Holy Scripture and Tradition in the ecclesiology of St. Philaret (Drozdov)

Ecclesiology occupies a special place in Christian theology in general and in Russian theology in particular. Despite the centuries-old history of the Church itself, this area remains mysterious. It states very little definitely, and what is stated—the four essential properties of the Church—is far from being understood unambiguously. It is difficult to determine the line between ecclesiology and church history: the Church manifests itself in history, and the theological understanding of the Church requires, on the one hand, reliance on historical reality and specific examples, and on the other hand, detachment from them. The problem is also an adequate determination of the place of the doctrine of the Church in the system of scientific theology: should ecclesiology be an introduction to the system of theology, one of the parts of this system, or its conclusion? Even more complex is the question of the relationship between the teaching about the Church and the teaching about the sources of church theology: Revelation, Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, faith, knowledge of God and communication with God, spiritual experience. All these concepts are not simply connected with the teaching about the Church - they cannot be interpreted outside of this teaching. The question of the correlation between Scripture and Tradition as sources and criteria of church theology has repeatedly been a stumbling block for Western Christian theology. Catholic theology insisted on the decisive importance of the teaching Church and its Tradition for theology, which extended to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Protestants, seeing in this point of view an exaggerated meaning of the word and tradition of man and opposing it, insisted on the primacy of Scripture both for Christian theology and for the faith of every Christian. Orthodox theology, following the tradition of the ancient fathers, has never placed Scripture and Tradition in strict opposition. However, the question raised in Western theology required one or another attitude towards it and Orthodox theological thought. Russian theology, which in its historical path experienced a certain influence of both Catholic and Protestant theological ideas, was in a particularly difficult and responsible position. At the same time, Russian theology has always set itself the task of not only selecting from these influences that which does not contradict Orthodoxy, but also giving an independent Orthodox answer to theological questions that did not arise or did not receive a clear answer in the times of the Ancient Church or in subsequent Orthodox theology. One of the questions to which Russian theologians had to seek an answer was the question of Scripture and Tradition. Russian theology, having decided in the 17th century. make a breakthrough in its development, relied heavily on the fundamental Catholic educational system. Along with textbooks, systems, methods and approaches, the main theological principle was partly borrowed from Catholicism: the importance of logical justification, reliance on Scripture, but through the interpretive Church. The tradition introduced into Russian theology by His Grace Theophan (Prokopovich), following the Protestants, shifted the emphasis to the Holy Scripture as the only source and “guiding principle” of theology 1 . However, after this, the Protestants, rejecting the visible Church, transferred part of its tasks and signs to Scripture itself. For Orthodox ecclesiology this was unacceptable, and Russian theology had to find an adequate place for Scripture in the doctrine of the Church. Another task arose: having separated the Tradition of the Church from the “traditions of men,” to determine the place and significance and boundaries of the former for church theology. Many Russian theologians tried to solve these problems. A special contribution to their solution was made by Saint Philaret (Drozdov), in whose theological heritage ecclesiology is one of the main components. Saint Philaret addressed the question of the correlation between Scripture and Tradition as sources and criteria of church theology throughout his life. At the same time, the saint is often accused of some inconsistency in this matter, contrasting the thoughts expressed by him at different periods of his life. Let us try to trace how the teaching of St. Philaret about the role of Holy Scripture and Tradition in the life of the Church and in church theology was formed. Let us highlight the main ideas expressed by the saint on issues of interest to us in his early works dating back to 1811–1815: “Exposition of the difference between the Eastern and Western Churches in the doctrine of faith” (1811), “Review of theological sciences in relation to their teaching in higher theological schools” (1814), “Conversations between the testing and the confident about Eastern Orthodoxy of the Greco-Russian Church, with the addition of an extract from the district letter of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Eastern Patriarchal thrones" (1815) 2. “The only pure and sufficient source of Faith is the revealed word of God, contained in the Holy Scriptures... There is no member of the Faith that has not been revealed in the Holy Scriptures, capable of wisdom for salvation (2 Tim. 3.15), so its silence about any tradition shows only that this tradition is not a member of the Faith. However, tradition is not a separate one, but in conjunction with the Holy Scriptures, can be recognized as an auxiliary source of Christian teaching.” 3 As for the interpretation of Scripture, its interpretation, the Saint writes that “everything necessary for salvation is set forth in the Holy Scriptures with such clarity that everyone who reads it with a sincere desire to be enlightened can understand it.” Enlightened interpreters of the Holy Scriptures are, of course, useful, but for Christians they are “little enlightened.” The saint considers the idea that in order to extract members of the Faith from Scripture “a certain autocratic interpreter is needed”, it degrades the dignity of the word of God and subjugates faith to the word of man 4 . The saint also draws attention to the critical role of Scripture in the doctrinal activity of the Church: “Holy Scripture, as the word of God Himself, is the only supreme judge of discord and the resolver of perplexities in the Faith.” The definitions of church councils are verified by Holy Scripture, so that “no Council can establish a member of the Faith who has not been proven from Holy Scripture.” Traditions about members of the Faith that are not entirely found in Scripture should not be accepted, for “Holy Scripture in many places prohibits adding anything to the teaching contained therein” 5 . And about the societies themselves that gather in the name of Christ - about the councils or about the local churches themselves - we can judge on the basis of the same Scripture, the word of God 6. However, we know from the history of the Church that the canon of the books of Holy Scripture was formed gradually, and over a period of time certain books were not immediately and unambiguously included in it. This raises the question of how reliance on Scripture as the sole and absolute criterion is compatible with this origin of Scripture. Saint Philaret, with this in mind, wrote that “Christian teaching was spread by tradition and Scripture collectively, but when in these books the Church received a universal and sufficient rule of faith (Phil. 3.16), then to allow the unwritten word of God to be equivalent to the written one means exposing oneself to the danger of “ruining the commandment of God for human tradition” (Matthew 15.6). At the same time, Saint Philaret refers to the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Philippians: “what we have achieved, we must think so and live according to that rule” (Phil 3.16) 7. In the second case, let us pay attention to the situation indicated by the saint: the Lord reproaches the scribes and Pharisees for eclipsing God’s commandments with their traditions. Thus, at this stage, Saint Philaret identified the main, from his point of view, qualities of Scripture for church life and theological knowledge: 1) Scripture is the main and first source of faith; 2) All parts of the tradition are verified by Scripture: both personal theological opinions and those accepted by the council (for example, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed); 3) Scripture is the main criterion for the morality and activities of Christians; 4) Scripture is complete regarding the knowledge necessary for salvation, and is necessary, obligatory for every Christian. However, such a seemingly complete assessment of the meaning of Holy Scripture does not eliminate all questions. A person who carefully reads Scripture and at least partially knows the history of the Church inevitably faces the question: how, for example, then should one evaluate the history with the inclusion of the famous term “consubstantial” in the Creed at the First Ecumenical Council? 8 Every theological student will assure that this term is of non-biblical origin, and therefore caused so many problems in its adaptation by the church consciousness and the development of its correct understanding? This question can be generalized: what is the general role of the theological creativity of the Church, what is the creative element, what is the degree of freedom of this creativity? After some time, Saint Philaret again returns to the question of the place of Holy Scripture and Tradition in church theology - this time in a slightly different situation. On behalf of the Commission of Theological Schools under the Holy Synod, he was entrusted with the systematization of theological courses taught in Russian theological schools at the beginning of the 19th century, and the construction of a unified theological system 9. Saint Philaret builds a multi-level system of scientific and educational theology, starting the main theological course with interpretive theology (Theologia Hermeneutica), the task of which is to interpret the Holy Scriptures and extract from them the truths of faith and piety. The second task - to arrange these truths in the correct order and correlation with each other - is solved by composite theology (Theologia Constitutiua). Finally, the third task of the theological system - the correct application of the constructed truths - must be solved in three directions: teaching or conversational (Theologia Homiletica), government - canon law (Teologia Rectrix seu Jus Canonicum), pastoral (Theologia Pasteralis). Holy Scripture for theology is “the root on which all branches of theological knowledge are established and from which they receive life and strength.” However, the Revealed Word of God was contained in the Holy Scriptures “from the time when it could no longer be preserved by tradition without damage and loss,” and then gradually was offered “for general understanding.” Every Christian, and especially the theologian and pastor, needs a thorough knowledge of Scripture. Interpretive theology is not enough for this - a living and direct reading and study of Scripture is necessary, which in the highest theological school - the academy - must continue throughout the entire four-year study. On the other hand, there are a number of reasons why direct and exclusive teaching from Scripture is not always convenient, and additional theological work of the Church is required. This is what theological science should do, heading towards the same goal as the Inspired Scripture, and borrowing “spirit and light” from Scripture 10. Thus, as can be seen from this construction, Saint Philaret recognizes that in the theological system not only Scripture, but also Tradition is of great importance. In 1838, in the famous “Sermon on the consecration of the Church of the Life-Giving Trinity in the Moscow Danilov Monastery,” Saint Philaret returned to the question of the relationship between the authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition 11 . In this word, reminding the Moscow flock of the Holy Apostle Paul’s instruction to Thessalonians - “to stand and keep the traditions” (2 Thessalonians 2.15) - and his praise to the Corinthians for their steadfastness in this regard (1 Cor. 11.2), the saint sets out a holistic teaching about the Holy Tradition of the Church. He warns against both extremes: both from relying exclusively on Scripture, with an underestimation of the importance of Tradition, and from blind submission to traditions, without reasoning and trying to recognize their authenticity, dignity, purity, that is, belonging to the true Tradition of the Church. Saint Philaret, thus, raises the question of distinguishing between the authority of Sacred Tradition in its entirety and its individual elements. Saint Philaret had previously affirmed that Tradition is verified by Scripture. And here he confirms his position: “Examine tradition through the word of God and through the commandments of God. If a tradition contradicts the word of God, if it leads you to violate God’s commandment, then know that this is a human, not a true tradition, that you would keep such a tradition in vain, while violating God’s commandment would condemn you” 12. It is important that now the saint insisted on the verification of Scripture by Tradition. There are two main arguments: the authority of the holy apostles and the testimony of church history about the origin of Scripture. The Apostle Paul calls in his epistles traditions everything that Christians learned from him as from the apostle regarding faith, clergy, worship, church decorum and rules of life. In this tradition, one can distinguish the written Tradition, that is, the Holy Scripture, and the unwritten Tradition, transmitted from the holy apostles and holy fathers through words and example. At the same time, the above-mentioned calls of the Apostle Paul to “keep” the traditions leave no doubt about the importance of the second component. “Tradition was exactly the same instrument of God for the salvation of people as the Holy Scriptures” 13. The argument from history turns attention to the origins of the New Testament books of Scripture. “How do we know the composition of the books of Holy Scripture and the sacred dignity of each?” This is known from Tradition, that is, the Holy Scripture itself is based on tradition. Scripture, according to the testimony of the Holy Evangelist Luke, is only a continuation of Tradition, its verified and consolidated form: “As it was handed down to us by those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word from the very beginning, it was decided for me, after a thorough study of everything from the beginning, to describe it in order.” (Lk 1.2–3). However, the question arises: is there not a vicious vicious circle in this mutual verification: the truth of Scripture is verified by Tradition, and the truth of Tradition by Scripture? There must be a solid and unshakable foundation in this mutual confirmation? This foundation, according to Saint Philaret, is the Church, for it is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). And therefore, it is in the Church that one should look for truth; through it one can verify the truth of traditions, “of which the Church is the only faithful repository.” By accepting Tradition from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, one can adhere to this Tradition without being shaken by vain doubts, “holding on” to it with the hope of pleasing God 14 . Thus, the way to preserve the truth of the confession is to remain in the Church, “not to forsake the assembly of oneself” (Heb. 10.23, 25), that is, the assembly of the Universal Orthodox Church. The opposite is also true: those who have left the Church - the affirmation of the truth - can offer either a false tradition, or a damaged one, or, at least, stolen and unblessed. And “the false will not save, the damaged will not heal, the stolen will not enrich, the unblessed will not bring blessing” 15. But doesn’t the church congregation run the risk of replacing God’s commandments with “human tradition,” falling under the condemnation given by the Lord to the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 15:6)? Moreover, the apostolic age has ended, and with it, it would seem, the living testimony of people who saw the Lord “face to face.” To show the difference between Sacred Tradition and any human tradition, Saint Philaret gives a definition: Sacred Tradition is “not just the visible and verbal tradition of teachings, rules, rites, rituals; but with this there is also an invisible, real teaching of grace and sanctification.” That is, the guarantor of the unwavering truth of Tradition is not subjective human opinion, but the only absolute guarantor, objective in relation to any time, situation, resolving all disputes and rational searches for truth - the “Spirit of Truth.” “The Apostles, anointed with the Holy Spirit, anoint the Holy Fathers with the same spiritual myrrh, and these – their successors from century to century, the Saints consecrate the churches and sacraments, and in turn the churches and sacraments consecrate the Saints, why, when you touch the present shrine, you touch the same grace that was poured out in the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles” 16. A year later, Saint Philaret consolidated this theological understanding of the role and meaning of Tradition in the new edition of his Long Catechism (1839) 17 . Two questions reintroduced by the saint in this edition relate to Tradition: “Should we observe Sacred Tradition even when we have Sacred Scripture?” and “Why is Tradition needed even now?” The saint gives short answers, corresponding to the catechetical form, which, after considering the history of their appearance, no longer seem either formal or trivial. “We must observe Tradition, in agreement with Divine Revelation and Holy Scripture,” “for guidance to the correct understanding of Holy Scripture, for the correct performance of the sacraments and for the observance of sacred rites in the purity of their original establishment” 18. In subsequent years, Saint Philaret repeatedly wrote about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, about Tradition and its sources, about the role of the Church and tradition in the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. Thus, in 1842, the saint critically assessed the “Guide to Hermeneutics” by Archimandrite Afanasy (Drozdov), rector of St. Petersburg Academy of Arts (1841–1842) 19 . St. Philaret considered the assertions of the author of the manual that “not all dogmas are contained in the Holy Scriptures”, and those that are contained “intentionally covered by some darkness,” to be inconsistent with the dignity of the Holy Scriptures. “The Holy Spirit spoke the Holy Scriptures to enlighten and not to obscure” 20. Archimandrite Athanasius, putting forward the thesis that Scripture itself cannot be the beginning or touchstone of the true understanding of Scripture, argued that “this is what Lutherans think.” However, according to Saint Philaret, this cannot be an unambiguous sign of a false opinion: not all provisions adopted by other confessions are false. In this case, Lutherans sin in the fact that in order to understand the Holy Scripture they do not take the interpretations of the Church and the Holy Fathers as a guide, and not in the fact that they explain one passage of Scripture to another, more clear one. Wanting to oppose the Lutherans, the author deprives the truth of a powerful means and weapon 21. According to Saint Philaret, the dark passages of Holy Scripture should be explained primarily by other passages of Scripture itself, and not by church rules, liturgical instructions and the works of the Fathers of the Church. For if, for example, a Western Christian turns exclusively to his liturgical books, he will be confident in the validity of the doctrine of the Filioque 22. A higher principle is needed by which to check the extent to which this or that liturgical book has preserved the purity of dogma, and this beginning is in the Holy Scriptures. To him, according to the instructions of the Apostle, the holy councils and holy fathers of the Church always turned to him (2 Pet 1.19) 23. Judgment in matters of faith belongs to the word of God, as the Lord Himself pointed out (John 5.39) 24. The Church also insists on this, saying in the wake of the Week of Orthodoxy that only “traditions and scriptures in agreement with Divine Revelation are acceptable and affirmed,” while heretics and schismatics expose themselves to the judgment of the holy word of God 25 . Saint Philaret drew the attention of the author of the “Manual” to the fact that the importance of interpreting the Holy Scriptures from himself is also indicated by the ancient fathers and teachers of the Church: Clement of Alexandria, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons 26 . As for individual liturgical texts, as elements of Tradition, here, too, a distinction is required, which is especially important for educational courses: the importance and theological value of the texts of the Liturgies of the Holy Apostle James, Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom are not at all the same as some hymns, the compilers of which are not always canonized 27 . With this remark, Saint Philaret again drew attention to the distinction between the authority of Sacred Tradition in its entirety and the authority of its individual elements. As a result, Saint Philaret drew up his proposal for the sequence of the Sacred Hermeneutics. Unclear passages of the Holy Scriptures must be truly and legally interpreted: 1) by the Holy Scriptures themselves, in places that are clearer and more complete; 2) the entire totality of Church Tradition, contained in symbols, dogmas, rules and interpretations of holy councils and holy fathers. The first part, in addition to its intrinsic value, is also needed so that the interpreter has the opportunity to admonish those who do not yet accept the traditions; the second - in order to put an obstacle to the willful interpretations of rationalists and other sects, especially the newest ones 28. St. Philaret also touched upon an extremely important problem for him—the correct determination of the meaning of Scripture, Tradition, and church authority—in his letters to contemporary theologians. Thus, in 1849, he wrote to the rector of the MDA, Archimandrite Alexy (Rzhanitsyn) (1847–1853), in a private review of the latter’s work, “Essays on Guardian Angels” 29: “Aren’t we theologizing according to fashion? Previously they relied on the Holy Scriptures and paid little attention to Tradition. Then they noticed this flaw with force: the words “Orthodoxy” and “Tradition” began to sound more often and merge into one sound; and began to theologize according to Tradition, sometimes leaving the Holy Scripture behind, and some even humiliated the Scripture. The Church teaches to recognize Traditions that agree with the revelation of God. And therefore, isn’t it more correct to base the teaching mainly on the Holy Scriptures, and supplement it with Tradition, explain it, and protect it from the wrong-minded?” 30 In 1863, opening the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, Saint Philaret built a system that should, in his opinion, form the basis of the theology of the Church: “Christian wisdom must be pure—pure in its source, in its motives and purpose. Its pure source is God - His word, contained in the sacred scriptures, clarified by church definitions, teachings and spiritual experiences of God-wise men” 31. Thus, the teaching of Saint Philaret about the place and meaning in the Church of Holy Scripture and Tradition was holistic and consistent throughout the entire era of his church-theological reflections and activities. However, the teaching itself and Saint Philaret’s understanding of certain of its provisions had its own history, developed, clarified, deepened, and systematized. In the theological system of St. Philaret, the word of God was of fundamental importance, both for the dogmatic formulations of the Church and for the personal faith and spiritual growth of each of its members. The Word of God is embodied in the Holy Scriptures, clarified in the Holy Tradition, supplementing it with church definitions, theological teachings of the Church Fathers, liturgical practices, and spiritual experience. The Holy Scripture - after its appearance and the final consolidation by the Church of its composition, the canon - is the first in this sequence of sources of Christian knowledge; every tradition, theological decree of the entire Church and its individual parts, any particular theological statement is primarily based on it and is trusted by it. Through Scripture, personal communication between the believer and God is carried out. Therefore, Saint Philaret placed Scripture at the forefront, insisting on its obligatory nature for every church society and every Christian. The criterion for the formation of the Holy Scripture, in turn, was the Holy Tradition, in the context of which Scripture is further interpreted and lived, its true meaning, depth and theological content are revealed. Scripture not only allows for interpretation, both verbal and spiritually experiential, but also implies it. In the teachings of Saint Philaret, Scripture and Tradition are so closely united that it becomes clear that the very opposition and even separation of Scripture and Tradition as sources of Christian knowledge is unfounded. The Word of God comes from God, the Church accepts it and testifies to its truth. The rule of faith - dogmas formulated and adopted at the Ecumenical Councils of the Church - largely determine our understanding of the word of God, which does not detract from the importance of personal and direct awareness of the word of God. The Holy Scriptures, being the direct pure source and single criterion of Christian knowledge, leave wide space for the Church's religious activity and theological interpretation. Moreover, this ecclesial interpretation is necessary due to the special tasks of the Church. The Word of God, which came into the world in the Incarnation, revealed the Truth, cognizable, experienced and affirmed at all levels of the existence of the Church, which is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3.15). Chervyakovsky P. Introduction to the theology of Feofan Prokopovich // Christian Reading. 1876. No. 1–2. pp. 101–103. Exposition of the difference between the Eastern and Western Churches in the doctrine of faith // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1870. Book. I. P. 31–44 (or: Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1872. P. 15–33); Review of theological sciences in relation to their teaching in higher theological schools. St. Petersburg, 1814 (or: Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues, published under the editorship of the Right Reverend Savva, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin: In 5 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1885–1888. T. I. S. 123–151); Conversations between the searching and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church, with the addition of an extract from the district letter of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Eastern Patriarchal Thrones. St. Petersburg.., 1815 (or: Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, creations. M.: Father's House, 1994). Exposition of the difference between the Eastern and Western Churches in the doctrine of faith // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1870. Book. I. P. 33. For ease of understanding, we will allow some incorrectness by quoting the Russian text of the message, which St. Philaret did not yet have in 1811. But in this case this does not play a decisive role, for the saint does not quote the quotation verbatim, but only indicates its meaning. Creed: “I believe...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, who was born of the Father before all ages; Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were.” Review of theological sciences in relation to their teaching in higher theological schools // Collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, on educational and church-state issues. T.I.S. 123–151. Word on the consecration of the Church of the Life-Giving Trinity in the Moscow Danilov Monastery // St. Philaret (Drozdov). Words and speeches. T. 4. M., 1882. P. 95–100; or: Saint Philaret (Drozdov). Selected works, letters, memories. M.: Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute, 2003. pp. 344–349. Saint Philaret (Drozdov). Words and speeches. T. 4. P. 99. Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Greek-Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1839. On the fate of the “Long Catechism” of St. Philaret and the correlation of its different editions, see: I. N. Korsunsky. The fate of the catechisms of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow // Russian Bulletin. 1883. No. 1. Long Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Greek-Russian Church. M.: Compound of the Russian Monastery on Athos of St. Panteleimon, 1995. P. 9. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret on the “Guide to Hermeneutics” (1841–1842) // Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1868. Book. 5. pp. 150–167. Afanasy (Drozdov Alexander Vasilyevich) (1794–1876), Archbishop of Astrakhan and Enotaevsky. Graduate of the Tula DS (1820), master of MDA (1824). In 1823 he was tonsured a monk, and in 1824 he was ordained a hieromonk. Bachelor of MDA (1824–1828), rector of the Penza DS (1828), Kostroma DS (1829), Ryazan DS (1837), Kherson DS (1840). Rector of SPbDA (1841–1847), since 1842 in the rank of Bishop of Vinnitsa, vicar of the Podolsk diocese. Later, Bishop of Saratov (1847), Astrakhan (1856), Archbishop (1858). Retired since 1870. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret on the “Guide to Hermeneutics”... Book. 5. pp. 153–154. 2 Peter 1.19: “And we have the most sure word of the prophet, and you do well to take heed to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” John 5.39: “Search the Scriptures, for through them you think you have eternal life; and they testify of Me.” From the deacon’s reading after the prokemena for the Sunday of Orthodoxy: “Also, the Councils of the Holy Fathers and their traditions and writings, in agreement with Divine Revelation, are acceptable and affirmed.” From the prayer read by the priest at the same succession, after the special litany: “But seeing many attempts, we diligently pray to Thee, All-Good Lord: look upon Thy Church and see that Thy saving gospel is received joyfully, but the thorns of vanity and passions create in some fruitless, in some fruitlessly, and by the increase of iniquities, by heresies, by schism, opposing Thy gospel truth, they retreat from Thy inheritance, reject Thy grace and subject themselves to the judgment of Thy Most Holy Word.” “It [the truth] is revealed only by intense, persistent searches, when they examine whether this or that is worthy of the name of the Lord and Almighty God. The interpretation must always correspond to truth and virtue, the passages of Scripture being explained, in addition, must reveal the same meaning as similar ones” (Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. Chapter Seven. XVI. A two-fold way to distinguish truth from heresy: firstly, a reference to Scripture as a criterion for the truth or falsity of any teaching // Fathers and Teachers of the Church of the 3rd century: Anthology: In 2 vols. Comp., biographical and bibliographical articles by Hierom Hilarion (Alfeeva). “.The evidence found in the Scriptures cannot be presented otherwise than from the Scriptures themselves” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Five books of denunciation and refutation of false knowledge. Book three. XII. 9 // St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Creations. Published in Russian translation by Archpriest P. Preobrazhensky. St. Petersburg, 1900 (Reprint: M., 1996. P. 261). St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Creations. P. 162. Alexy (Rzhanitsyn), archimandrite. About Guardian Angels // Addition to the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. 1849. T. USH. Letter dated November 11, 1849 // St. Philaret of Moscow. Call on God for help. M.: Sretensky Monastery, 2006. pp. 482–483. Response to the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment on the election of its Trustee // Works of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Words and speeches: In 5 volumes. T. 5. M., 1885. P. 558.