Metropolitan Philaret as a theologian

Read on November 18 at an academic meeting and on December 3 at a meeting of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. Reprinted with additions. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, occupies a unique place in the history of the Russian church and, in particular, in the history of Russian theology, and has an exceptional significance, which no one else has ever had before him or after him to this day. During the decades of his church activity, he filled the entire church life, all its aspects were connected with his name, and to this day his extensive legacy has not yet been eliminated, the threads of modern church movements come from him, his name - among church leaders - continues to be the most famous, the most memorable. He was a brilliant person, unusually gifted, mainly, with intelligence and will. The mind is colossal, all-encompassing, capable of equally embracing the whole and grasping all the particulars; most importantly, it is bright, subtle, sound, inimitably reliable. And at the same time, equally colossal willpower, inexhaustible energy. The mind is not contemplative, but practical, the will is firm, disciplined, determined by the instructions of the mind, and not by the impulses of the heart. The extent of Filaret’s church and even church-state activities is amazing. It's hard to believe that one person could do so much. Requests flocked to him, which even such indefatigable energy barely had time to answer. Philaret’s theological work was drowned in the immense practical activity of the church. In this area, distracted by archpastoral concerns, he did not do as much as he could and wanted. Most importantly, he did not abandon the theological system that he had in mind. And for all that, his theological legacy is enormous. The point on which Philaret's theological attention was most focused was the question of the sources of Christian teaching, in solving which he tirelessly put forward the primacy of the word of God. His “feat in translating the Bible into Russian” was closely connected with this view. In order not to abuse the attention of the venerable assembly, I will limit my speech to the teaching of Philaret about the word of God, but I will present this teaching of Philaret in detail. I am an admirer, an ardent admirer of Russian theology. I cannot help but be extremely attentive to the word of a Russian theologian, especially one as authoritative as Filaret. I will present his teaching not as anyone would like it to be, but as it really is. At the same time, to me, as a historian of Russian theology, the word of every Russian theologian appears from a historical perspective. And I cannot help but begin my speech about Philaret’s theology by pointing out his predecessors. In his teaching about the primacy of the word of God, Filaret was not an innovator: before him, a fairly strong tradition of Russian theology had already developed. The first theologian who proclaimed the word of God as the single principle of theology among us was the glorious archbishop. Feofan Prokopovich, founder of Russian theological science. In the introduction to his theological course, given when he was rector of the Kyiv Academy (1712 - 1716): Prolegomena de definitione, objecto, causa, portione, methodo et pricipiis theologiae - he declared with complete decisiveness: solum Dei verbum, solam sacram scripturam esse principium theologiae. Later 1 Irenaeus Falkovsky, rector of the same academy († Bishop Chigirinsky 1823) in an abbreviated presentation of Feofanova’s system: Christianae, orthodoxae, dogmatico-polemicae theologiae, olim a clarissimo viro Theophane Prokopowicz ejusque continuatoribus adornatae – Compendium (Mosquae 1802, 1810; Petropoli 1827) repeated Theophan’s theses with the same certainty: sola sacra scriptura, seu solum Dei verbum, est principium theologiae (Proleg. § 12). Testimonia patrum non sunt eloquiis Dei aequiparanda, sed generant tantum humanam fidem. Of the numerous theologians who followed the paths of Theophan, the most famous hierarch of the Russian Church, Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin), is marked with the seal of original authority. He “introduced the Great Russian element into our theology” and at the same time created the deepest and most consistent Christian philosophy, although it is unknown, to our shame, from this side. Plato wrote the following about the word of God. “Our faith must be established on the one word of God, as on an immovable foundation; and in no way on human definitions alone, because every man is a lie, but the word of the Lord endures forever. What should we understand about church traditions? Should a Christian person accept them and obey them out of conscience? And through tradition we understand certain definitions or rituals accepted in the church in St. The Scriptures are not directly shown, but, however, from the apostles or from other fathers, without scripture, the church was communicated and devoted. One should only accept such traditions as those that would be true for St. The Scriptures inevitably had a statement, although through the correct, as they say, conclusion, there is still a lot in the Scriptures that is not said, but of course, such as for example. children's baptism, although about that in St. It is not directly declared anywhere in Scripture, only it can be proven from there: or at least those should be accepted that would not be contrary to the word of God: since when the apostles betrayed something without scripture, then it is undoubtedly not contrary to what they told the church in scripture. The Holy Spirit, according to which the apostles taught and wrote about the movement, cannot be contrary to itself, which is most clearly declared by Paul 2 Cor. X, 11, and for such legends they can be honored, for example. the construction of churches to the east, all church utensils, incense, before baptism, incantations, anointing oil, before communion, reading the rule, fasting, vespers, matins, various holidays, and on holidays various rituals, fasts. We must keep all these and other traditions: not only are they not contrary to the word of God, but they also serve to decorate and benefit the church. Otherwise it is impossible to accept: if, for example. a person will order and determine something that is completely contrary to God’s word: otherwise, if not, then here God’s threat that is written in the Apocalypse will especially come true. Ch. XXII, 18. Yes, with such traditions the word of God is blatantly destroyed, and the commandment of God is ruined, for which Jesus Christ cruelly denounced the Pharisees, Matt. XV, 6, and this is where superstitions and papists are greatly mistaken” (VIII, 121 – 123). Begun by the scientist Feofan Prokopovich and approved by the authoritative Plato, the doctrine of the primacy of the word of God has become a solid property of Russian theology. We also meet him at St. Tikhon of Zadonsky. To what extent the doctrine of the primacy of the word of God has become established in Russian theology, we can judge from the theological systems of hieromonks Macarius (Petrovich) and Juvenaly (Medvedsky). Hieromonk Macarius (Serbian by birth), rector of the Tver Seminary (†1766) in his work: “Dogmatic theology, or Orthodox teaching of the Eastern Churches, containing everything that a Christian seeking his salvation should know and do, collected from the Holy Scriptures, holy fathers and theological systems and decently arranged for the benefit and use of youth in 1780" (printed in the first volume of "Collected works of the former Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy of the Preacher, then the Prefect and the Philosophy of the teacher, and finally the Zheltikov Monastery Archimandrite, the Tver Seminary Rector and the sacred theology of the teacher Macarius", M. 1786) wrote: “The traditions established by the primacy of the church, councils and saints should be accepted, which have a basis in the scriptures... We do not accept traditions filled with fables and superstitions, but only those that are similar to God’s word.”... The pen of the modest Khutyn hieromonk Juvenaly belongs to the work: “Christian theology for those who want the highest success in piety, proposed Hieromonk Juvenaly" - written in 1797 and published in 1806. Here we read: “The first foundation of theology is the Holy Scripture alone” (I, 132). And further: “You ask: what should one understand about church traditions and holy father’s writings? I answer: both the holy fathers’ writings and church traditions are in agreement with the word of God, found in the Holy Scriptures, and included in their works by the most ancient church writers, although they should be accepted; however, there is no need to mix or compare with the word of God. For one thing is the word of God, and another is the holy father's scriptures and church traditions. The holy fathers' writings are books composed by their labors, containing either explanations of the word of God, or special sermons, based on it, spoken to the people, or other things about which the needs of the church and the general benefit then required. Church traditions mean such testaments made by Christ and the Apostles, which are not clearly found in Holy Scripture, but are communicated in a living voice only by the faithful and are contained in the church: however, if they contain teaching about things necessary for salvation, then, without a doubt, by force, through the correct conclusion, they are found in Holy Scripture, and if they are not found, then the not so necessary teaching is contained in them, so that Without knowledge of this it is impossible to be saved, but about middle things, which cannot be compared in any way with the dogmas and commandments found in Holy Scripture. And therefore, both traditions and the holy father’s writings can be used in decent places, and sometimes should. However, evidence from them, the truth, consonant with God, is not to be brought for proof and addition to the word of God; but only for the sake of explanation, in order to show that both the ancient teachers and the primal church understood and interpreted our teaching, confirming the divine sayings of the Holy Scriptures, just as we do today” (I, 136 – 137). In his theological teaching, M. Filaret followed the Russian tradition and, most closely, the theology of his “teacher”, “benefactor” and “predecessor” Plato. M. Filaret was a faithful student of Plato, despite the fact that the student, who, at the first steps of his career, upset the tender affection of his benefactor - as if by a heartless and calculating separation from him, and in theology, apparently, did not set himself the direct task of being a successor of Plato. “It’s a strange thing,” wrote Archimandrite Filaret. Anthony in 1847 - fell into my hands. Is it permissible to print some of the catechisms of Bishop Plato, which the Censorship Committee doubted, because some do not include the Lord’s Prayer, some speak only of two or three sacraments 2, there is an expression: sacred-rite, which he applies to the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, considering the Holy Scriptures to be the basis of the doctrine of faith, he is silent about traditions? It is not convenient to leave these inaccuracies, which the present century not only looks at, but it is also difficult to touch with bad hands the work of good hands.” M. Filaret, in his view of the word of God, stood on the basis of the tradition of Russian theology, and he developed this point of Russian theology with his characteristic thoroughness, putting the stamp of his high authority on it. Filaret’s thoughts can be summarized in the following theses.” 1) Holy Scripture is the main and first, in comparison with church tradition, source of Christian doctrine and moral teaching, so that the Holy Scriptures are subordinated to it and trusted by them. Tradition. 2) Holy Scripture is the most important criterion for the teaching and activity of Christians, the decider of the correctness and orthodoxy of their opinions and the morality of their actions. 3) Holy Scripture contains everything necessary for the salvation of a Christian, so St. The legend serves only to explain St. scriptures. 4) Holy Scripture is necessary for every Christian” 3. In the Exposition of the Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches in the Doctrine of Faith (1811), the following is written. “The only pure and sufficient source of the teaching of the Faith is the revealed word of God, contained in the Holy Scriptures... The assumption about the imperfection of Holy Scripture obviously tends to give more importance to human traditions. But just as there is no member of the Faith who has not been revealed in Holy Scripture, capable of wisdom for salvation (2 Tim. III, 15), so his silence about any tradition only shows that this tradition is not a member of the Faith. However, tradition, not separately, but in conjunction with Holy Scripture, can be recognized as an auxiliary source of Christian teaching. (In contrast, Catholic teaching says: Holy Scripture is not a sufficient source of saving teaching; for in Christianity there is much that needs to be known that is not in Holy Scripture, such as, for example, that Easter should be celebrated on a weekly day). Everything necessary for salvation is set forth in Holy Scripture with such clarity that everyone who reads it with a sincere desire to be enlightened can understand it... Enlightened interpreters of Holy Scripture are, of course, useful for less enlightened Christians. Но мысль, что для извлечения. from among the members of the Faith a certain autocratic interpreter is required, who humiliates the dignity of the word of God and subjugates the Faith to the word of man. (On the contrary, according to Catholicism: Holy Scripture is so dark that it cannot be understood without interpretation; for many of its sayings admit of different explanations). Everyone has not only the right, but also the duty, if possible, to read Holy Scripture in a language intelligible to him and learn from it. (According to Catholicism: Worldly people should not read the Holy Scriptures in natural language; for, by reading, they can fall into error). (This) position of the Roman Church, under the guise of guarding against error, blocks the most reliable path to enlightenment in the Faith 4. – Holy Scripture, as the word of God Himself, is the only supreme judge of disputes and the resolver of perplexities in the Faith. (According to Catholicism; the Pope is the supreme and infallible judge of disputes and the resolver of perplexities concerning the Faith). Priest The definitions of Councils are verified by Scripture, so that no Council can establish a member of the Faith who has not been proven from Holy Scripture. The ancient Church has always adhered to this rule... Jesus Christ alone, as a knower of the heart, knows the societies that truly gather in His name. For we can judge them in no other way than on the basis of the already known word of God; Without this same caution, we could submit to the definitions of those Councils, which, under the name of Christianity, can be collected by superstition or lust for power. (According to Catholicism: Councils have equal infallibility with Holy Scripture, for Jesus Christ is present at them). The Holy Scriptures are obeyed and traditions are trusted to them; but legends about members of the Faith, who would not be in it at all, should not be accepted; for Holy Scripture in many places prohibits adding anything to the teaching contained therein. (According to Catholic teaching: Unwritten Traditions should be received with the same reverence as the written word of God, and may contain the members of the Faith necessary for salvation). The Christian teaching was spread by tradition and scripture together, and the number of Holy books of the New Testament required for its preservation was gradually replenished. But when in these Books the Church received a universal and sufficient rule of Faith (Phil. III, 16), then to allow the unwritten word of God to be equivalent to the written word means exposing oneself to the danger of “ruining the commandment of God for the tradition of men” (Matthew XV, 6). A review of theological sciences in relation to their teaching in higher theological schools (1814) contains Philaret’s view of the meaning of the word of God for theology. “From the time when it could no longer be preserved by tradition without damage and loss, the revealed word of God was contained and gradually presented for general understanding in Holy Scripture, which is therefore the root on which all branches of theological knowledge are established and from which they receive life and strength. But as 1) the image and order in which the word about God is offered in the Holy Scriptures is more narrative and collective than investigative and systematic; and therefore 2) not everything that is contained in the Holy Scriptures is necessarily included in the Theological teaching; in addition, 3) how not all parts of Holy Scripture are equally intelligible, partly in their content, partly in their antiquity; also 4) due to this last circumstance, those applications of revealed truths that are characteristic of the needs of present times are not suddenly revealed in it; then it was necessary to extract from the Holy Scriptures and put together in the correct composition (system) the most necessary and commonly used truths, with their direction towards the same goal for which the Divinely inspired Scripture itself was intended... The Word of God must be constantly in the mouth of every Christian, especially if he has dedicated himself especially to the service of faith and the Church. Every human teaching must be concentrated in it. All sciences should borrow spirit and light from him.” Conversations between the testing and the confident about Christian Orthodoxy (1815) take as their starting point the fact that every believer belongs to one or another Christian society. “But now many societies, different from each other, gather in the name of Christ.” Where is the “true Christian Church”? In the Church, in every church society, the principle of authority operates: the believer must obey the Church. But obedience cannot be blind. All power comes from God. Obedience is due only to God. It is fitting to obey God more than men (Acts V, 29). In order to obey the Church, church society, the believer must make sure that the power of the Church over him is pleasing to God. It is fitting to obey God more than men: this means that Christians, feeling obligated to obey any authority on earth, must obey it until it demands from them what God forbids. Where are the demands of the Church and where are the prohibitions of God? The demands of the Church are contained in church dogmas, more specifically: in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, and God’s prohibitions are in the word of God. So, the question of church authority comes down to verifying the requirements of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with the word of God. We need to ask this: “is there anything in the Symbol of the Eastern Church that is not the pure truth revealed by God?” The justification of the Eastern Church, like any other church society, should be that “everything contained in the Symbol of the Eastern Church is pure truth revealed by God.” But where is the guarantee of the truth of the very criterion for testing church orthodoxy? The guarantee is that the (Eastern) Church itself recognizes this criterion and is guided in its life by the principle of fidelity to the word of God. The proof that the criterion is chosen correctly and the proof that the Eastern Church meets this criterion are the same. The Church wants to be faithful to the word of God, and in reality it remains faithful to its dogmatic definitions. “Everything, not only the truths, but even all the most important words and expressions contained in the Symbol of the Eastern Churches, are taken from the Holy Scriptures, which contain pure truth revealed by God. One word: Καθολικ ὴ ν, Catholic, according to the Slavic translation, Conciliar, not as close as the others, can be derived from S. Scripture: but this word contains not so much the essence as an explanation of the dogma.” The moral and practical teaching of the Eastern Church (“ten commandments”) is exempt from testing according to this criterion, since “the Eastern Church leaves the interpretation of the law to the Christian’s own reasoning and conscience, and with the help only of Church Teachers, and under the guidance of the Word of God.” In the area of ​​life, the Christian himself is sent by the Church to the living source of the word of God, to inner communion with Christ. Likewise, the given formula that the Church must be obeyed until it demands from us what God forbids, there is no need to complicate it with the addition: “(until it demands what God forbids), and does not forbid what God commands.” Here we could be talking not about the moral teaching of the Church, but about dogmatic teaching. “What belongs to the moral teaching of the Eastern Church,” then, as has already been said, “there can be no room for any doubt.” “But as regards the doctrine of faith,” one can apparently ask “whether the Eastern Church does not exclude from its Symbol some important truths, and thus does not forbid to believe what God commands to believe.” This question is very easily eliminated by simply pointing to the positive form of church dogmatic definitions. “It goes without saying that the Symbol forbids believing that which is contrary to the truths contained in it; such as, for example, that God is not trinity. For every truth excludes what is opposite to it. Besides this, the Eastern Symbol does not prohibit or exclude anything. You say in it: I believe, I confess; but not once do you say: I don’t believe, I undertake not to confess... You can also believe what the “Eastern Symbol” does not say, but which, in a clear or hidden way, is contained in the Holy Scripture, and therefore is in the spirit of this Symbol. For example: you say in the Symbol: I confess one baptism; and do not say: I confess the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. However, you can and must believe the latter together with the former... Since the Symbol, while affirming known truths, does not exclude or thereby refute others that are not contained in it from word to word: therefore, it does not prohibit believing anything that God commands to believe.” Only positive church definitions remain in question; The only concern that remains is whether the Church is demanding what God prohibits in Scripture. And this fear, as we have seen, is eliminated by the fact that even in its positive definitions the Church follows the word of God. The criterion of the word of God, therefore, knows no exceptions. But the word of God is the organ of the believer’s internal communication with God, it is a sign of his direct union with the Spirit of Christ. This is the internal criterion, which remains the very last decider of the church issue. By this criterion, not only the general spirit of the Universal Church is determined, equally characteristic of “the two great churches, Eastern and Western,” but also the “special spirit” of each of them, in particular, the spirit of the Eastern Church. And this last, most concrete “test can be limited to this question: does the Church in which you find yourself teach pure teaching leading to union with the Spirit of Christ?” But since “pure teaching” is that “which contains one truth without the admixture of lies,” and since “there cannot be a lie in that teaching that does not oblige one to believe anything that God forbids to believe, and does not exclude anything that God commands to believe”; then “in place of the question: does the Church teach pure teaching? we can put the following question: is it true that the Church in her teaching does not oblige to believe anything that God forbids to believe, and does not exclude anything that God commands to believe? This is the same question that has already been answered. The criterion of the word of God, as the only pure source of Christian truth, leaves wide room for the religious activity of the church, having nothing in common with the extremes of individualistic subjectivism. From this point of view, the dogmatic activity of the church is carried out according to “the following law: the general confession and decree of the Ecumenical Church is determined from the word of God by the general consent of the Ecumenical Church through its teachers; private churches can only make decisions private to themselves, relating to the deanery of the church, and not relating to the foundation of Christianity.” The significance of the Universal Church, in contrast to private churches, is that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Universal Church, while “private churches can waver and fall.” However, the “full measure and internal composition” of the Universal Church, which is the one great body of Christ Jesus, is “known only” to the head – Christ. “We know the various parts of His (body), and a more external image, spread out across space and time. Trying to embrace this image in all times of Christianity, I imagine it in parts... In this visible image or visible Church there is the invisible body of Christ, or the invisible Church, the glorious Church, free from filth or vice, or something from such. But whose glory is all within, and which therefore I do not see purely and separately, but in which, following the symbol, I believe. The visible Church, which clothes the invisible, partly reveals the purity of the invisible, so that everyone can find this and unite with it, and partly hides its glory.” This leads to two important conclusions: negative and positive. Since the full measure and internal composition of the Universal Church is known to the One God, an individual believer cannot “carry out judgment on certain churches.” However, this does not exclude the believer’s devotion to his local (Orthodox) church. The very reality of spiritual rebirth testifies to the truth of the Orthodox Church, to the fact that it brings believers into the bosom of the Universal Church. He who hesitates and doubts has to listen to the reproach of contradicting the voice of his own conscience. “You acknowledge that through baptism you became a member of the body of Christ at the same time as you became a member of the Eastern Church: and again you do not know which Church you belong to, but only choose which one would be better to join. Isn’t this similar to how a member would tear away from the place it occupied in the body and begin to look for a new place for itself? By the very act by which you entered into a union with the Greco-Russian Church, you are planted, like a member, in the body of Christ: is it not clear that in this visible Church the invisible body of Christ is mysteriously located, or, as it were, a part of this body, made up of believers of all times and places? Think about what is more appropriate for you: should you try to remain by faith in this spiritual communion of saints? or look with distrust for another external church that would be according to your thoughts? Through the private Greek-Russian Church you are united with the universal Church of God: and now you rebel against the first with doubts of the mind and dispositions of the heart alien to love. Is this not similar to how if a finger intended to cut off a hand or another large part from the body? The union between the parts of one body can only be destroyed by death, either of the whole or of some parts. You are ready to destroy your union with the Greco-Russian Church, with which you were one body in Christ. Could you really convince yourself that this entire Church is stricken with death, this Church, which was for you the giver of life in the sacraments you received from her? In the book Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer (1834), regarding the Stoglavy Council, general rules for judging the authority of ecumenical and local councils are set out. To the question: “Who should you listen to?” The answer is given: “to know the truth and for the salvation of the soul, one must listen, firstly, to the Holy Scriptures, Prophetic and Apostolic, secondly, to the holy ancient ecumenical and local councils, and, thirdly, to the Holy Fathers, in their writings and in reliable traditions about them.” In particular, about local councils it is further said: “1) To the Local Council, whatever. be that as it may, one must obey whether its decrees are not contrary to the word of God, the previous councils accepted by the entire Orthodox Church and the teaching of the holy Fathers. 2) Is there an article in the decrees of the Local Council that disagrees with the word of God: then one must, without a doubt, obey the word of God, and not this article” 5 “3) Is there an article in the resolutions of the Local Council that disagrees with other councils adopted by the entire Orthodox Church? Then one must obey the resolutions adopted by the entire church, especially before the article, which was not compiled by many. 4) Is there an article in the resolutions of the Local Council that was abolished by the subsequent large and most important Council: then the resolution of the larger and most important Council should be obeyed primarily before the article of the smaller Council - the truth of these rules is quite obvious. Would you doubt whether a subsequent Council can cancel the position of the previous one? This doubt is not difficult to resolve with examples from ancient Councils. Rule 10 of the Local Council of Ancyra allowed a deacon to enter into marriage if he declared before his ordination that he was disposed to enter into it. But this was canceled by the 6th rule of the sixth Ecumenical Council, as it is said in the Helmsman’s Book, in the interpretation of this last rule: we reject this rule and do not exercise it at all. Also, the 15th rule of the New Caesarea Council, about seven deacons for the city, was canceled by the 16th rule of the sixth Ecumenical Council. In the interpretation of this last rule, a remark was even made that the fathers of that Council were not in the best sense "On the topic of St. Scripture and tradition Philaret pronounced a word on September 13, 1838 (after the consecration of the Church of the Life-Giving Trinity in the Moscow Danilov Monastery), which responded to the living, specific demands of the time. “Since - we read here - the Christian teaching has been enshrined in the sacred books, the Holy Church, for the faithful and unchanging preservation of this teaching, has had the custom and rule of not only affirming the thoughts of this teaching on the immutable testimony of God-inspired Scripture, but also borrowing the very words and expressions to signify the most important objects and parts of the teaching from the same pure source of Scripture. So, if you carefully analyze the Symbol of the Orthodox Faith and compare it with the Holy Scriptures: you will find that the Holy Fathers of the Nicene and Constantinople Ecumenical Councils depicted in it the dogmas of the Faith not in their own words and expressions, but taken from the Holy Scriptures, and thus the Symbol of Faith is of utmost importance for us; for not only in it do the Fathers of the Church express the truth, but also Holy Scripture itself, the very word of God speaks through their lips. Likewise, in the teaching about traditions, this very concept and the very name of tradition is borrowed from the Holy Scriptures. But the most important basis for this teaching can be accepted as the following saying of the same Apostle: Therefore, brethren, stand and hold to the traditions, which you have learned, either by word or by our epistle (2 Thess. II, 15). Here is together a teaching for understanding, and a teaching for fulfillment, and a commandment about traditions, and an introduction to the knowledge of traditions. Stand and keep the traditions, that is, firmly and constantly observe: this is the commandment, the expression of the indispensable duty, to keep the traditions. Traditions, which you have learned either by word or by our message: here, together with the name of the traditions, is a guide to the interpretation of this name. The Apostle calls traditions everything that Christians learned from him, as from the Apostle, regarding faith, clergy, worship, church deanery and the rules of life. He further distinguishes between two types of tradition: tradition by letter, or written tradition, and tradition by word, or unwritten tradition. But as written tradition is simpler and more commonly signified by the name of Holy Scripture: the name of tradition is usually used to signify that which we have learned not through Holy Scripture, but through word and example from the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers. It is worthy of note that the Apostle inseparably and equally commands to adhere to both traditions through the word and traditions through the epistle, or in other words, he commands to adhere inseparably and equally to both the Holy Scriptures and sacred traditions. Traditions and Divinely inspired Scripture stand side by side with him; it requires from us no less attention and zeal for traditions, as for Divinely inspired Scripture. Is more than this necessary to confirm the importance of traditions and to encourage faithful observance of them? Here could be the end of the teaching about traditions, if we, like the direct disciples of the Apostles, had before our eyes the direct Apostolic and therefore undoubtedly true tradition. But Christian traditions have already passed through many countries, peoples, languages, through many centuries. The original Apostolic traditions were joined by Fatherly traditions of various degrees of antiquity. In some parts of the legends there was diversity that extended to the point of contradiction. What was needed was a study of the authenticity and dignity of the legends - a study that is not always convenient and not accessible to everyone. To ascertain the authenticity and dignity of legends, it would be best to know their beginning with precision: but it is often hidden in the foggy distance of the past. Now what to do? Before we say what should be done, let’s look at what they are doing. Some pay full attention to the fact that there is something dark and unreliable in the traditions, and from here they deduce whether they are not a matter, if not simply human, then at least given over by Providence to the arbitrariness of people and the accidents of the times, and whether it is not permissible to free oneself from further concern about traditions, while the imams, the most famous Prophetic and Apostolic word in the God-inspired scripture, which can make wisdom for salvation, may He will be a man of God, prepared for every good work. Others, paying attention only in general to the commandment to observe traditions, without research, without reasoning, blindly adhere to traditions that somehow fell into their hands, without trying to find out their authenticity, dignity and purity. What should one do? One must beware of both extremes now indicated. The Holy Scriptures began through Moses. How then, over so many centuries from the beginning of the world, was the true faith preserved and spread, and worship in accordance with it established? - According to legend. Consequently, tradition was exactly the same instrument of God for the salvation of people as the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament began through the Evangelist Matthew, eight years after the Lord’s ascension into heaven. Where was the Gospel before that, the basis of dogmas, the teaching of life, the rules of worship, the laws of church government? In legend. Divinely inspired Scripture, according to the testimony of one of the sacred writers, namely, the Holy Evangelist Luke, is only a continuation and, unchangeably, a strengthened form of tradition by the special dispensation of the Spirit of God. Onion. I, 2, 3. You want to establish everything on the unshakable basis of Holy Scripture. Very good. That's how it should be. Meanwhile, how do you know which books are sacred, and why does one or another of them definitely belong to the sacred group? This is known mostly from legend. So, Holy Scripture itself uses the aid of tradition. If true tradition is so important, before scripture, and together with scripture: then when could its importance diminish? Would it then be that scripture, taking the place of tradition, would tell us that we no longer need to worry about tradition? But the scripture says the opposite of this: stand and hold to the traditions that you have learned either by word or by letter. However, if even the Apostles had to be tested as to whether they were true Apostles, as this is clear from the fact that in the Revelation of St. John the Lord Himself approves of the work of the Angel of the Ephesian Church, who tempted the professed Apostles to be and found them false: then even more so after the Apostles, through so many hands, through so many centuries of passing traditions, it is necessary to test whether they are true Apostolic and Patristic, and whether they were subjected to wrong changes and alien applications. Without this caution, our service to God may be subject to the same condemnation with which the Lord struck the Pharisees and Jewish scribes who kept the traditions of the elder: Mark. VII, 7. 8. They may ask: how can one protect oneself from this condemnation? How to test legends and distinguish what is doubtful? The most reliable rule for this, and the most convenient to use, is from the saying of the Lord just given. Experience tradition through the word of God and through the commandments of God. If 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. Another rule for testing traditions can be extracted from the following saying of the Holy Apostle Paul to Timothy: 1 Tim. III, 15. If the church is the pillar and affirmation of the truth, then the truth must be sought in it, and with it the truth that requires inquiry can be verified, and especially the truth of traditions, of which the Church is a faithful repository." In the Long Catechism of editions earlier than 1839 there is no mention of tradition, but in the edition of this year and the following 6 the following is said about tradition. To the question: “Should we observe sacred tradition even when we have sacred Scripture?” the answer is given: “We must observe tradition, in agreement with Divine revelation and Holy Scripture” ... And behind the question: “Why is tradition needed even now?” the answer follows: “for guidance to the correct understanding of the Holy Scriptures, for the correct performance of the sacraments and for the observance of sacred rites in the purity of their original establishment.” Philaret returns to the same question of the relationship of scripture to tradition in his Notes on the Guide to Hermeneutics, compiled by Archimandrite Athanasius (1841 - 1842). “The idea that in “St. Not all dogmas are contained in Scripture,” if we understand dogmas in the strict sense, is unfair; and if not in the strict sense, then it is not quite definite, and in this uncertainty it can lead to conclusions that are offensive to the dignity of Holy Scripture. The idea that the dogmas contained in Holy Scripture are “deliberately covered with some darkness” has not been proven, is in its entirety unfair and offensive to the dignity of Holy Scripture. The Holy Spirit spoke Holy Scripture to enlighten, not to obscure. To understand the dark in Holy Scripture, the writer advises turning to church rules, liturgical books and the Fathers of the Church. Good and well-intentioned: but a very important thing was missed, namely, that from the dark places of Holy Scripture one must turn to the clear places of the same Scripture. If liturgical books decide the matter, then a Western Christian, from this beginning, will and should always read from his liturgical book: Filioque, and consequently will never turn to Orthodoxy. A higher principle is needed, which would show that in which the liturgical books of the Church have preserved the purity of dogmas: this beginning is in Holy Scripture. The Apostle commands to turn to him, like a shining luminary (2 Peter I, 19), and the holy councils and holy fathers of the Church have always turned to him. The importance of liturgical books of various degrees. The importance of the liturgy of St. Apostle James, St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, is not at all like some church hymns, the compilers of which are not even considered saints by the Church. Discernment is necessary in thorough and careful teaching. The idea that St. Scripture does not set forth a model of sound doctrine; it is unjust and inconsistent with the dignity of the word of God. “The Holy Scripture makes the Church the supreme judge in matters of faith. It is the Lord Himself who says: the commandment of the church “and so on.” Here the proof is not precise: because the above saying of the Lord was spoken not about dogmas, but about sins: if your brother sins against you. And the position itself is one-sided: because another important aspect of the matter is left unattended, namely, that judgment in matters of faith belongs to the word of God. Test the scriptures - and that essence bears witness to me, etc., and the Holy Church, following the week of Orthodoxy, says that heretics and schismatics expose themselves to the judgment of the most holy word of God. There, it is said: “traditions and scriptures, in agreement with divine revelation, are acceptable and affirmed.” The position that reason cannot be the beginning of the understanding of Holy Scripture is fair and Orthodox. But the position that Holy Scripture itself cannot be the beginning or touchstone of the true understanding of Holy Scripture requires investigation. The idea that Lutherans think this way is not yet a sign of a false opinion, because not all positions accepted by Lutherans are false. Lutherans sin in that, for the sake of understanding the Holy Scriptures, they do not accept the interpretations of the Holy Scriptures as a guide. Churches and St. father, and not that one passage of Holy Scripture is explained by another, more clear one 7 . To reject the rule: to explain an unclear passage of Holy Scripture to others in a clearer way would mean to deprive the truth of a powerful means and weapon... The abbreviated Hermeneutics would better satisfy truth and Orthodoxy if the beginning of Hermeneutics were defined as follows: the true and legitimate interpreter of obscure passages of Holy Scripture is: 1) Holy Scripture itself, in its clearer and more complete places, and collectively 2) ecclesiastical tradition contained in the symbols, dogmas, rules and interpretations of St. cathedrals and St. father. The first part of this provision is needed, among other things, so that the interpreter can admonish those who do not yet accept the traditions; and the second in order to put a barrier to the willful interpretations of rationalists and others, especially the newest sects.” In “Remarks of M. Philaret on the Notes of Introduction to Orthodox Theology and on the Notes of Orthodox Dogmatics,” his judgments about the place of the doctrine of the Holy Church in the system of Orthodox theology are worthy of attention. It is easy to see that this question is closely related to the main question of the sources of Christian belief, and that one or another solution to it opens the way to a different understanding of the very foundations of Christianity. “The teaching about the sources of the Christian faith in the Abstract (Introduction to Orthodox Theology) is followed by the teaching about St. The Church as a teacher of faith. But further, in the Abstract of Orthodox Dogmatics, after the dogmas about God and Christ, it is intended to present the concept of the Church in general, the New Testament Church, the Divine institution, its properties. A comparison of these parts of the Notes reveals a difficulty in the expected course of the teaching. Is it in the order of concepts to first speak of the Church as a teacher, and far later present the first and general concept of it? True, the Abstract, in the introduction, intends to present the general and specific concepts of the Church: but in this case, the same teaching will be proposed twice in two places. With what force will the doctrine of the Church as a teacher be proposed when the concept of its divine institution and its properties has not yet been given? And is it possible to thoroughly expound the doctrine of the divine institution of the Christian Church when the doctrine of Christ is not expounded? St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John of Damascus did not find it necessary to propose a doctrine about the Church before the doctrine about God. The Ecumenical Creed proposed a doctrine about the Church after the doctrine about God and Christ. This order is observed in the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila. The ancient and new teachers of the Eastern Church adhered to this order. The theologians of the Roman Church adhered to it for a long time. Not long ago, theologians of the Roman Church began to propose the doctrine of the Church and the pope before the doctrine of God and Christ, thereby noticeably trying to strengthen the private teaching of their religion and give the doctrine of the Church and the pope primary importance, and not secondary, after the dogmas about God and Christ. Therefore, it is proposed for consultation whether it is necessary for the Orthodox system of Theology to imitate this Western innovation? When presenting the doctrine of sacred tradition, it is necessary, and sufficient, to say briefly about the Church, as its guardian treasure. Then, as soon as the sources that contain the sacred tradition are well defined and indicated, which is what is prescribed in the Notes: 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 the dogmas, draw arguments from these sources - the teaching about the Church will come in its place, which the symbol of faith has assigned to it.” In the new “remarks” on the explanation attached to the revised “Synopsis” an addition was made on the same issue. “In the explanation attached to the Abstract of Introduction to Orthodox Theology and Dogmatic Theology, corrected according to 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 that is laid down 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: Reason of truth, even according to piety (Tit. I, 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 Abstract will be firm, true and capable of all the necessary conclusions if it is expressed like this: Orthodox Theology is a systematic exposition 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, but also exposes the non-Orthodox, not based on the true reason of Scripture and on 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,” etc. The above are judgments from the Notes on the Abstract of Introduction to Orthodox Theology. They continue in the Notes on the Abstract of Orthodox Dogmatics. “Under the name of dogma,” we read here, “the Abstract distinguishes two types: 1) Every Christian teaching revealed by God Himself. 2) Taught by the Church. This division does not represent correctness. Logic says that the divided parts should not be contained within each other. And here the second concept lies in the first. For the Christian teaching taught by the Church is nothing other than revealed by God Himself and preserved through Holy Scripture and Tradition. If the idea was to distinguish: 1) the Christian teaching revealed by God and contained in the Holy Scriptures, and 2) preserved by Tradition and taught by the Church: then it is necessary to point out the union of both teachings. The teaching of Holy Scripture is explained by tradition, that is, by the definitions of councils and the interpretations of holy fathers; and the teaching of Tradition must be mutually consistent with Holy Scripture. This is what the holy councils and holy fathers did."... M. Filaret touched on the issue of the word of God, as the only pure source of Christian teaching, in letters. So in a letter (November 1849, 11) to Archimandrite Alexy, later Archbishop of Tver, he wrote, returning to the addressee “an essay on guardian angels” (printed in the Addendum to the Works of the Holy Fathers 1849, VIII): “Aren’t we theologizing according to fashion? Previously they relied on the Holy Scriptures and paid little attention to traditions. Then they noticed this flaw with force; the words: Orthodoxy, 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 demeaning the Scripture. The New Testament sacred writers wrote after the descent of the Holy Spirit on them, and they also testified about the Old Testament ones that the holy people of God are enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Is it really possible to determine the moment when a church writer became a saint, and therefore not just a writer subject to ordinary human shortcomings? The Church, of course, has thought about this issue, and 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 those who think wrong?” In a letter to Archimandrite Anthony (1857 Jan. 28), Philaret wrote “about the word of St. Demetrius about the Mother of God: I adore your sinless conception from holy parents” the following: “The words of St. Demetrius can be understood about a pure conception from voluntary sin, for this happened after a long honest life, in old age, not according to the desire of the flesh, but in obedience to the prophecy of an angel. But it is also likely that he understood them the way they think about this in the West today. He received his initial education in a way that included Western teachers and Western books. The opinion met, marked by reverence for the Mother of God, could be accepted out of a feeling of this same reverence, while it did not occur to the idea to strictly examine it in relation to the dogma of the redemption of the human race from original sin solely by the blood of the incarnate Son of God. - At the same time, I remember my conversation with the Hermitage Archimandrite Ignatius (i.e., Archimandrite of the Sergius Hermitage, later bishop, Ignatius Brianchaninov). He disapproved of the book about the imitation of Christ so much that he forbade it to be read. I objected to him that Saint Demetrius cites the words of this book, stipulating that Thomas a Kempis, although a foreign merchant, brings good goods. The archimandrite answered me: we do not know when Saint Demetrius was introduced into the grace-filled dignity of a holy father, and perhaps what I indicated was written even when he was simply a pious writer or preacher. And St. Barsanuphius the Great said that the holy fathers, under the protection of the grace of God, wrote the pure truth: however, sometimes, without protecting themselves with prayer, they wrote opinions heard from mentors, not strictly tested, which the reader, without insulting the holy fathers, can, and should, put aside, without being obliged to accept them. In a speech at the opening of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment (September 1863, 17). Filaret expressed in a brief formula, as it were, the result of his many years of reflection on the fundamental issue of Christian theology. “Christian wisdom must be pure. its pure source is God - His word, contained in the sacred scriptures, clarified by church definitions, teachings and spiritual experiences of God-wise men.” So steadily and consistently for more than fifty years, the great theologian stood guard over that greatest Christian truth, that the only pure and sufficient source of the teaching of the Faith is God, His word contained in the Holy Scriptures, clarified by church definitions, teachings and spiritual experiences of God-wise men. Inextricably linked with this high view of the word of God are the works of Philaret in translating the Bible into Russian - the work of his whole life. He performed all this service to the word of God in a difficult struggle with temporary Latinizing currents in Russian society and the church, and for him it was a spiritual feat, the equal of which in terms of the energy invested and the blows suffered from opponents in world history. Serving this truth required strength no less than genius, and heroic energy: it is so spiritually high and alien to the admixture of human considerations that even some admirers of Philaret today are trying to excuse this spiritual colossus, correct his teaching, and protect him from criticism in Protestantism. Of course, Filaret did not always express his teaching with the same accuracy, and his teaching has its own history, as the fate of his catechisms sufficiently testifies to. But in the end, his view of the word of God as a source of Christian knowledge, directed with its edge against the extremes of Catholicism, does not suffer from the mistakes of Protestantism, although some coincidence with heterodoxy, in particular with Protestantism in itself, as Filaret conscientiously stated, does not need an apology. “The idea that Lutherans think this way is not yet a sign of a false opinion, because not all positions accepted by Lutherans” - as, of course, by Catholics - are “false.” That's a courageous word! Hesitation between Catholicism and Protestantism, the eternal fear of getting close to one side or the other, is a sign of spiritual timidity. We must seek the truth, only the truth, without fear of any rapprochement. Once and for all, this objection must be recognized as deprived of all force: this is what Catholics think! Protestants think so! If we. Orthodox, we coincide in one truth or another with Catholics or even Lutherans, so much the better for them - for Catholics, for Lutherans, and there is no harm in that for us. Philaret’s view is far from what is false in Protestantism. The importance of the church, its necessity for Christian knowledge is resolutely recognized by him. Both spiritual birth in baptism and the word of God we receive from the church, and only from the church. We consider the word of God to be what the church presents as the word of God - no more, no less. There is no room for personal doubts in the canon of sacred books, no basis for practical conclusions on the question of the authenticity of the sacred writings: here all power belongs to the voice of the church. In the same way, we understand the word of God according to the church “rule of faith,” according to the dogmatic norm. This is the difference between Orthodoxy and extreme Protestant individualism. But the difference from Catholicism is even more important. Catholicism asserts that believers receive from the church, from its bodies, in its definitions, the whole truth, in full, so that the truth is exhausted by church formulas: this is what Catholics call church magisterium. On the contrary, according to the Orthodox view, the church, cultivating the believer in the water of baptism and in church edification, leads him to the word of God, as a source of direct teaching from God, intimate communication with the Heavenly Father. In Catholicism, a believer always remains a slave; in Orthodoxy, a free son of the Heavenly Father is born and raised by the church. The Church does not require slavish obedience: it itself is witnessed by the word of God. Giving birth and nurturing the believer and entrusting to him with its irreplaceable authority the word of God, it then finds its final confirmation, its deepest roots, in the intimate experience of the believer. This is the unshakable truth of the teaching preached by Filaret. There is only a formal inaccuracy in his view. He mistakenly insisted that church dogmas, even in letter, were borrowed from the word of God. In addition to the above passages, we will also indicate his words from the Notes on the Abstract of Introduction to Orthodox Theology: “All expressions in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol are taken from the Holy Scriptures.” We cannot agree with this. The most important term of this symbol, “consubstantial”, is deliberately not taken from the word of God. The basic terms of the religious definitions of the IV and VI Councils are the same. And it's not just about the letter. The very purpose of a dogmatic definition, as a church rule of faith, as a legally binding abstraction of religious experience, does not coincide with the meaning of the word of God, as a source of intimate and concretely experiential religious knowledge. But this is only a formal inaccuracy. That the church has its own specific tasks that are inaccessible to internal Christianity, that church life has its own characteristics that make it indispensable for personal Christianity, this does not lead to the slightest damage to personal Christianity. In particular, the special purpose of the dogmatic definition, as a church norm of religious thought, as a condition of church unity, does not in the least weaken the meaning of the word of God as a source of religious-intimate knowledge: the word of God serves as the only content with which the dogmatic formula is filled. With the elimination of this formal inaccuracy, all the essential truth of Philaret’s teaching about the word of God is preserved. Formally, that is, in the verbal formula of dogma, in its abstract concepts, speaking beyond the boundaries of the word of God and direct experience, church teaching in essence, from the side of the content of the dogma, is irresistibly directed towards the word of God and direct personal experience: the church, in its dogmatic activity, is testified, from the side of content, by the word of God. There is only one criterion in the word of God for distinguishing a true council from a false one and a dogmatic definition of conciliar from non-dogmatic (canonical, liturgical) definitions. Essentially, Philaret’s view of the word of God as applied to church tradition is correct and fruitful in all respects, not excluding the historical-dogmatic one, but this is not where its center of gravity lies. The pathos of Philaret’s teaching about the word of God, which inspired him to the feat of his whole life, lies in the mystical assessment of the word of God as an organ of direct communication between the believer and the Heavenly Father. “By the Word of God everything was created, and everything created is held together by the power of the Word of God,” so we read in the Proclamation to Christ-loving readers, during the first edition of the Gospel in Russian (1819). “For man, the Word of God is the incorruptible seed from which he is reborn from the natural into a blessed life, there is bread by which he lives spiritually, and water by which he quenches spiritual thirst; there is a lamp shining in a dark place until the dawn comes and the dawn rises in the heart, and there is the light of day itself, that is, the living and blessed knowledge of God and His miracles in time and in eternity. Without the Word of God, man is gloomy, hungry, thirsty and spiritually dead. According to this necessity of the Word of God for the true and better existence of man, the All-Good God, from the very beginning of the world, spoke repeatedly and in various ways to the fathers through the prophets; and finally He spoke to us through His most Hypostatic Word, His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. And that His word, revealed to some, at certain times, might be to all, and forever; He commanded God-inspired men to write it in the sacred books." The value of the teaching about the word of God, as the only pure source of Christian knowledge, is not in the rationalistic difference between one letter from another, the letter of scripture from the letter of tradition, not in the scientific significance of the authenticity of the original monument, but in the spiritual and mystical meaning of the Christian personality: the teaching about the value of the word of God is the teaching about the value of the Christian personality living in direct communion with the Heavenly Father. Philaret's view of the word of God is deepened by his entire teaching about the mystery of the Christian person, to which it leads as its roots. “The mystery of the Christian soul is God’s”: this is what Filaret wrote in one of his letters to the archbishop. Anthony (No. 3: I, 4). The mystery of the Christian personality 8 is the mystery of the human heart, the mystery of its direct communication with the Heavenly Father, the mystery of free love. Of course, Christian love has a religious character; it is love from God, that is, from faith. “Can there be pure love for mankind without pure faith? If they ask about a believer: where does his pure love for humanity come from? the answer, according to the Apostolic teaching, is simple: from pure faith. For this faith is pure and undefiled before God and the Father, which allows us to visit the orphans and widows in their sorrows. But if you assume pure love for mankind in a person who does not have pure faith, then the question arises: where does it come from? I don’t know what a satisfactory answer could be given to this. Would you say: by nature? But human nature, generated by sin, does not produce pure good by its own power without the special grace of God, which is accepted only by faith. Would you say: from reason? But he belongs to the same damaged human nature, and therefore also does not promise purity without grace. In human nature, damaged by sin, there is also a disposition towards philanthropy; The unfavored mind also approves of this disposition: therefore, both nature and reason will condemn the inhumane: but will they elevate the love of mankind to the level of purity? For example, the rule: if your enemy is hungry, give him food; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink (Rom. XII, 20) - would reason have invented it? Would nature be happy about him? Don't know. Otherwise I know for certain that nature and reason, uncorrected by faith, drink the blood of enemies and devour their corpses. Even someone uncontrolled by faith can sometimes do a good deed to an enemy, out of pride, for the glory of generosity, out of the pleasure of seeing the humiliation of the favored person, for his own benefit envisaged ahead; consequently from unclean motives. But only the Lord Jesus speaks the pure law of love for enemies, only faith accepts it, only grace makes it amiable and easy to fulfill” (IV, 123 – 124), etc. However, spiritual life is not only a natural result of faith: it is the result of faith in the sense that faith prepares the ground for the action of the Holy Spirit, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, spiritual life is entirely embraced by faith, just as the royal charter is entirely held in the hands of the ambassador; but it exceeds the cognitive power of faith, its conscious side; on the contrary, spiritual experience itself is the original root of religious knowledge. Religious knowledge, in its deepest content, is the fruit of a pure heart. “Does anyone want to see God and be blissful in this contemplation? Let him take the path that leads to this; this path was indicated by Jesus Christ, who himself is the path and the surest guide; this path is purity or purification of the heart. Blessed are those who are pure in heart: for they will see God” (Op. III, 46). In the very last depth, love precedes gnosis, freedom precedes knowledge, faith has a creative character, the basis of everything, therefore, is personality. In the “Weekly Word on Thomas,” the preacher talks about the primary origin of faith in the Resurrection. “All the Apostles saw the Lord: but it would be incredibly humiliating for their sacred council if there were not one among them who would have the primary blessedness proclaimed by the Lord - not to see and to believe. We do not want to see, and we do not dare to imagine you, God-blessed Apostles, deprived of any blessedness of believers. Show us, you yourselves, which of you is blessed, who has not seen and yet believed? - Look, brethren, is this not what the Evangelist John reveals to us when, narrating about the visit to the Holy Sepulcher, on the morning of the Resurrection, by two disciples, he writes: the other disciple, who came first to the tomb, was seen and believed. What did he see upon entering the tomb? Without a doubt, it is the same thing that the first disciple saw, namely Peter: the form of a single robe lying down. What did you believe? Is this what Magdalene declared before: “Thou hast taken the Lord from the tomb, and we know not where he laid him?” But what was there to believe? There is no hidden truth here, and only obvious ignorance. What did the disciple believe, his beloved Jesus? I guess, and I think, of necessity, it should be guessed that at that moment, as he entered the tomb, in the form of a single robe lying, an unusually living love in an unusual way aroused faith in him; the slight thought that it was impossible to imagine a case in which the vestments that wrapped around the body of the Lord with the suit could be separated from the dead body gave him a great thought about the resurrection; he saw nothing more than the absence of the buried Jesus from the tomb, but in the depths of his loving heart he felt that the Beloved lives, despite the fact that he was not prepared to believe in His resurrection even by knowledge of the Scriptures: sight and faith: I did not know the Scriptures, as it was fitting for Him to rise from the dead “(Works. III, 26)... This is what, according to Philaret’s teachings, serves as the deepest organ of religious knowledge and spiritual life - the soul of a person, his free heart. And the word of God constitutes the principle of Christian theology because it is the pasture of the Christian soul. In the ineffable movements of the believing heart is the last support of the Christian spirit. The irreplaceable value of the human person, freedom of spiritual life: such is the religious thought of the ever-memorable Philaret... Let us insert the revealed main point of Philaret’s theological teaching into the general scheme of his theological system, as it is outlined to us in the content of his numerous and varied writings. At the starting point, religious knowledge is based on love. Faith is affirmed in religious experience, in spiritual life and, namely, in love, and on the other hand, it is realized in spiritual life, in love. “In the conciliar epistle, that is, in the teaching written for the guidance of all members of the Conciliar or Universal Church, the holy Apostle James left us a wonderful saying about the union of faith with love of mankind. Faith, he says, is pure and undefiled before God and the Father, this is the hedgehog to visit the orphans and widows in their sorrows, and it is undefiled to keep itself from the world. It’s almost the same as if it were said that pure faith is pure love for mankind and purity of life” (IV, 121). This inseparability of faith and love of mankind does not mean that faith is completely absorbed by love of mankind and disappears in it. “The Apostle teaches the essence of the Christian faith, and does not think, as some do today, to neglect dogma in order to turn all attention to morality alone. Therefore, the previous saying should not be understood in this way, as if all faith pleasing to God consisted in love for mankind; but in such a way that pure faith is also love for mankind. Faith abides by faith; love of mankind - love of mankind: but between them there is such a close relationship, such an inextricable connection, that where there is pure faith, there will certainly be pure love of mankind as a consequence. Every true believer must be truly philanthropic” (IV, 121 – 122). The inextricable connection between faith and love for mankind means, first of all, that the latter, as an inseparable consequence of faith, testifies to its existence. “If pure faith is purely pure love for mankind, or, what is the same, love for mankind is an inseparable consequence of pure faith: then the absence of an inseparable consequence must necessarily be a sign of the absence of an active principle; and consequently, where there is no love for mankind, pure faith cannot be assumed; “Whoever does not have love for humanity cannot reliably assure himself that he has pure faith.” If he refers to the purity of his theoretical confession of faith, then it is not difficult to show the unfoundedness of his hope. “There is no dispute that this is the true Apostolic faith in the essence of its dogmas: but there may be doubt as to whether you really have it, and how you have it. Since you have it in the word of God and in the Creed: it belongs to God, His Prophets, Apostles, Fathers of the Church, and not yet to you. When you have it in your thoughts and memory: then you begin to assimilate it to yourself; but I still fear for this property, because your faith in your thoughts, perhaps, is only a deposit by which you must receive the treasure, that is, the living power of faith. How to get it? - with the heart, as the Apostle Paul says: with the heart he believes in the truth (Rom. X, 10). But if you have adopted faith in your heart, that is, in the depths of your soul you have felt its dignity, holiness and power, loved it, clung to it: then, as a result of this, it is necessary, according to the word of the Apostle, for Christ to dwell in your heart by faith (Eph. III, 17) is yours, that is, to bring into it Your grace, Your light, strength and life, Your wisdom, love and virtue; and then you will love all people - it cannot be otherwise - with the love of Christ; out of love and gratitude to those who suffered and died for you, you will be ready to suffer and die for those saved by His love and redeemed by His death; to put it briefly, as you become perfect in faith, you will be perfect in love for mankind,” etc. (IV, 122 – 123). But spiritual life is not only an inseparable consequence of faith; it, moreover, forms the soul of faith, makes it living, real. Just as a human image created from clay was not yet alive until the Lord breathed into it the breath of life, so faith itself is only a soulless image, a lifeless thought: this image is animated by the spiritual life of the believer, and precisely by love. Therefore, it is not indifferent in what consequences faith is revealed: in order to be Christian faith, it must be revealed in love. Faith becomes alive only in love, and love is the spirit of all Christian life, without which no deeds, no exploits have Christian power. “You believe and hope to be saved by faith. I don’t dispute this hope. The Savior Himself provides salvation to faith. Your faith will save you (Matthew IX:22), He often spoke to those on whom He performed miraculous healings. And he promised everyone, without exception: whoever has faith and is baptized will be saved (Mp. XVI, 16). But is every faith the same? Is there no difference between faith and belief? What, for example, is that faith that the Apostle praises with such terrible praise when he says: you believe that there is only one God; do good; and the demons believe and tremble (James II, 19). Who can be satisfied with such faith? What kind of faith is that that could save a person? – Faith promoted by love (Gal. V, 6), defines the Apostle. If there is no love, then faith has no strength and success. Faith without love is an image without life: love, like the breath of the Holy Spirit, animates faith and makes it active and saving. If you want to be saved by faith, love Him in whom you believe” (II, 105). Faith without love is nothing, and love cannot be replaced by any other feat or good deed. It cannot be replaced by legalistic truth. “You live by the law. In this, it seems, there is already love: for the great Teacher Himself in Divine love said: if you have My commandments and keep them, then you will love Me (John XIV, 21). But delve deeply and truly understand what the Truth says. Just as love is actually a feeling of the heart; and as the Master who searches the hearts foresees that some weak disciples will think that this feeling can be preserved without the help of activity consistent with this feeling: then, preventing this transformation of true love into imaginary love, and teaching to love in deed and truth (1 John III, 1.8), He says that he who loves Him is the one who has His commandments and keeps them. And the Teacher, filled with love, could not say at all that it was enough for His disciples to only outwardly fulfill the works of His commandments, and that this would be imputed to them instead of love for Him, even if they did not feel it: just as it is not typical for a parent who loves children to tell his children that he allows them not to love themselves, as long as they do what he commands. And what does keeping the commandments mean without love?” etc. (II, 105 – 106). Repentance is necessary for love, but repentance cannot be saving without love: only “true love gives saving power to repentance” (I. 107). “You pray. Who would not praise this spiritual exercise? But I also ask about this: what prayer do you pray? For there is also a vain prayer, about which it is said: these people draw near to Me with their lips, and with their lips they honor Me: but their heart is far from Me; but they honor Me in vain (Matthew XV, 8.9)... Shouldn’t we admit that we are more foolish than children, when we think with our cold, without attention, without love, without heart, uttered petitions to receive something from the Heavenly Father, Who looks at the heart, instead of what a person sees at the face (1 Sam. XVI, 7)?... Love for God turns everything into a means for ours salvation and bliss: without it, all means do not achieve this goal. A lamp will not shine without oil; and prayer will not illuminate the spirit without love. Without fire, incense will not rise; and prayer without love will not rise to God” (ib. 107 – 109). Nevertheless, miraculous phenomena can be considered the true sphere of Christianity: not miracles, but love is the first fruit of the Spirit (I, 67. 72 - 73). The significance of extraordinary gifts (I, 7), incorruption of holy relics (II, 22 - 23) is exhausted by church benefits - edification and strengthening of faith: the direct revelation of the Spirit of Christ is love. And Christian love is by no means only love for God, but it inevitably is also love for one’s neighbor. “Why do you want to appropriate the name of a Christian to yourself? - Is it not out of love for God? But there is no love for God if there is no love for people. Just as one cannot reach the top level of a high ladder if one does not go through the lower levels: so no one can say that he has achieved high Christian love for God if he did not go to it through the degrees of love for people, and if someone says this about himself, then true Christianity will call him not a Christian, but a liar 1 John. IV, 20. If you are a truly Christian, a worshiper and follower of God, who out of love for people became a man and suffered and died for them, then you should not be unfamiliar with this highest law of love for mankind: greater than this love has no one, but whoever lays down his life for his friends (John XV, 13) "... (II, 358 - 359). So, faith and religious knowledge are rooted in spiritual experience, most immediately in love, which in the last phase is active love. Filaret emphasizes with equal attention the meaning of both faith and love in Christianity. And even with him, the fundamental meaning of faith is emphasized more strongly than the original and original position of love. Nevertheless, with a firmness that does not allow hesitation, he clarified the active side of faith, realized in love, so that the anti-Gnostic direction of his theology must be recognized as fully secured, which, moreover, turns out to be firmly attested. Faith, in any case, does not directly provide knowledge adequate to the spiritual life given (by faith) from the Holy Spirit, or love, which always turns out to be “more” and, in any case, more than any preliminary or independent knowledge, and the latter is also always partial. The full flowering of faith is achieved not in gnosis, but in the active, living result of faith, which has an objective source in the Holy Spirit. Gnostic comprehension is not only considered inaccessible, but the desire for it is recognized as a deviation from the path of truth, an empty pursuit, a fruitless endeavor. From this subtle point of view, the concern for the multiplication of dogmas is likened to the same as if a person voluntarily wished to multiply the laws that constrain him; on the contrary, the widest possible space is freed up for personal opinions: most importantly, the Christian’s attention is diverted from speculation towards living life, again, from dogmatic formulas to the living word of God, as the word of life. “I cannot, Father Rector,” Filaret wrote to the rector of the Academy, later Archbishop of Tver, Alexy, “to give you help in your battle with the thought of the tripartite composition of man. Enough is the need to fight enemies with teachings contrary to dogma; What is the need to fight against opinions that are not hostile to any true dogma? (No. 26). And also to him (No. 56): “St. The Apostle says that the devil, like a lion, walks roaring, looking for someone to devour. Isn't this enough to warn the believer? Is it still necessary to follow the hints to the details of the devil’s order, to assert that the devil assigns an evil spirit to a person for life, and, stopping there, to ask the one who hears this teaching: is this agent really here now? Does holy Baptism really not remove him in the least? Is it really true that the holiness of the saints and the grace given to them does not remove this assistant assigned, as they say, for life? Or does tradition know the devil better than the Apostle, who says that the evil one does not touch what is born of God.” And again (66): “Visions that have their own truth are not always convenient to turn into general dogmas.” In a letter to Archimandrite Anthony (1140) “about the word of St. Demetrius about the Mother of God,” from which we have already cited one excerpt above, we read (further): “I doubt whether it is necessary to write discussions about the conception of the Mother of God, and whether it is useful. It seems that we look at this issue quite calmly. It would not stir up strife, the resolution of which is difficult to foresee. Let us suppose that another, being careful not to shake the dogma of atonement, represents the birth of the Mother of God as pure only from arbitrary sin; and another, reverent for the Mother of God, considers it pure and free from original sin, not having in mind what this opinion has to do with the dogma of atonement. God bless them both. If they ask us, we will speak in the words of the stichera for the Annunciation: The Son of God dwelt in the womb of the Most Holy Virgin, purified by the Holy Spirit. – Was it really true that the Holy Church, at 1850 years old, had not yet had time to establish its dogmas? The Western Church apparently thinks so when it now proclaims a new dogma that was not a dogma before. The Eastern Orthodox Church is content and saved by the dogmas sufficiently established at the seven ecumenical councils. - It seems to me that the reasoning of some French bishops is blessed, who said that the church did not decide the question raised by the pope dogmatically, but left everyone to freely discuss it without prejudice to their Orthodoxy and salvation, and that therefore some saints had an affirmative opinion about it, and some negative; and consequently, if an affirmative opinion is made a dogma, then the negative opinion opposite to this will become a heresy, and saints will turn out to have a heretical opinion. What to do with them? Should those already recognized as saints in the church be excluded from the saints? Should we admit that people with heretical opinions can be saints? Why voluntarily produce this insoluble confusion? That is, why turn free opinion into dogma? ... In “Conversation on the Day of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos” (V, 402 – 404) Philaret speaks of the incomprehensibility of the mystery of the incarnation. “Is it possible to exhaust the sea with a handful? And even if this were possible; because the sea has limits and a measure of depth: then everything would be impossible - with a small vessel of the human mind to exhaust the abyss of the wisdom of God, the breadth of which is limitless and the depth is immeasurable. Therefore, the boldness to test the mysteries of God is wisely and righteously forbidden to us; and we are commanded to honor them, and to cleave to them by faith: and in faith is laid for us the hope of bliss: those who have not seen bliss, yet have believed (John XX, 29).” There is no place for Gnosticism and occultism in Christianity. Christianity is life in communion with Christ, spiritual life from the Holy Spirit. And the practical side of Christianity is alien to both magic and detachment from life. The Christian faith is inextricably linked with love, which inevitably includes love for one’s neighbor. Love integrates Christianity into the system of life. To deny oneself does not mean to renounce life. “Doesn’t denying oneself mean abandoning one’s soul and body, like one abandons a worthless thing, without attention, without care? You can't think like that. The soul is a very valuable thing. A true assessment of it can be heard “in the words of the Gospel: What good is it for a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? That is: the loss of a soul is a loss so great that it cannot be replaced by the whole world. Consequently, the soul is more valuable to a person than the whole world. How to leave her without attention? It is also impossible to think that the Lord commanded us to abandon our body without any care, if we remember that the Apostle represents Him as an image of the highest spiritual law, that care by which no one even hates his own flesh, but nourishes and warms it (Eph. V, 29); that God created our body and gave it to us as an instrument for acting in the physical world, so that in using it in due time he would demand from us an account, so that everyone may accept before the judgment seat of Christ what he has done with the body, either good or evil (2 Cor. V, 10); that finally the body should not only be preserved and formed for necessary, useful and good deeds in the world, but it can be used for the glory of God, according to the advice of the Apostle: glorify God in your bodies and in your souls, which are the essence of God (I Cor. VI, 20). Is it possible to neglect, as unimportant, something through which one can glorify? God? – So, what does it mean to deny yourself? From what has been said, it is necessary to conclude that this does not mean abandoning the soul and body without attention, without care, but perhaps rejecting the addiction to the body and its pleasures, to temporary life and its well-being, and even to spiritual pleasures drawn from unclean nature, to the desires of one’s own will, to the favorite concepts of one’s own wisdom. That this understanding of the commandment of self-sacrifice is correct can be seen from the intention with which it was pronounced. What intention? - in order to make a person able to follow Christ. “Whoever wants to follow Me, let him deny himself.” Christian self-sacrifice is exclusively self-sacrifice for the sake of Christ (III, 327 – 330). For a Christian, the path of self-sacrifice is inevitable, but this does not mean that it in itself has value. The whole world lies in evil, but this does not mean that escaping the world is the path to salvation. “In everything earthly there is something heavenly” (I, 254) - in the state with its institutions of power (I, 11 - 12; IV, 32; 552 - 553; V, 39 - 52), courts (I, 251 - 256), with the inevitability of war (V, 47 - 51), in marriage. “Marriage is important in relation to the providence of God, to the family and to the state. God, having created the first people, entrusted to them and their descendants the further production of people into the world - entrusted, as it were, the continuation of his creative action. What a great gift! (Collected plurals and reviews V, 69). “Rejoice, brethren... You can, with a peaceful conscience, in accordance with the word of Christ, choose what you can contain, either holy virginity, or a blessed marriage, without fearing those unblessed teachers who dreamed of destroying with their commandment the universal blessing of God to men: grow and multiply, and fill the earth” (V, 291) 9. Christianity goes hand in hand with all legitimate forms of worldly life, giving them a place along with spiritual life. Christianity even promotes the prosperity of natural-social life (I, 118 – 121; V, 39 – 44; 47 – 51. Wed. Reply to the letter, which asked to write a discussion about the moral reasons for our incredible successes in the present war, 1813, and in Collected plurals and reviews, supplementary volume 1 – 12). And conversely, assistance from the state is very important for the church. In a note “on the decrees of the church on the subject of the assistance of Christian governments against heresies,” Filaret defends the alliance of the church and the state. “Christianity in the first centuries spread, obviously, not through persecution, but in spite of persecution, due to the divine power inherent in it. But even here, providence sometimes chose as its instruments even some of the pagan emperors, who, with their peaceful disposition towards Christianity, contributed no little to its successes. On the contrary, although the persecutors could not destroy the faith of Christ, they often and very significantly stopped its spread. Finally, with the triumph of the church during the reign of Constantine the Great, all the forces of power, hitherto directed against the church, were turned to protecting its internal and external prosperity. Christian emperors assisted her by eradicating the remnants of idolatry and deposing heretics. When it happened that heresies found patrons in the kings themselves, then they grew so that, for example, when St. Gregory the Theologian, in all of Constantinople there was only one Orthodox chapel left, and then, with the assistance of the Orthodox emperors, the heretics retained only one chapel. In general, the assistance of the kings to the decisions of the councils stopped heresies, and, conversely, the patronage of heresies oppressed Christianity. The emperors who patronized the iconoclasts outraged the entire church, and only then was universal peace established again in it, and the iconoclast heresy was suppressed when the kings and queens themselves began to vigorously promote this. Later, did not Latin rule in Constantinople and in the East in general harm Orthodoxy? And did the Mohammedan yoke really contribute to its spread? Now, when opponents of the church are freely dragging the weak into heresies and schism, isn’t this a direct consequence of the increased relaxation of the schism from the local lower authorities, with indifference and lack of patronage of the faith, often on the part of the higher ones? Is it possible that our fatherland will voluntarily put itself in the position into which the East was involuntarily placed by unfortunate circumstances?” Next, the author reviews the activities of Greek emperors since the time of St. Constantine on church affairs and finds that “with the exception of Julian the Apostate, all the emperors were aware of the benefit and necessity of laws protecting orthodoxy and the faithful.” Next are the opinions of church teachers (Blessed Augustine) and the cathedral rules, from which it is clear that “the entire church history is full of examples of saints encouraging emperors to act in favor of the church.” In our fatherland, according to the meaning of the fundamental laws, “the most pious kings are the supreme defenders and guardians of orthodoxy and all holy deanery in the church.” “And in European states, religious tolerance has limits” (Collected plurals and reviews IV, 462 – 470). Spiritual life and worldly life have points of contact. Christianity is called to leaven the whole world. However, due to the way Christianity acts on the world and the service of the social-historical world to Christianity, the connection between the personal-spiritual and social-worldly spheres cannot be continuous. They are not absorbed by one another, they do not merge to the point of indifference; they retain, during interaction, their heterogeneity. Personal Christian forgiveness and public justice cannot be replaced by one another; they exist one next to the other (Works. III, 255 - 257). Christianity cannot be applied to the organization of social and worldly life. Filaret, with his characteristic insight and clarity of presentation, expressed this idea in a note with his opinion “on corporal punishment, from a Christian point of view.” “In considering the question, what can be the correct view of corporal punishment on the part of Christianity? - first of all, we must keep in mind that Christ the Savior created the church, not the state. By the power of the internal law of grace, He improves the internal and external life of people. The state tries, by the force of external law, to put in order and protect in order the private life of a person and the public life of the state. And therefore the state cannot always follow the high rules of Christianity, but has its own rules, without thereby becoming unworthy of the state. For example, Christianity says: whoever wants to sue you and (through untruth in court) take your robe, release him and the swearer (Mn. V, 40). But the state cannot say to the robbed: give back to the robber what has not yet been taken from you. With such a rule, a state in which there are both good and evil could not stand. It necessarily says to the robbed: go to court: according to the court, the robber (cunning or arrogant) must return what was taken, and be exposed and punished. Here is the saying of Christ the Savior regarding the punishments defined in the Law of Moses: You have heard, as it was said: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. I tell you not to resist evil (Matt. V, 38.39). That is, according to the Law of Moses, one who gouges out another’s eye should be punished by gouging out an eye, and one who knocks out a tooth by knocking out a tooth, but do not resist the one who does you evil, do not repay insult for insult, endure generously, leave vengeance to God. And here again is a rule that state legislation cannot follow. The Savior is not correcting the criminal code; He is not talking about changing the type and degree of punishment. He teaches the spiritual law: to endure and not seek punishment for an offense. So, the question: about the use or non-use of corporal punishment in the state stands apart from Christianity. If the state can refuse this kind of punishment, finding milder forms of it sufficient, Christianity will approve of this meekness. If the state finds it inevitable, in some cases, to use corporal punishment: Christianity will not condemn this severity, as long as the punishment is fair and not excessive” (Collected plurals and reviews. V, 130 – 131). The state should not see the Gospel as an external law of social improvement. The opposite conclusion is also inevitable: the church must also have its own spirit, distinct from the state. “Since the time of Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine, State power has protected the world of the Church with the stronghold of State laws. Then, when the State power weakened in Rome, the popes decided, not content with the defensive help of the State, to act offensively on the State, and they managed too much in this. Finally, opposition arose, and the States, trying to overthrow the papal yoke, began to destroy the strongholds protecting the church. Those prejudiced in favor of Western education transferred such actions to places where the church never burdened the State, but always helped it. – What should church ministers do in such circumstances? Remember, and put into practice the memory that the Apostles and ancient fathers of the church established and spread the church, and destroyed the accumulation of heresies, not by the force of the external laws of the pagan world, but by the force of strong faith, love and self-sacrifice” (Letters to Archbishop Alex. No. 225). Let us also mention Sylvester (Lebedinsky), rector of the Kazan Academy († Archbishop of Astrakhan 1808), who in his Compendium theologiae classicum didactico-polemicum, doctrinae orthodoxae christiae maxime consonum (Petropoli 1799; Mosquae 1805), based on the recognition of the word of God as the only and proper principle of theology (cum sacra scriptura situnicum et proprium theologiae principium), the meaning of patristic writing is formulated in the thesis: testimonia patrum non sunt eloqutis Dei comparanda, adeoque nec principium theologiae primarium apodycticum, ingenerans fidem divinam, sed tantum ratio secundaria et probabilis, humanam fidem generans; et quae potius illustrationis gratia usurpanda, quam ad confirmandum. That here, however, we are far from Protestantism and according to the thoughts of Philaret himself, this is evidenced by the following passage from the treatise - Philaret’s academic lectures “Historical and Dogmatic Review of the Doctrine of the Sacraments (1819)”: “In general, the new Greek and our theologians, dividing the sacraments into the most important and less important and classifying the latter as the five sacraments rejected by Protestants, occupy, as it were, a middle ground between Catholic theologians, who say that all sacraments equal, and Protestants, who accept only two sacraments.” I. N. Korsunsky About the exploits of Filaret M. M. in translating the Bible into Russian, pp. 242 – 246. The misconception that “the Holy Scriptures were handed down by God not to the people, but to the class of shepherds and teachers” is specifically rejected in the Coll. pl. and review. III, 59. This exhausts what is said in the passage under review about the word of God; but in view of the importance of the question of councils, we also present the following. See I. N. Korsunsky The fate of the catechisms of Filaret M. M. in Russian. West. 1883 The Author of the Notes further refers to the authority of the Holy Synod. “Let it be permitted to ask: why did the Holy Synod, in the edition of the Slavic Bible approved by it, print instructions for the comparative texts of Holy Scripture, if not so that whoever encounters something unclear or incomplete in one text could turn to another text on the same subject, clearer or more complete, for an explanation? But so that this does not seem like just a guess, let’s see what the Holy Synod itself says about this subject in its preface to the Slavic Bible. “Parallelism is the name given to different places in the Holy Scriptures that agree with each other, the relationship established at the end, so that the darkest in the clearest will be revealed, and even the doubtful seems to be doubtless. And this is not a new invention, but of the most ancient holy fathers. Saint Clement of Alexandria in Book I of Stromatov says: scriptures are explained by other and similar scriptures. Saint Irenaeus: the arguments, speech, in the scriptures cannot be explained, unless not from the very nutrition. So, the rule: to explain the Holy Scriptures in accordance with the clear passages thereof, was accepted and solemnly preached by the grace of God by the Holy Governing Synod, recognizing it not as a new invention, but as the tradition of the most ancient holy fathers. Consequently, the Abridged Hermeneutics in vain recognizes this as a Lutheran error.” M. Filaret never forgot reverence or respect for the human person. “The count is sufficient for the sheep: the students have names” - this was his resolution (III, 279) on the report of the school authorities. Filaret decisively rejected “the opinion that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, original sin, the fall of the first people, is nothing more than the marital copulation of Adam and Eve.” “The first sin of the ancestors was actually eating the fruit of the forbidden tree: and the severity of this sin was ingratitude and disobedience against God, and thereby insulting His greatness... The copulation of Adam with Eve, as a husband with a wife, according to the explanation of St. Chrysostom, began already after the expulsion from paradise... Let's look at the very action of the Fall, as it is described in the book of Genesis. And in the form of a wife, etc. So Eve sinned first alone, and not together with her husband. How could Moses have written this if he had written the allegory that they want to find here?... What would be the point in this case, and what could the question mean: what did God say, “You shall not eat of every tree of paradise?” The tempter, more reliably for his purpose, could ask: why don’t you fulfill what God said to you: grow and multiply? In this case, the ancestors who sinned should have said in their justification; we did what led to the commandment: grow and multiply, which has not yet been fulfilled and unknown to us. If knowing a wife was the first crime that destroyed the human race, then how could the apostle say that marriage is honorable in everyone and the bed is not bad? (Heb. xiii. 4). This would be a discordant contradiction of the word of God to itself. – Was it not the thought of the imperfection of the birth of children from a fallen man that led to the idea that this itself consisted of original sin? If this is so, then there is no correct logical conclusion here. The birth of children is imperfect not because it consisted of original sin, but because a person was damaged in all abilities and phenomena of life by preliminary original sin. To talk about this in more detail, it would be necessary to experience the former life of paradise, and its possible continuation without the Fall, and compare it with the present life of fallen man. For lack of this, it is better not to give excessive unreliable and unsafe freedom to your curious wisdom, but to humbly and obediently listen to the word of God.” (Letters to A.H.M. No. 124). You might be interested in: