subject in a dogmatic summary also applies here. And it is difficult to guess which books to mark the judgment of the synopsis. Theophylacti 170 de agendis, the features of active teaching, the work of Archpriest Kochetov 171 and the like on Christian duties, Archpriest Bazhanov 172 come to mind. These books would deserve to be protected from the general criticism or suspicion of unorthodoxy thrown at all educational books on moral theology without exception 173. May 9. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the outline of pastoral theology compiled by a special committee Returning to your Excellency the summary of pastoral theology, I add my comments on this. This summary, in my opinion, cannot be used with the desired benefit and convenience, which is especially due to the reference to the book by Giftshits 174, which is not adapted to the Orthodox confession, and in places is imbued with the spirit of unorthodoxy and superstition. And there is no need for this book: because the Orthodox work “on the positions of parish elders” is in all respects superior to Giftshits’ book. It is adapted to the Orthodox Church, imbued with the spirit of the word of God and the holy fathers, and forms the parish pastor not only with the rules of prudence and deanery, but with truly spiritual and soul-saving instructions. The somewhat outdated presentation does not constitute an important drawback. Therefore, even with the introduction of new notes on dogmatic and moral theology, the guide for teaching pastoral theology in seminaries can be left to an essay on the positions of parish elders. If it is considered useful to compile a new educational book, then it is necessary to compile a correct outline, eliminating the influence of Giftshitz’s book on it. Notes on the outline of pastoral theology. 1) In this summary, among other things, paragraphs of the book are indicated for mentors: Giftshitz’s rule for teaching pastoral theology. Consequently, this book is considered almost a classic, or at least auxiliary. If any book, in fairness, can be accused of being close to foreign systems, in a spirit alien to Orthodoxy, partly even in rationalism, encountered in previous notes: then this book by Giftshits, which the notes approves. To prove the last part of the remark, what was said in Part 1, Section 1, in paragraph 8 is presented: morality is the main content of the Bible. This is a rationalistic thought. Orthodox theology teaches that the main content of the Bible is faith in the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world. Section 1, paragraph 49, also represents an example of non-Orthodox thinking about miracles. It says: “strongly” trust that the all-wise is not subject to the will of people, “there is, as he, at their will, without important reasons, “to the entire human race pertaining to, never deviates from the ordinary” order.” This allows for the possibility of only such miracles that are performed for reasons related to the entire human race: consequently, miracles performed for the good and salvation of some people in particular are rejected, with which the legends about the lives of saints are filled with such miracles. Here, in paragraph 50, the writer explains about demons in such a way that under this name he recognizes only deceptions and actions of the imagination, and does not recognize actual events, although the Gospel testifies to them. Section 3, in paragraph 79, the writer about the healed demoniacs mentioned in the Gospel expresses himself with doubt, saying: “no matter what opinions there were about actual demoniacal possession in the times of Christ and the Apostles, but “in our days, in general, speech may believe that such persons “want to lie, or have an unhealthy and disordered imagination.” In paragraph 76, non-Gospel wisdom is also proposed. It says there: “The Gospel does not command anything that is contrary to reason, and which natural wisdom would not advise us in the special circumstances to which these passages concern.” The first half of this situation is fair, but the other is not. If natural wisdom equally commanded everything that the Gospel commands, then why would the Gospel be needed? Has natural wisdom ever commanded us to deny ourselves and take up the cross and follow Christ? In quite a few other places, this book presents, not entirely open, but quite noticeable beginnings of the spirit of the self-named philosophy of the eighteenth century. When proposing positions of faith, in order to move away from indirect paths, this book puts the main point not in following the word of God, but in solid science, especially in pure moral philosophy. (Department I, para. 67), she warns, as if from trouble, from strong contempt for all earthly amusements (para. 73). In a secret way, she rejects Christian asceticism, counting bodily separation from human coexistence among the wrong methods of virtue (paragraph 79). Therefore, Saint Paul of Thebes 175, Saint Anthony the Great 176 and many holy men should be accused of using improper methods of virtue. In sermons on the celebrated days of saints, she orders to praise only true virtues, and not weaknesses, or strange thoughts, of which the merits known to men are of course excusable (department 2, para. 129). Is this critical look at their lives consistent with the dignity of the saints, which tends to look for shortcomings and strange thoughts in them? If you are confident in the Orthodoxy of the compiler of the summary, you must conclude that he approved this book as an exemplary one, without reading it carefully from beginning to end. II. The position of ruling a parish should be excluded from pastoral theology and assigned to canon law. Here it is proposed for consideration that it would be more useful to force the parish priest to study the extensive science of canon law in order to find in it the necessary particle for himself - the instruction to rule the parish? Or should we include this instruction in pastoral theology, and then assign canonical law to higher academic education? III. To judge the completeness of the summary, we can take as an example a close and necessary question: how often should a priest officiate? There is no indication of this in the abstract, although it was possible to recall this in the book by Giftshits, who solved this question only in Latin (Part 2, Dept. 1, Paragraph 19). IV. In some articles, the notes no longer speak like notes, but like the book itself. It is correct and pious to demand from the celebrant warm prayers, spiritual and physical purity, reverence and edification, so as not to sin before God and not make a harmful impression on those present. But what was the use of pointing to Giftshits (Part 2, Article 1, Paragraph 6), who teaches to behave reverently only for the reason that this is necessary to maintain the required attention of the people, but forgets that this must be observed out of duty and feeling of heart before God? V. In general, this summary does not present such a systematic harmony as the two preceding ones. And it is natural for this to happen: because it is an extract from two books of different composition and different character. It is difficult to promise the correct and convenient course of teaching according to such guidance. And how will Giftshits’ book be used? In all likelihood it should be very rare. To reprint it, without purification, and the thoughts and language of translation, would not be useful, but harmful. The labor required to remake it would be better spent directly on the composition of pastoral theology, without servility to a foreign system 177 . September 2. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion on the notes: a) introduction to Orthodox theology and b) dogmatic theology, corrected by a special committee based on the metropolitan’s comments Returning to your Excellency the corrected and, after correction, forwarded to me notes of an introduction to Orthodox theology and dogmatic theology, on which you, dear sir, were pleased to demand my conclusion, I proceed, not without difficulty, to fulfill the demand, because I see myself in the need next time not in all, although not in many respects, to agree with the notes. The corrections made, except for one, to those parts of the notes in which they were made, gave, in my opinion, a more satisfactory appearance than before. On one corrected point, namely, on the definition of active theology, it seemed necessary to offer a new comment, which you will kindly see under the first number of comments attached to this. Regarding the question previously proposed for consideration by the compilers of the synopsis: is it necessary to propose the doctrine of the church before the doctrine of God and Christ, or to assign to the doctrine of the church in the theological system the very place that it occupies in the Orthodox Ecumenical Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed 178 - that I hold this latter opinion, it was not difficult for the compilers of the conspectus to see from the evidence I presented, although it was more pleasant for me to leave the question to permission to educate others. The compilers of the summary did not agree with my opinion and wrote a proof of their opposite opinion, under the title of explanation, which was forwarded to me from your Excellency. Having carefully examined this explanation, I could not convince myself to proceed to the opinion that is defended in the explanation: but I remain convinced of my previous opinion, or more correctly, in the opinion of the holy fathers of the first two ecumenical councils, St. Cyril of Jerusalem 179 and the Orthodox patriarchs who approved the Orthodox confession, whose opinion I do not retreat from in the construction of those parts of the theological system to which it is clearly given and determined place in the creed; since the creed is nothing other than dogmatic theology in abbreviation. Why I could not agree with the explanation given to me, Your Excellency will deign to see from the special note attached to this: about the place of the doctrine of the church in the theological system. In previous remarks it was said that the confusion of the doctrine of creation and providence, and the confusion in them of the third doctrine of angels, is not conducive to order and clarity. The compilers of the outline made no objection to this; and I see no reason to change my previous opinion. An explanation for this is given in the notes attached to this, under number 2. Thus, I find it necessary to recognize the need for improving the revised notes, under the articles now indicated. Upon satisfactory completion of this, these notes can be usefully given as a guide to teachers. But it cannot be hidden, however, that this does not yet promise a decisive satisfaction of educational needs; and this opinion is confirmed not only on considerations, but also on experience, which is already in mind. In the outline of the introduction there is an article: sources containing apostolic traditions. But what exactly sources are not said: the teacher must supplement this from his knowledge. These sources are: the writings of the holy fathers, symbols, definitions of councils, etc. But the compilers of the abstract forgot this when they wrote the above-mentioned explanation, because if they had not forgotten this, they would not have drawn the conclusion that, according to my assumption about symbols and explanations of symbols, there is no place to talk in the introduction, but we have to talk in the middle or at the end of theology. If the compilers themselves soon forgot that the article sources of legend mean, among other things, symbols; then, of course, one cannot guarantee that similar misunderstandings will not occur among teachers who were not present when compiling the notes and did not hear from its compilers what special details were under what general written title, and they only had them in their thoughts and did not write them down. To eliminate such misunderstandings, one cannot help but wish that the compilation of an educational book should follow closely the outline. However, it is my duty to submit these opinions to the discretion of the Holy Synod, to which I humbly ask you to submit them. Comments on the revised notes of Introduction to Orthodox Theology and Dogmatic Theology I. The revised outline of the introduction to Orthodox theology says that the second part of theology, namely, moral theology, sets out the doctrine of man as a moral being, etc. This does not represent the desired accuracy, all the more strictly required from the notes, since it should be a model for teachers. At first glance, the expressions present a kind of incongruity: if this science expounds the doctrine of man, by what right does it bear the lofty name of theology? Let us remember the beginning of the ten-word series: I am the Lord your God; May you not have Bozi or me." Is it correct to call this the doctrine of man? And this, without a doubt, applies to moral theology. On the contrary, in dogmatic theology there is a teaching about man, and even as a moral being. Consequently, the proposed definition of moral theology allows for greater precision. II. In previous remarks it is said that the confusion of the two doctrines of creation and providence is not conducive to order and clarity, as well as the confusion between them of the third doctrine of angels. There seems no reason to abandon this opinion; since the compilers of the summary did not present anything to refute this. The summary says about the angels that God gave them existence, about the visible world: he gave him existence, about man: he gave him existence - three times the same thing, and moreover, in such a way that the three-fold repetition of one concept of creation is interrupted by intermediate concepts of providence; and also about providence the same thing is said in four different places, for example about angels: preserves their existence, about the visible world: preserves its existence; about the primordial man: he thought about his preservation, about the human race: he thought about the preservation of individuals, and so on. The idea of ​​conservation could be presented once with one general proof: but according to the summary, it is repeated four times, does not require repetition and proof, and, moreover, is interrupted by intermediate concepts about creation. It seems that from this example it is quite clear that the confusion of two teachings is not conducive to order. On the place of the doctrine of the church in the theological system In the explanation attached to the outline of an introduction to Orthodox theology and dogmatic theology, corrected according to the comments, the question proposed in the comments is answered: is it necessary to propose the doctrine of the church before the doctrine of God and Christ? And he answers in the affirmative. In confirmation of this, a line is presented in the definition of Orthodox theology: according to the mind of the Orthodox-Catholic Church. But this evidence is not conclusive. The educational definition is not immutable. The mind of truth, even according to piety (Titus 1:1): this is the apostolic definition of Orthodox theology, in which it was not found necessary to mention the church. And the definition that begins the summary will be firm, correct and capable of all the necessary conclusions if it is expressed like this: Orthodox theology is a systematic presentation of the Christian faith according to the true reason of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. This definition not only distinguishes Orthodox theology from non-Orthodox theology, but also exposes the non-Orthodox theology, which is not based on the true reason of Scripture and tradition. If we accept as satisfactory the definition that Orthodox theology is a statement of faith according to the reason of the Orthodox Church: then Western theologians have the right to also recognize as satisfactory their definition that Roman Catholic theology is a statement of faith according to the reason of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus, Orthodox and non-Orthodox theology would be placed in an equal position, as if one were not better than the other. The explanation says that the system must be preceded by truths from which others receive their clarity. Very good. That is why it was said in the comments: “Is it possible to thoroughly expound the doctrine of the divine institution of the Christian Church when the doctrine of Christ has not yet been expounded?” For Christ is the foundation of the church, and not the church the foundation of Christ. The explanation says that without the teaching about the church as a teacher of faith, much in the presentation of other truths will remain dark and unaccountable; for example, in dogmatic theology, the church definition of dogma is placed at the head of each study. This has already been answered in the following remarks: “when presenting the doctrine of sacred tradition, it is necessary and sufficient to speak briefly about the church historically, as about its guardian treasure. Then, “as soon as the sources in which the sacred tradition is contained are well defined and indicated, which is indicated in the outline, then this is enough to move forward with a firm foot in theological teaching. The documents are ready: the Holy Scriptures, the writings of the holy fathers, the definitions of the councils. State dogmas; Draw arguments from these sources: the dogmatic teaching about the church will come in its place, which the ecumenical creed has assigned to it.” The student will not remain at a loss as to why we are leading him along the path of the teachings of the church, when it is shown to him that this is on the basis of the sacred tradition kept in the church, which Orthodox theology recognizes as the beginning of the teaching, together with the Holy Scriptures. The explanation says: “if the introduction does not provide a decent place for the teaching about the church as a teacher of the faith, about “symbols, explanations of symbols, etc.,” then it is even less “decent to speak about these, by their very nature, preliminary concepts of theology, in a treatise on the church, i.e., “in the middle or at the end of theology.” This objection seemed unresolved in the above passage of comments, perhaps because it did not literally mention symbols. But it mentions the definitions of councils. What is the Nicene symbol if not the dogmatic definition of the council? And so in the comments it was understood that in the teaching of sacred tradition one should talk about symbols and explanations of symbols. And what will sacred tradition consist of as the beginning of theology if neither symbols, nor definitions of councils, nor the writings of the holy fathers are attributed to it? The abstract, protected by explanation, from the theological chapter on sacred tradition, stole its essential property in order to fill a separate chapter on the church. And didn’t the compiler of the explanation see in the notes the article: “sources containing apostolic traditions?” And if he didn’t look at the outline, then the remarks on this article with which he contrasts the explanation were not pointed out to him? If he saw this article, then didn’t he really recognize that by the name of the sources of apostolic traditions, by the way, symbols are also meant, and that, therefore, in this article about traditions one should also talk about symbols? Consequently, it was in vain that he came up with the assumption that remarks lead to talking about symbols in the middle or at the end of the system. Since, therefore, it is difficult to foresee what will or will not require justification: then, in order to justify what has now been said about the sources of legends, here is an extract from what happened in the eyes of the book: Dobmayer 180, Instit Theol. t. I, par. IV, cap. 1, sect. 2, artic. 2, § 254. Media praesto sunt quibus divina traditio ad nostram pervenit aetatem: 1) Scripta nempe S. patrum, acta conciliorum, catechismi et symbola in quibus traditionis testimonia extant. “This refers to the means through which divine tradition has reached our times: firstly, the writings of the holy fathers, the acts of councils, catechisms and symbols in which the evidence of tradition is presented.” Perhaps it will not be superfluous to note here that the writer of the Roman Church relates the doctrine of symbols to the doctrine of traditions. The explanation says that in the Orthodox confession and in St. Cyril of Jerusalem 181 the teaching about the church is placed in the place where it appears in the symbol, as it seems, for the reason that neither one nor the other book constitutes a system. Let it be allowed to contrast this with the fact that in words, as it seems, nothing solid can be founded. On the contrary, it can and should definitely be said that this was done out of due respect for the universal symbol; and even because the ecumenical symbol is nothing more than an abbreviated system of dogmatic theology, and therefore, as appropriate as it is for the Orthodox, both the catechumen and the theologian, to adhere to this system of the ecumenical fathers, it is just as little necessary and little reliable to build a new order of the system according to the models of the Western school and the later wisdom of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The explanation refers to the dogmatic theology of Archpriest Ternovsky 182. This is not authority. This book is allowed to be published in order to arouse the jealousy of the teachers of theological schools for the long-awaited works of this kind, but is not approved for introduction to theological schools. The explanation refers to the statement of faith in the epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs. But there member 2 actually speaks about the Holy Scripture and how to explain it, namely the way the Catholic Church explained it and betrayed it. And the actual doctrine of the church is proposed in its place according to the order of the symbol. Moreover, one must know that in this presentation one cannot look for a model for the order of the system, for this is not just a statement of faith, but a presentation adapted to refuting the non-Orthodox confession of Cyril Lukar 183. Therefore, the second member says what is needed in response to the second member of Cyril’s confession. The explanation refers to the catechism of the Holy Synod of 1819. In it, in the doctrine of tradition, it speaks of the faithful repository of sacred tradition, the holy church. But this does not contradict the observations against which the explanation speaks, but is completely consistent with them, for in them, too, in the teaching about tradition, it is necessary to briefly talk about the church as its guardian treasure. From all of the above it is clear that the explanation does not provide solid evidence on the affirmative side of the question: is it necessary to propose the doctrine of the church before the doctrine of God and Christ. Is there not the shortest and simplest way to resolve this issue? Who built this new theological system, which wants to teach the doctrine of the church not in the order in which the ecumenical creed was prescribed, but in another, newly invented one, and says that this construction is better than the symbol? Who else but the human school mind? But what is this beginning? Didn't rationalism begin when reason arrogated to itself the right to construct systems of theology as it pleased? Is it necessary to slavishly submit to this dangerous principle, although it, for the first time, represents a plausible fruit? And who built that old theological system in which the doctrine of the church was taught in the place where it was laid down in the universal creed? It was built by the ecumenical creed itself; it was built by the holy fathers of the first and second ecumenical councils, and the grace that was with them; she was received by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem 184; it was approved by the ecumenical patriarchs in the Orthodox confession of Peter Mogila 185. This system is Orthodox. This system is Catholic. This is the system of apostolic tradition. In the universal symbol of faith, as in Noah’s ark, lies the entire spirit and life of Orthodox theology and glory to the Trinitarian God that this saving ark has reached us intact, across the sea of ​​time, through the waves of human wisdom. Let us be saved in it with our faith, and let us not allow ourselves to think that the holy fathers built it according to an unprofitable plan, and that we can rebuild it better than them. Memories relating to the accession to the throne of Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich 187 It is quite late to record memories twenty years or more after the events. The memory of incidents with the most important circumstances is preserved; but some details are no longer clearly visible in the foggy distance. The one who undertakes this description would not have undertaken it even now if he had not been excited by the High Will 188; although this could have occurred to him earlier, in order to explain his participation in events, which, due to the complexity of the circumstances, might not seem to correspond to expectations. He believed and believes that what was done with the utmost understanding and conscience is not lost, even if it has not gained human approval, and that justification before men is not a great gain, unless the judgment of God confirms it. Now let the duty of obedience to the High Will be fulfilled. In the summer, in 1823, Archbishop (now Metropolitan) of Moscow Filaret, who was then in St. Petersburg to attend the Synod, asked the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich for dismissal to the diocese entrusted to him for two years. The Minister of Spiritual Affairs, Prince Golitsyn, announced to this, openly, the highest permission, and at the same time secretly, the command that the archbishop, before leaving St. Petersburg, fulfill a special order of the Sovereign Emperor. Following this, the archbishop was given an authentic letter from Tsarevich Konstantin Pavlovich, by which he renounces the inheritance of the throne, and was ordered to write a draft of the highest manifesto on the appointment of the Grand Duke, the now safely reigning Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, as the Heir to the All-Russian throne, so that this act would remain secret until the time comes for bringing him to execution, and that it be kept in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, along with other royal acts. The thought of a secret immediately seemed to the archbishop leading to difficulty. Just as it is natural for the accession to the throne to take place in St. Petersburg, how can it be reconciled with the manifesto secretly kept in Moscow? The archbishop did not hide this bewilderment; submitted that the lists from the act being drawn up should also be kept in St. Petersburg, in the State Council, in the Synod and in the Senate; and, having also received the highest will for this, he included this in the very draft of the manifesto. Having presented the project to Prince Golitsyn, the archbishop, as if he had been dismissed to Moscow, asked permission to introduce himself to the Sovereign Emperor before leaving, which he was granted in the Kamenno-Ostrovsky Palace; but meanwhile received orders to wait for the return of the draft from the Sovereign Emperor, for some corrections in it. The Sovereign Emperor departed for Tsarskoe Selo. Several days passed, the archbishop, concerned about the secret entrusted to him, and seeing that his continued stay in St. Petersburg, after his complete dismissal, aroused questions of curiosity, asked permission to fulfill the highest will while passing through Tsarskoe Selo, where he could stop under the guise of visiting Prince Golitsyn. And so it happened. The archbishop found a draft from the prince in which some words and expressions were underlined in pencil; and, trying to guess why they did not correspond to the thoughts of the Sovereign Emperor, he replaced them with others. On August 25, the Sovereign Emperor arrived in Moscow, and, as I remember, on the 27th day he sent the approved act to the archbishop, with the Tsarevich’s original letter attached, in a sealed envelope, with His Majesty’s own inscription: “to be kept in the Assumption Cathedral with state acts until My demise, and in the event of My death, to be opened to the Moscow diocesan bishop and to the Moscow Governor-General, in the Assumption Cathedral, before any other action." On the 28th day, Count Arakcheev visited the archbishop, and, having first asked whether the known papers had been received from the Emperor, he further asked how they would be included in the Assumption Cathedral. The Archbishop replied that tomorrow, the 29th day of the Sovereign Emperor's name day, he would perform an all-night vigil in the Assumption Cathedral, and, as he, according to the order of the service, must enter the altar before it began, he would use this time to place a sealed envelope in the ark for such acts, without, however, revealing to anyone what this meant. The count, without answering this, left; but soon he came again and announced that the Sovereign Emperor did not like the slightest publicity. The archbishop’s idea was that at least not many of those in the altar would notice that something unknown was included in the acts of state, and that from this there would remain some guesswork and motivation, in the event of the death of the Sovereign, to remember the ark and ask the question whether there was something in it for this case. But it was too late to explain: and therefore on the 29th day, at noon, when there was no one in the Assumption Cathedral except the protopresbyter, the sacellary and the prosecutor of the synodal office, with a seal, the archbishop entered the altar, opened the ark of state acts, showed those present the envelope he had brought and the seal on it, but not the inscription, put it in the ark, locked it, sealed it and announced to those present, to strict observation, the highest will, so that this is not revealed to anyone. The secret keepers were faithful. The following autumn and winter, modest rumors came from St. Petersburg that the State Council and the Holy Synod had received sealed envelopes from the Sovereign Emperor: but they didn’t even ask if something similar had happened in Moscow. The Archbishop of Moscow believed that the existence of the new act was revealed to the Moscow Governor-General, who was entrusted with overseeing its opening; but did not dare to explain this to Prince D.V. Golitsyn, without having the highest will. In November 1825, news of the illness of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich disheartened his loyal subjects. On the 27th day there was reassuring news in Moscow; but that was the last ray of fading hope. On the 28th day, one acquaintance came to the Archbishop of Moscow to hear the all-night vigil, and when asked that he was sad, he answered: Don’t you know? Since the morning of this day it has been known that we have lost our Sovereign Emperor. When the archbishop recovered from his first defeat with sadness: it seemed strange to him that he had been left for a long time in the dark by the governor-general, who should know not only the importance, but also the difficulty of the emerging circumstances. The next morning, the 29th day, the archbishop, having invited the actual privy councilor, Prince Sergei Mikhailovich Golitsyn, came with him to the governor general for a meeting. The Archbishop expressed his thoughts on the difficulty of the present circumstances. Tsarevich Konstantin Pavlovich wrote a letter to the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich about his abdication of inheriting the throne at the beginning of 1822. Until half of 1823, the Imperial Act was not drawn up. The subsequent preparation and storage of the act of appointing Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich to the throne took place in deep secrecy. Therefore, it may happen that the Tsarevich does not know about the existence of this act and considers his intention to have not received approval; that therefore he can be convinced to accept the throne, and that we can receive from Warsaw a manifesto on the accession of Konstantin Pavlovich to the throne, before we have time to receive from St. Petersburg a manifesto on the accession to the throne of Nikolai Pavlovich. At the same time, it turned out that the governor general did not know about the existence of a new act in the Assumption Cathedral; and he expressed a desire to go to the Assumption Cathedral to make sure of this. The archbishop did not agree to this, imagining that rumors that could not be foreseen and even slander could arise from this, as if something had now been added to state acts or that what had been prescribed had been replaced. At the conclusion of this meeting, it was decided that if a manifesto was received from Warsaw, not to announce it and not to begin any action on it in anticipation of a manifesto from St. Petersburg, which will indicate the true Emperor. As soon as precaution was taken in this way against a possible difficulty, an even greater difficulty opened up on the other side. In the evening of the same day, the Governor-General came to the Archbishop with a letter from Count Miloradovich, in which it was announced that an oath of allegiance to Emperor Konstantin Pavlovich had been taken in St. Petersburg, that Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich had sworn the first oath, that it was the indispensable will of the Grand Duke that the same oath be taken in Moscow, and that it should not be revealed paper, such as is in the Assumption Cathedral. The Archbishop submitted to this that Count Miloradovich’s announcement cannot be accepted as official in a matter of such importance. But the Governor-General found that when the oath had already been taken in St. Petersburg, postponing it in Moscow would be unseemly, and perhaps not favorable for public peace. The archbishop continued to represent that the basis of the state oath in the church requires a state act, without which, and also in the absence of a decree from the Holy Synod, it would be inconvenient for the spiritual authorities to decide on this. The Governor-General said that he had already met with the Chief Prosecutor of the General Assembly of the Senate, Prince Gagarin, and that he had promised to convene the senators to an emergency meeting; that, however, if they do not decide to take any action, then he proposes to swear in at least the provincial officials. To this the archbishop objected that it would not only be far from official accuracy, but also unseemly and doubtful for the people if the province swore the oath, but the Senate did not take the oath. Finally, when the Governor General demanded that the oath be taken at least if the Senate made a decision about this, and it was read in the Assumption Cathedral; the archbishop did not find it possible to refuse this and take responsibility for the consequences of this refusal. It is impossible for one Emperor to be in St. Petersburg and another in Moscow. How the oath took place in St. Petersburg, the circumstances of this in Moscow were unknown. It was impossible to think that without important reasons an act entrusted to the State Council, the Synod and the Senate would be left ineffective. It was impossible to assume that the contents of this act were unknown, which, although it was closed with a seal, was quite revealing in the inscription on the envelope, and without a doubt was explained in good time by those who knew it, and who was always a faithful executor in the Bose of the late Emperor, the Minister of Spiritual Affairs, Prince Golitsyn. It was necessary to assume extremely important reasons why the Chairman of the State Council, the leading member of the Synod and the Minister of Justice did not remind the State Council, the Synod and the Senate of the execution and did not fulfill what the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich ordered them to do in the event of his death, before any other action. These considerations seemed imperative to the archbishop so as not to further refuse to take the oath in Moscow, which had already been taken in St. Petersburg. Since it was impossible to know whether the Senate would decide to make a decision on the oath: then, in order not to produce untimely publicity, the senior clergy were only confirmed to gather in the Assumption Cathedral for a prayer service on November 30, the day of St. Andrew the First-Called, usually celebrated; and a promise was taken from the Governor-General that the decision of the Senate would be announced at 11 o’clock in the morning at the Chudov Monastery, where the Archbishop would be waiting for it. When the news was received that the Senate had drawn up a determination and was going to take the oath: then the sad news of the Assumption bell sent a church notification to the capital about the repose of the Most Pious Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, and after that the proposed oath took place in the Assumption Cathedral. The days that elapsed between November 30 and December 15, 1825, of course, were not as difficult for anyone in Moscow as for the archbishop, who had the strange lot of being the keeper of the hidden lamp; Because of this, the opening light finally appeared to him before others. From December 16 to 17, shortly after midnight, he was awakened by the priest of the Trinity Church, which is near the Sukharev Tower, who came to ask for permission to swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich located on the Sukharev Tower of the Department of the Naval Ministry. On what basis? asked the archbishop. The priest replied that the boss had a printed manifesto. It was strange to begin the proclamation of the Emperor from the Sukharev Tower, especially in the circumstances of that time, when the minds of the people were overwhelmed by various unfavorable and controversial rumors; but to stop this would mean making an unfavorable impression. Therefore, the archbishop, without pronouncing a decision and gaining time, demanded that the manifest be shown to him for identification; and at the same time sent a letter to the Governor-General, asking if he had not received the manifesto and asking his advice. When the printed manifesto about the accession to the throne of the All-Russian Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, and the appendices to it, was brought: the archbishop, carried away by the fact that the matter had finally taken a clear path, immediately allowed the priest to take the oath; but then he received an answer from the Governor-General that he had not received the manifesto, and that, in his opinion, nothing should be done at the request of the commander at the Sukharev Tower. Meanwhile, the oath was taken on the Sukharev Tower. 189 On the morning of the 17th day, the Governor-General received a handwritten rescript from the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich on His accession to the All-Russian throne; but the Supreme Manifesto was not received either in the Senate or by the spiritual department of the Synodic decree on the oath of allegiance. A new difficulty, because the highest rescript could not be announced to the Senate, among other things because it contained references to the incident of December 14 and the fate of Count Miloradovich, who, as if in a hurry to declare a non-existent Emperor to Moscow, were not destined to live under the true Emperor. The difficulty was resolved in the evening of the same day by the receipt of the highest manifesto and the arrival, by the highest order, of the adjutant general Count Komarovsky, to be present at the opening of a copy of the manifesto and the true abdication of the Tsarevich, stored in the Assumption Cathedral. So that after the former sinful oath, the people would better understand the present matter, the Archbishop asked the Governor-General, during the night, to print and deliver the required number of copies of the Highest Manifesto and its annexes, so that on the 18th day they could be read before the oath in all churches of the capital. This is done exactly. On the 18th day before noon, after a meeting in the large Dormition Cathedral of the Governing Senate, military and civil ranks, the Archbishop of Moscow, in full vestments, preceded by other clergy, came out of the altar, carrying over his head a silver ark in which state acts are kept, stopped in front of the clothed table prepared on the pre-altar pulpit and, having the ark in front of him, said: The third year, as in this holy and king-sanctifying church, in this ark that you see, the great will of the Blessed Alexander, destined to be his last will, is kept. He was pleased to cover it with a veil of secrecy, and the guardians did not dare to touch this veil ahead of time. Alexander's last minute has passed, the time has come to seek his last will: but for a long time we did not know that this time had come. Suddenly we learn that Nikolai, with the meekness and humility inherited from Alexander, is elevating his eldest brother; and at the same time orders that a new veil of secrecy be placed on Alexander’s charter. What were we supposed to do? It was possible to predict what kind of secret the charter, annexed to the previous charters on the succession to the throne, contained. But it was impossible not to notice that to reveal this secret at that time would have meant tearing the heart of every Russian in two. What were we supposed to do? You see, Blessed Soul, that we were not unfaithful to You: but our loyalty had no other thing to do than to guard the treasure that was not the time to bring into the light - how to protect in silence that which was not allowed to be proclaimed. It was necessary to leave the royal secret buried in this ark, as if in a tomb, and leave the moment of resurrection to heaven. The king of kings has sent this minute. Now nothing prevents us from breaking this seal, opening this coffin that hides the life of the state. The great will of Alexander will be resurrected. Russians! For twenty-five years we have found our happiness in fulfilling the sovereign will of Alexander the Blessed. Once again you will hear it, perform it and find your happiness in it.” After this, the ark, after the seal was broken, was opened, and an envelope was taken out of it; the seal on it and the handwritten inscription in the Bose of the late Sovereign Emperor Alexander Pavlovich were examined by those standing nearby, the Moscow military governor-general and adjutant general Count Komarovsky; and the Archbishop read the Highest Manifesto in Bose of the late Emperor Alexander Pavlovich with the original renunciation of Tsarevich Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich attached to him from the right to inherit the throne. For this, after reading also the Highest Manifesto of the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, we began to take the oath of allegiance to His Imperial Majesty. As circumstances required, the archbishop found it necessary to begin the reading of the oath form as follows: “After the destruction of the power and effect of the previous oath by the unyielding renunciation of the one to whom it was given (this was followed by the signing of the sign of the cross among the people). Az below named and so on.” Over time, different opinions have been heard about this preface of the oath. Some told the archbishop that the thought of the previous oath and the new oath during the life of the one to whom the previous one was given really made them somewhat suspicious, and the above-mentioned preface really served to stop this suspiciousness for them. Others said that the archbishop assumed a power that did not belong to him to dispense with the oath. But the archbishop did not at all admit that his action had such significance. He did not pronounce permission from the oath, but only testified that the power and effect of the previous oath were destroyed by themselves, by the adamant abdication of the throne by the one to whom it was given; he expressed in words the thought that everyone taking the oath should have had at this time. The oath was followed by prayer singing for God's blessing on the beginning of the reign. When proclaiming many years to the Most Pious Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, after the start of the ringing in the Ivanovo bell tower, by prior order, at the same time the ringing was made in all the churches of the capital. At this time, there was no concern that the decree with the attachment of the Highest Manifesto and the order for the oath of allegiance had not yet been received from the Holy Synod, but when several days later passed and there was still no decree, and the incident of December 14 became known in Moscow, then the question seemed gloomy: what was happening in St. Petersburg? Finally, a special messenger from the Holy Synod with a decree appeared in Moscow and explained his delay by stopping in Novgorod and Tver to distribute decrees. This circumstance is mentioned here in order to present for the discretion of whether it deserves attention and order that in cases of national importance Moscow should not be delivered after Novgorod and Tver, and that the Supreme Manifesto should be received by the Senate, the Moscow Governor General and the Moscow diocesan bishop no later than the commander at the Sukharev Tower 190. Ephraim the Syrian, saint, deacon of Edessa, father of the church; Prest. 379 Tolstoy, gr. Mikhail Vladimirovich, in 1845 he was assistant. right affairs of the council of Moscow. philanthropic society. Nikita, blessed. Tsaregradsky, the hidden saint of God, XII century, his memory is committed. September 9. Protopresbyter of Moscow. Uspensk Cathedral Vasily Ivanov. Zabolotsky–Platonov, d. in April 1856 Lecturer Dosifei, student of the teacher. Getting more expensive, asceticism. in the Palestinian monastery of St. Serida, d. in his youth, at the end of the 6th or beginning of the 7th century; his memory is perfect. February 19. Titus, reverend, presbyter, wonderworker during his lifetime: lived in the 10th century. Joseph (Theological), 1 ep. Dmitrov; from 20 Nov. 1849, bishop. Orenburg; from Aug 27 1835 Voronezh; from April 3rd 1860 archbishop; from 14 Nov. 1864 retired. Now the chief priest of the army and navies. Genuine duct. stores. in Moscow diocesan library. dept. III, leaf. 15. Schenkel, Daniil, prof. practical theology at Heidelberg University; mind 1813. See about him above, p. 135, note. 1. Kochetov, Joakim Semenovich, Dr. theologian, prot. Peter and Paul Cathedral, in St. Petersburg, ordinary. academic acad. sciences, mind. March 16, 1854 Bazhanov, Vasily Borisovich, archpriest, member of the Holy Synod, spirits. Their N.V.; mind. July 31, 1883 From my own. black original, stored in Moscow diocesan bib. dept. II, leaf. 63–69 inclusive. These remarks were published in Reading. General loves. spirit. Education, 1869, VIII, pp. 90–96. Giftschutz, Franz, professor pastor. theologian, in Vic; mention here op. it had several editions, the first, in Vita, in 1785; mind. June 5, 1788 Rev. Paul (Thebes) Egyptian hermit, deceased. in 341, 113 years. Anthony the Great. St., institute monastic lives; Prest. January 17, 356, 105 years old. From a copy, stored. to Moscow epar. library, dept. II, fox. 70–73. These remarks were published in Thu. total love spirits enlightenment, 1869, VIII, 97–100. Cyril, St., Bishop Jerusalem, church writer. and preaching; Prest. in 386 Dobmayer Cl. D. Mar., famous Bavarian theologian; mind. Dec. 21, 1803 See above, p. 154, note. 1. Ternovsky, Pyotr Matveevich, prot., doc. theologian Sciences, Honored prof. theologian, church history, lawyer, experience. psychol., logic, ed. Op. “Dogmatic theology, or expansive. exposition teachings of faith Catholic east Churches", M., 1838 (had 3rd edition); mind. Sep 5, 1874 Kirill Lukaris, Patriarch. Constantinople, by order of the Sultan, was strangled and thrown into the sea in 1638. See above, page 18, note. 1. With a handwritten original draft, stored in the Moscow Diocesan Library, dept. II, sheet 52–62. The time of writing the “memoir” is not indicated; but, taking into account the expression of Metropolitan Philaret that “twenty years or more after the events, it is too late to write them down,” one can unmistakably attribute the compilation of the “memoir” to 1845. Here we mean the will of the late Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, deceased. October 20, 1860 It is known that Count M.A. Miloradovich, the military governor of St. Petersburg, was killed by rebels on December 14. 1825. From a copy, inventory No. 1; document No. 4. These “Memoirs” were published in Zhurn. minister folk education, for 1868, January, vol. 37. Also included in the book: “Notes on the life and times of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, comp. N.V. Sushkov, M., 1868. Appendix. XXXIV, pp. 80–86.