Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk in his "Illuminator"

(Article by His Eminence Macarius, Archbishop of Lithuania and Vilna) Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod realized that, in order to fight the Judaizers or Novgorod heretics, it was necessary to have at hand the books of Holy Scripture, which they also used for their own purposes - and, as a result of this consciousness, he took care to collect the complete Slavic Bible in one composition and give it for use by the Orthodox. But Gennady himself did not use this spiritual weapon against heretics; did not repulse their attacks on Orthodoxy, did not defeat their very heresy. True, he wrote, regarding the heresy of the Judaizers, several well-known letters, such as: to Prokhor, Bishop of Sara (at the end of 1487), to Niphon, Bishop of Suzdal and to Philotheus of Perm (Jan. 1488), to Joasaph, Archbishop of Rostov (Feb. 1489), to Metropolitan Zosima (Oct. 1490) and to the council of rulers who then gathered in Moscow. But all these messages are historical in nature; in them Gennady speaks about heretics, their teaching and actions, asks to consider the case, to take measures against them, but does not at all enter into a refutation of their false teaching itself 1 . For such a fight against the Judaizers, another zealot of Orthodoxy came forward - Joseph of Volokolamsk. He also has two or three epistles in which he speaks only about heretics, about the need to rebel against them, curb them, persecute them, or ask for protection against their patrons 2 . But in his other epistles, Joseph does not limit himself to this alone, but simultaneously refutes, in more or less detail, certain opinions of false teachers and their intercessors 3 . But the most important thing is that Joseph, not content with letters to private individuals regarding the heresy of the Judaizers, and a refutation of only some of their individual thoughts, decided to write and wrote, for the guidance of all Orthodox, a possible complete refutation of all the main and most widespread opinions of these heretics and their defenders: a work that, in its breadth and dignity, represents a phenomenon that has never before occurred in Russian spiritual literature. It was not written all at once, but was written gradually, during almost the entire struggle of Joseph with the heretics (around 1493–1515). This work also included some of Joseph’s epistles regarding the same heresy, some only in parts and thoughts, and others almost entirely and verbatim. Joseph himself did not give his work a special name, but called it in places only a book; but later it was rightly called the Enlightener 4. “The Enlightener” consists of a brief “Tale of the newly emerged heresy of the Novgorod heretics” and sixteen “Words on the heresy of the Novgorod heretics.” In the Legend, which serves as the most natural introduction to the work, the monk first acquaints readers with the origin of the heresy of the Judaizers, with its teaching, spread and character; but he does not bring the history of heresy to the end, but only to Metropolitan Zosima, who appears to still be occupying his throne and persecuting the zealots of Orthodoxy. During these persecutions, Joseph then says, when some began to collect from the divine scriptures and send out accusatory answers against heretics, “for the sake of misfortune, and I collected little from the divine scriptures, in opposition and accusatory heretical speech: even if I am ignorant and rude, yet I must not be negligent about these things against my power.” From this we can conclude that Joseph wrote his Tale of Heresy and began to write a refutation of it even before the removal of Zosima from the metropolitan throne (May 17, 1494), although later, when he completed the entire work, he undoubtedly made some additions to the Tale 5. Concluding the Legend, Joseph clearly indicates the purpose of his book: “Let those who know the divine scriptures, who know the divine scriptures, read, remember them, but those who do not know, let them understand; and if anyone needs anything against heretical speech, the grace of God will be readily found, without difficulty, in every word, which is the essence of these,” and sets out in order the table of contents and a summary of the words themselves, in some lists only four, in others ten or eleven, and in most lists - all sixteen. Looking carefully at the content of these words, we cannot help but notice that the author arranged them in the most natural order: in the first four, he refutes the basis or beginning of the heresy of the Judaizers; in the next six - he refutes the main consequences that flowed from these principles of the Judaizer heresy; finally, in the last five, he draws practical conclusions and explains how Orthodox Christians should look at the Judaizing heretics and how to treat them. The main members of the heresy of the Judaizers, which they preached, relying exclusively on the Old Testament, are the same as those that Jews preach today in spite of Christians: 1) God is one, not trinity, has neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, who are consubstantial with Himself. 2) The Messiah promised by God, who will be the Son of God only by grace, like Moses and others, has not yet come; and Christ, in whom Christians believe, is not the Messiah and God, but a simple man, crucified, died and was not resurrected. Therefore - 3) one must keep the law of Moses, the Jewish one, as given by God, and not the Christian law, given by a simple man. In refutation of these main members of the heresy, Joseph wrote his first four words: in the first he proves that in God, who is one in essence, there are three Persons: Father, Son and Holy. Spirit; in the second, that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah and God, that the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah were fulfilled in Him; thirdly, that the law of Moses was given only for a time, until the coming of the true Messiah - Christ, and after His coming it ceased, and sacrifices and circumcision were abolished; in the fourth, which can be called a kind of addition to the first and second words, it explains that the incarnation of God for the salvation of man, although God could have equipped us in another way, in accordance with God’s wisdom and goodness. In all these four words, as predominantly dogmatic, the order is the same, distinguishing them from subsequent words: first of all, on the basis of one or more texts of the New Testament and the teachings of St. fathers, Joseph briefly outlines how Orthodox Christians believe about this dogma or subject, pronounces a curse on the heretics - Alexei Archpriest, Denis the priest and Fyodor Kuritsyn with their like-minded people, and determines the essence of their false teaching about this subject; and then he examines in detail and refutes their opinions and objections - in the first three words on the basis only of the Old Testament, and in the fourth word, by the very nature of the question, on the basis of theological considerations and sound reasoning. In his first word, after the Orthodox confession of faith about the Most Holy. Trinity, which is literally borrowed from the book of the teacher. Nikon of Montenegrin 6, the essence of the false teaching of the Judaizers regarding this dogma of the teacher. Joseph expresses it this way: “God the Father Almighty has neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, consubstantial and co-altar with Himself, and there is no Holy Trinity. And if the scripture says that God has a word and a spirit, then it means that He has a word spoken through the mouth by the Spirit and dispersed in the air; “equally, if the prophets predicted about the Son of God - the Messiah, then they called Him the Son of God not in essence, but by grace, like Moses, David and others, and if the prophets write about the Holy Spirit, then they call Him not God in essence and personality, but a spirit emanating from the mouth of God and spreading in the air.” Having outlined this false teaching, Joseph makes the remark that in the Old Testament the sacrament of the Most Holy. It was not entirely clear that the Trinity was revealed, due to the Jews’ inclination towards polytheism and idolatry, and that although there is much clear evidence about the Most Holy One. Trinity in the writings of St. apostles and saints fathers, but since the Judaizers do not accept the apostolic and paternal testimonies, but only the prophetic ones, he will present only the latter. These testimonies are divided into two parts in the word. The first contains testimonies (more than thirty) about the Most Rev. Trinity, then about the deity of the Son of God - the Messiah, alternately; in the second there is evidence (up to fifteen) about the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit. As for the testimony of St. To the Trinity, Joseph, among other things, points to the words of God - a) before the creation of man: Let us make man in our image (Gen. 1:20); b) after the fall of man: behold, Adam became one of us (Gen. 3:22); c) before the confusion of tongues: come and let us go down and confuse their tongues (Gen. 11:6, 7) 7, - d) at the appearance of God to Abraham at the oak of Mamre in the form of three men (Gen. 18:1-3); e) to the seraphim's song: holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts (Isa. 6:3). Among the testimonies about the deity of the Son of God, the promised Messiah, he cites the words: a) a child was born to us, a son was given to us, and his name is called the great angel of counsel, the mighty God, the father of the world to come (Isa. 9:6); b) the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand..., from the womb before the star I gave birth to you (Ps. 109:1, 3); c) You are my son. I gave birth to Thee today (Ps. 2:7); d) the virgin will be with child and give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel (Is. 7:14); e) and you are in Bethlehem, the house of Ephrath... from you will come an Elder..., who came from the beginning from the days of the age (Mic. 5:2). Finally, between the testimonies about the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, we find the following: a) and the Spirit of God rests on him (the Messiah), the Spirit of wisdom and reason, and so on. (Isa. 11:2–3); b) the Spirit of God, who created me (Job 33:4); c) The Lord sent me and his Spirit (Isa. 48:16): d) The Spirit of the Lord is on me, for his sake to anoint me, and so on. (Isa. 61:1); e) and it shall come to pass in the last days that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, etc. (Joel 2:28). All these testimonies really relate to the confirmation of those dogmas that Joseph defended, and are still used by Orthodox theologians in similar treatises. Moreover, citing these testimonies, Joseph tried to explain them, at least the most important ones, showed their meaning and power, and overthrew the false rumors of heretics. But, on the other hand, one cannot help but admit that many other testimonies given by Joseph little correspond to his purpose or even do not at all have the meaning that he ascribes to them, and that most of them are given without any explanation or interpretation. The question that Joseph dealt with in his first word was not new to him. Even before Joseph’s abbess (May 1, 1479), some Archimandrite Vassian asked him to write about the Most Holy One. Trinity based on the Old Testament. Why such a desire was born to the archimandrite is not known; but he could already have heard about the false teachings of the Judaizers, which began to operate among us in 1471. Be that as it may, only Joseph, who did not yet know at all about the Judaizers, fulfilled the desire of the archimandrite, although reluctantly, and in a letter to him he outlined the teaching of the Old Testament about the Most Holy One. Trinity. However, this message of Joseph is incomparably shorter than his words and, having presented five or six Old Testament testimonies about the Most Holy One. The Trinity does not at all concern the evidence of the deity of the Son of God and the deity of the Holy Spirit 8. In the second word, refuting the false teaching of the heretics that the Messiah has not yet come and was not born, and Christ, recognized by Christians as God, is a simple man who was crucified by the Jews and decayed in the tomb, and was not resurrected, did not ascend to heaven and will not come to judge people, the Monk Joseph cites Old Testament prophecies, first about the coming and birth of the Messiah, then, one after another, about His crucifixion, about His resurrection, His ascension into heaven and His second coming. Of the prophecies of the first kind, Joseph dwells on only two: on the prophecy of the patriarch Jacob about the lack of prince from Judah until the reconciliator comes (Gen. 49:10), and on the prophecy of the prophet Daniel about the seventy weeks (Dan. 9:25), and, considering both - one briefly, the other in quite detail - he proves that the time of the coming of the Messiah has long been fulfilled, that Jesus Christ was born precisely when the Messiah was supposed to be born according to these prophecies, and therefore there is a true Messiah. In the following sections - about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, resurrection, ascension and second coming - prophecies are offered in a significant number, but they are offered almost without any explanations or notes on the part of the author, perhaps because the fulfillment of these prophecies on Jesus Christ seemed self-evident to everyone. It should be added that some of them were chosen and proposed not entirely successfully. The third word is directed against the teaching of the Judaizers, as if even now we must keep and preserve the Mosaic Law, we must make sacrifices and be circumcised. For this purpose, up to fifteen prophecies are presented, and among them are classical ones (Jer. 31:31–32; Mal. 1:11; Dan. 9:22–27), of which some express more or less clearly that the law of Moses will pass away or be abolished with the coming of the Messiah, and others that then a new, most perfect law will be given to the entire human race. In particular, Joseph drew attention to the fact that the law of Moses was, as it were, tied to Jerusalem and its church, that only in Jerusalem could the Jews celebrate their holidays, Passover, Pentecost, only in the Jerusalem temple could they make their sacrifices, and that consequently with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, which took place after the coming of Jesus Christ, the Mosaic law inevitably had to be abolished and can no longer be fulfilled now. In revealing these thoughts, Joseph undoubtedly used the work of St. Chrysostom against the Jews, in some places even literally, without indicating the source 9. The reason for writing the fourth word was the speculation of the Judaizers: “Couldn’t God have saved Adam from hell, couldn’t have sent heavenly powers, prophets and righteous people to fulfill His will? Why did He himself descend in humiliation, become human, suffer, and thereby outwit the devil? It’s not right for God to do this.” In response to this, Joseph first says: “We have testimony from the divine scriptures that with God all things are possible, and no one can resist His power; but He, out of His infinite wisdom and love for mankind, for the sake of our salvation, deigned Himself to be incarnate, and to suffer, and to descend into hell, and to bring Adam and those with him out of hell, and thus, with His divine wisdom, he outwitted the devil and saved the whole world and is saving to this day.” And to prove that there is nothing unworthy of God in such a course of action, Joseph points out several cases in the Old Testament when God, although he could have accomplished everything with his strength and authority, nevertheless used cunning means: for example, he commanded Moses to outwit Pharaoh and let the Jews go into the desert; and Samuel - to outwit Saul in anointing David as king. Then, wanting to explain how wisdom and goodness were expressed in the mystery of the incarnation, Joseph briefly outlines the entire plan of the divine economy, how God created the world, spiritual and material, how one of the spirits fell, seduced our first parents and acquired power over the entire human race, how wickedness increased between people before the flood and after the flood, and how neither the law nor the prophets could stop evil. What was left to do? God did not want to forcibly snatch a person from the power of the devil, by His power alone: ​​for He is righteous and cannot commit unrighteousness; and the devil would then grumble at God’s unrighteousness and begin to say: “I myself defeated man, but it was not man who defeated me, but God by violence.” And so the Son of God became man and in human form entered into a struggle with the devil. The devil became angry with Him, considering Him only one of the holy people, and taught the bishops and scribes to condemn Him and crucify Him on the cross. But He, after death, descended into hell, not only with His soul, but also as God, destroyed hell and brought Adam and all the prisoners out of there; then he rose again, ascended into heaven in the flesh, sent the Holy Spirit from there to his disciples, who proclaimed the word of salvation to all people, and thus outwitted the devil with his wisdom. The goodness and love for mankind of the Son of God incarnate for us is especially visible from the fact that He gave us the sacrament of baptism to cleanse us from sins and grace-filled powers for us to perform good deeds; and if we sin again, then he forgives us our sins in the sacrament of repentance, saves us for the sake of one living faith in Him, before our death and even after our death he gave us the opportunity to be saved from hell - through the prayers of the church, through the offering of a bloodless sacrifice and through alms - so that now, in the new testament, both grace-filled gifts and St. There are incomparably more people being saved than there were in the Old Testament. This word contains many short sayings of St. fathers under their names, and at the end of the word - even quite extensive extracts from the word about those who have fallen asleep in the faith - St. John of Damascus 10. The consequences that followed from the basic principles of the heresy of the Judaizers are self-evident. Rejecting the trinity of persons in God and the divinity of Jesus Christ, and together the divinity of the Christian faith, and asserting that only the Jewish law, the Old Testament, should hold true, the Judaizers inevitably rejected in Christianity everything that is specifically Christian in it - they rejected: a) all Christian veneration and worship that Christians show to the Trinitarian God, Christ - the Son of God, His Most Pure Mother, His saints, and together St. icons, St. cross, St. The mysteries of Christ, St. Gospel, St. relics, etc.; b) every Christian teaching, and, consequently, the writings of St. apostles and saints fathers; c) any Christian institution or institution: sacraments, rituals, holidays, fasts, monasticism, etc. Most of all among these objects the Judaizers attacked, to the temptation of the Orthodox, St. icons, on the writings of the apostles and fathers and on monasticism. Therefore, the Monk Joseph considered it necessary to dwell primarily on these three subjects and wrote: in defense of St. icons three words - fifth, sixth and seventh, in defense of the writings of St. apostles and saints fathers three words - eighth, ninth and tenth; in defense of monasticism - one, but very extensive, eleventh word. Joseph wrote three words about icons at the request of some monk brother, whom he himself calls “the first artist of divine and honest icon painting.” In a letter to this unknown icon painter, forwarding the very words to him, the monk says that the first and third were written to repel an attack on St. icons from the Judaizers, and the second was written for the guidance of Orthodox Christians, especially those who do not have many books or are ignorant of the divine scriptures, so that they know how and why we should worship St. icons and in general what different types of Christian worship should consist of and what they are based on. Then he makes a remark about the meaning of the words conveyed: “Besides, let your love for God know that these thoughts are not mine, but from many divine scriptures I have chosen and, having put together a lot of things, I have sent them to you” 11. These three words, apparently written separately from the first four words of the “Illuminator,” were later included by Joseph into the composition of the “Illuminator” and placed somewhat differently, and it was the third that he called here the fifth, the first the sixth, and the second the seventh. In the fifth word, Joseph refutes the private thought of the heretics regarding St. icons, as if “the holy and life-giving Trinity should not be depicted on honest icons because Abraham received and treated God with two angels, and not the Trinity.” For this purpose, the monk first examines the story of Moses about the appearance of God to Abraham and explains that the patriarch was honored to see and receive one God in three persons, who all sat in Abraham’s booth in one place as co-thrones and equal in honor, and equally received worship and service from Abraham; then, with a whole series of texts, mainly from the Old Testament, he proves that in Scripture only the Son and the Holy Spirit are presented as co-thrones and equal in honor with God the Father, but not angels; finally - since St. the fathers sometimes expressed that Abraham accepted the St. The Trinity, and sometimes that he accepted God with two angels, sometimes that he accepted three angels - Joseph cites several passages from the Old and New Testaments that seem to disagree, even contradict each other, but, with the correct interpretation, are easily reconciled, and in particular he explains that there is no discrepancy or contradiction in the said expressions of St. fathers, that they imply the same idea about the appearance of the Trinitarian God to Abraham. The conclusion from all that has been said is that Christians rightly depict on St. icons of the Most Holy Trinity, as She appeared to Abraham. The word presents the testimonies of Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Andrew of Crete, John of the Climacus, Joseph the hymnographer and others. The sixth word refutes the general false teaching of the Judaizers regarding St. icons and other sacred objects. The heretics said: “We must not worship things made by human hands,” such as: icons, the cross, the Gospel, the mysteries of Christ, consecrated vessels, relics of saints and churches, and in support of their words they referred to the well-known texts of the Old Testament: do not make for yourself an idol or any likeness, lest you bow to them (Ex. 20:4-5); Do not create for yourself gods of silver and gods of gold (Ex. 23) and so on. Joseph goes through these texts one by one, interprets their meaning and shows that God himself, who commanded through Moses: “You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness, lest you bow to them,” nevertheless commanded Moses to create many likenesses and sacred things, even sculptured and graven images, which the Jews revered: the tabernacle or church, the ark of the covenant, the tablets, cherubim in the tabernacle; that Moses himself and the prophet David even worshiped the tabernacle and stretched out their hands to it, and other prophets and the Jews in general worshiped the Temple of Solomon and the second church, and that there is the greatest difference between idols and Christian icons, and between the worship of both. Having refuted the objections of the Judaizers to icons, the monk begins to expound the New Testament evidence about the veneration of icons, but soon stops and promises to talk about this in more detail in the next word. The entire sixth word is written under the influence of the famous words of St. John of Damascus about St. icons: from there the main thoughts were borrowed here, although they are expressed somewhat differently and presented in a different order 12. In the seventh word, which in its vastness surpasses all the others, each separately, Joseph actually explains in detail how and why Christians should worship: a) the icon of the Most Holy Trinity, b) the icon of Christ the Savior, c) the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, d) the honorable and life-giving cross, e) St. Gospel, e) St. the mysteries of Christ, g) consecrated vessels in which the mysteries are performed, h) icons of St. John the Baptist, St. angels and saints people, husbands and wives, and) St. relics and i) St. churches. Thoughts on all these subjects are borrowed mainly from the writings of St. John of Damascus, - partly from his words about icons, and partly from his Theology or exposition of faith, but only presented in a different order - some in abbreviation, others in a common form, and others, very few, even without any changes 13. Not content with revealing Christian teaching about the worship of icons and other sacred things, Joseph further reveals in the same word how Christians should worship and serve one another (literally from St. John of Damascus), how they should worship and serve kings and princes (from the words of the same father about holy icons), and how they should worship and serve the Lord God. Getting to this last, most extensive part of the word, the author notes: “a true Christian must first know that there is God and how to philosophize about Him in order to learn how to worship and how to serve Him.” Therefore, first he sets out, already on the basis of the New Testament, a rather detailed teaching about God, one in essence and trinity in Persons, and in particular about the Son of God Jesus Christ and His twofold nature, Divine and human, and about the Holy Spirit and His procession from one Father - against the Latins, and cites very many testimonies of the teachers of the church. Then he gives instructions on how to worship God, i.e. That is, how to truly pray to Him, how to arouse a prayerful disposition in oneself, and speaks about the power and beneficialness of prayer, about the superiority of public prayer over private, church over domestic, about going to church at the right time, about proper presence at divine services and about prayer outside the church. Finally, he explains how a Christian should serve God. Here a whole series of moral rules and beliefs is set forth, covering the entire area of ​​Christian piety, internal and external, and Christian prudence. The rules are written briefly, aphoristically, without any division into classes; but clearly, with deep feeling and strength. This article is one of the best in the entire essay, if not the best. On the writings of St. The Judaizers attacked their fathers mainly due to the fact that in 1492 seven thousand years had passed since the creation of the world and Paschal ended, but the end of the world did not follow, as if contrary to the teachings of St. fathers. "St. the fathers wrote, said the heretics, that seven thousand years were appointed for this life, and another thousand for the next century; but now seven thousand years have passed, and there is no end to the world; track. The writings of our fathers are false and should be burned.” “We are,” the teacher answers this. Joseph, - we have evidence that the writings of St. fathers are true, because they agree with the prophetic and apostolic writings.” And after that, in the eighth word he reveals the following thoughts: a) St. The fathers did not at all teach that seven thousand years were appointed for the world, but expressed themselves only on the basis of the words of Ecclesiastes: give part to the seventh and to the rest (Eccl. 11:2), that for this life seven centuries are determined, but this age is determined for the life to come; but the word age has an indefinite and extensive meaning in scripture; b) the time of the end of the world is not revealed to us by God, and all attempts to determine this end are vain and useless; c) there was no Easter before the first ecumenical council; and after the fathers of the council established the peace circle in 532, some wrote Paschals up to six thousand years, then some continued up to seven thousand years - they continued according to their own intention, and not from St. apostles, not from St. fathers; In general, along the peace circle, Easter can be continued endlessly. The word contains many testimonies of St. fathers and in particular thoughts from the Theology of St. John of Damascus 14. Against the writings of St. The Judaizers objected to the apostles: “Why is there still no second coming of Christ? It's time for him to be there. The apostles wrote that Christ was born in the last summer; but one thousand five hundred years have already passed since the birth of Christ, and there is no second coming of Christ: that means the apostolic writings are false.” Reply from Rev. Joseph in the ninth word, which apparently was not written before the year 1500, is: Scriptures of St. the apostles are true, because they were spoken by the Holy Spirit. If the apostles wrote that Christ was born in the last summer (1 Pet. 1:20), that is, 5500 years after the creation of the world, then they only expressed the idea that He was not born at the previous time - not a thousand, not two thousand years from the creation of the world. But nowhere in the apostolic writings is it said that when a certain number of years have passed from the first coming of I. Christ - a thousand or two - then His second coming will take place: for no one knows about this, not even the angels of heaven. Even if the Lord, through the apostles, had foretold to us with accuracy that His second coming would be in a thousand or two thousand, and then did not come at a certain time: even then we would not have the right to torment Him, why He did not come: for He could postpone His coming through long-suffering and mercy to us, so that we would have time to repent. To search for when the time of the second coming of Christ will come, which has not been revealed to us, and to demand why Christ has not yet come, is a matter of the greatest insolence on the part of an insignificant creature, man. The revelation of this last thought constitutes the largest part of the word. Attacking the writings of St. in general. fathers, the Judaizers attacked in particular the writings of St. Ephraim the Syrian and said: “Ephraim wrote: the prophecies and writings have already ended; there is nothing left but the second coming of our Lord I. Christ. But now a thousand and one hundred years have passed since the time of Ephraim, and there is no second coming; then his writings are false.” In response to this, Rev. Joseph in the tenth word states that St. Ephraim wrote about the second coming of Christ and the future judgment in exactly the same way as the prophets and apostles previously wrote about it, who often presented future events as if they were present, and, in support of his words, he cites a whole series of sayings related to this subject - first prophetic, then evangelical and apostolic, then the sayings of St. Ephraim, showing their agreement with the prophetic and apostolic, and, finally, such sayings of the priest. scriptures in which future events are presented as if they were present. Joseph divided the eleventh word into four chapters, corresponding to the four objections of the Judaizers to monasticism. In the first, he proves that monasticism, contrary to the opinion of heretics, is by no means an invention and a human tradition that does not agree with St. scripture, but was invented and exists according to the commandment of God and according to the prophetic, evangelical and apostolic scriptures, that traces of monasticism were still in the Old Testament before the law and in the days of the law, and in the new testament it originates from Christ the Savior himself and the apostles. In the second chapter, refuting the speculations of the heretics: “if monastic life had been pleasing to God, then Christ and the apostles would have been and would have been painted on icons in a monastic image,” he explains in detail that the entire monastic image, in all its accessories, is an image of repentance and lamentation, and therefore could not befit either Christ the God or his saint. to the apostles. In the third chapter he proves that the angel who betrayed Pachomius the monastic image - the schema, although he appeared to him not light, but black, was sent, however, not from the demon, as the heretics claimed, but from God; that he appeared black, wearing the robe of a great monastic image, that is, a schema, in accordance with the purpose for which he was sent, and that in general angels appeared to St. people in different forms, as the Lord pleases. Finally, in the fourth chapter he reveals that the words of the apostle about those who forbid getting married and avoiding waste (1 Tim. 4:3) do not refer to monks at all, as the Judaizers thought, but to heretics - the Manichaeans and Marcotines, who considered marriage to be adultery, and brothel to be defilement, and that monks only prefer virginity to marriage, but do not forbid marriage for anyone, only They abstain from food, but do not call it unclean. This extensive text contains many testimonies from the writings of St. fathers, from the lives of saints and from other spiritual books, indicating the sources or the names of the writers. In the first eleven words of his “Illuminator”, Rev. Joseph refuted all the false teachings of the Judaizers or all those parts of this false teaching that he recognized as necessary to refute. It remained to determine how the Orthodox should look at the new heretics, how to treat them. The solution to this issue was all the more necessary because the heretics themselves called for it with their speculations and rantings. Metropolitan Zosima also said, and other Judaizers repeated after him, that “even if the saint is a heretic and does not bless or curse any of the Orthodox, then his judgment will be followed by the judgment of God” 15 . This ego confused the Orthodox and made them fear anathema from the metropolitan heretic. Bishop Nifont of Suzdal himself asked the opinion of the Venerable on this occasion. Joseph, and Joseph, in a letter to him (c. 1493), with a number of examples from church history, cathedral rules, testimonies of St. Scripture and the Fathers, he argued that a curse from a heretic saint has no power, that it is not accompanied by the judgment of God, and that the Orthodox should not be afraid of such a curse 16. Joseph expressed the same thoughts in his twelfth word against the Novgorod heretics, only in a different order and with greater detail for the admonition of all Orthodox. It is remarkable that the twelfth word does not appear in many lists of The Enlightener 17. Likewise, Metropolitan Zosima began to teach that “one should not condemn either a heretic or an apostate” 18. This idea, naturally, joyfully taken up by the Judaizers, found, at least in its further development, sympathy among some Orthodox Christians, especially after the council of 1504, when the most important of the heretics were executed with a terrible death. Rev. Joseph immediately rebelled against this teaching, and in his letter to Niphon of Suzdal he already explained in some detail that heretics were not only ordered to be judged and condemned by church courts, but that pious kings and princes must subject heretics to civil execution, send them to prison, and sometimes even put them to death, for which he referred to the words of St. the Apostle Paul (Heb. 10:28–29), on the decrees of the Greek king Heraclius, on the examples of the Omirite king Abraham, the Greek ones - Justin, Tiberius, Theodora and her son Michael, etc. Then Joseph repeated these same thoughts with some additions in a letter (c. 1503) to his confessor. Prince Ivan Vasilyevich, Andronikovsky Archimandrite Mitrofan, briefly expressed in a letter (after 1504) to Vel. Prince Vasily Ivanovich and, when the latter was subject to objections from the Trans-Volga elders, he outlined in all detail in a letter to the elders about obedience to the council’s decision 19. Finally, the last four words in his “Enlightenment” are devoted to the disclosure of these very thoughts by Joseph. Saying that they should not condemn either a heretic or an apostate, the Judaizers referred to the words of the Savior: judge not, lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1), and to the words of John Chrysostom: “one is not worthy to hate or condemn anyone, lower than an infidel, lower than a heretic, and not for that is worthy to kill a heretic.” Beginning to refute this teaching in the thirteenth word, Joseph first notes: “Whoever wants to correctly understand what the Lord said: Judge not, lest you be judged, let him read the testimonies of St. fathers - John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Athanasius the Great and many others - whom Rev. collected in his great book. our father Nikon (Montenegrin), in the 39th word.” Then he turns all his attention to the above words of Chrysostom and gives two answers to them. In the first answer he says that heretics, according to the teachings of Chrysostom, only then should one not hate, condemn and do harm to them; on the contrary, one should treat them with meekness when they live calmly and do not do us, the faithful, any spiritual harm; and if they, like wolves, rush towards the flock of Christ in order to plunder and destroy it, and deceive the Orthodox, then the shepherds of the church are obliged to arm themselves against heretics and not only condemn them, but also curse and harm them. And that this is really the teaching of Chrysostom and that in general it is necessary to deal with heretics, Joseph - a) bring two new testimonies from Chrysostom, in which St. the father, for sure, commands to forbid and stop the mouths of heretics who are hostile to the faith of Christ, to testify against them in court as blasphemers of Christ, even to hurt them with your hand and thereby sanctify it, and not to have any communication with them either in friendship, or in love, or even in food and drink; b) points to the apostles - Peter, John, Philip and Paul and the church fathers - John Chrysostom, Porphyry the Bishop of Gaza, Leo of Catania and Theodore of Edessa, who did not condemn heretics and infidels and did not do them harm until they harmed the Orthodox and their faith, and as soon as the heretics began to harm Orthodoxy, they condemned them and cursed them. “This is how the monk concludes, we should also act with today’s heretics, who have caused us so much spiritual harm and destruction and have drawn so many Orthodox Christians into Judaism that it is impossible to count them.” In the second answer, Joseph explains that Chrysostom only said: it is not proper for us to kill heretics, i.e. He meant bishops, priests, monks and clergy in general, but did not say: it is not proper for kings, princes and judges to kill heretics. And therefore, to prove the idea that kings, princes and judges are obliged to act against heretics by civil measures, - a) refers to the words of St. Peter that kings and princes have been given power by God to take vengeance on evildoers (1 Pet. 2:14). classifying villains and heretics as causing the greatest evil to the Orthodox; b) cites city (civil) laws from Kormcha, in which apostates and heretics are recognized as “guilty of final torment and execution” 20; c) reminds us of the fathers of the Ecumenical Council, who asked King Justinian to eradicate the remnants of heretical malice; d) generally points to the Greek kings who were in the days of the ecumenical councils, Constantine, Theodosius the Great, Theodosius the Younger, Marcian, Justinian, Constantine and Queen Irene, who sent heretics into captivity and subjected them to other executions, and together to the fact that St. the fathers did not forbid them to do so; e) also points to the examples of prophets and kings in the Old Testament, the apostles and church fathers in the new, who, sometimes with the sword, sometimes even more often with prayer, killed apostates and heretics, and notes that if it were not appropriate for apostates and heretics to be put to death and execution, then the apostles and fathers would not have killed them with the power of their prayer. After this, Joseph dwells on the following objection of the Judaizers, obviously directed personally against him: “if it is proper to judge or condemn heretics or apostates, then it should be for kings, princes, saints and earthly judges, and not for monks who have renounced the world, who should only listen to themselves and not condemn anyone, neither a heretic nor an apostate,” and points to Anthony the Great, Paphnutius confessor, Pachomius, Macarius, Ephraim, Euthymius and many other monks and hermits, who either rebelled against the heretics and condemned them, or participated at ecumenical and local councils in condemning and cursing the heretics. And in conclusion of the whole word he says: “So, it is obvious to everyone that it is appropriate for saints, and priests, and monks, and ordinary people, and all those who think Christianly, to condemn and curse heretics and apostates, and for kings, and princes, and zemstvo judges, it is appropriate to send them to prison and subject them to cruel executions.” In the fourteenth word, the shortest of all, Joseph considers the opinion of the Judaizers, which the Trans-Volga elders also defended in their second epistle: “it is not proper to search or torture or test much about heretics and apostates unless they themselves confess their heresy and apostasy,” and asserts that, on the contrary, every Orthodox Christian should do everything in every possible way, with zeal, even using “God-wisdom treachery”, to find out, seek, torture about heretics and apostates and, having truly learned, must testify to them, and not hide them. To prove his thoughts, the monk - a) points to Flavian, Patriarch of Antioch, who, with “divine wisdom,” cunning and gentle conversation, learned from the leader of the Messalian heresy, Adelphius, about their heresies and removed them from the borders of Antioch, and to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, who, also with “wisdom,” having learned about the same heretics, drove them away from his flock; b) cites city laws from Kormcha, according to which if the Orthodox find out about heretics and do not report them or hand them over to the authorities, then they themselves are recognized as “guilty of the final torment” 21; c) the testimony of Chrysostom, which expresses that Christians, when they hear or see the teachings or actions of heretics, should denounce them, be true witnesses to them, and not cover up, not hide them; if anyone covers, he will be consigned along with them to eternal fire. In the fifteenth word, stating the opinion of the Judaizers (as well as the Trans-Volga elders, expressed in their second letter): if a heretic or apostate turns to repentance, then he should immediately enter the church and partake of the divine mysteries,” Rev. Joseph responds that the evidence cited by the Judaizers (as well as the elders) to support this opinion is from the explanatory gospel, from John the Climacus and from the priesthood. rules apply only to heretics, and not to apostates from the Christian faith; and not to all heretics. For there were heretics, Paulinians, Sabelians, Eunomians and others who did not believe in St. and the consubstantial Trinity, in the deity of I. Christ and His incarnation: thus, if they turn to the Orthodox faith, holy. The rules command first to fast for a long time and stand outside the church, and then they command to baptize them as pagans, and then to be worthy of divine communion. And there were heretics, Novatians, Donatists and the like, who believed in St. consubstantial Trinity, as well as into divinity and incarnation. Christ: such, if they want to begin the Orthodox faith and curse their heresy, the rules command them to be accepted soon and honored with St. participles: these include the evidence given by the Judaizers. But if not all heretics should soon be received and honored by St. mysteries, especially this cannot be done for apostates from the faith. And apostates are not equal in guilt. Some, having been born in the Christian faith, apostatized from it either in infancy, or out of ignorance, or for the sake of need, or in captivity, and did not deceive any of the Orthodox: such apostates, when they approach the Orthodox Christian faith, are granted mercy by the divine rules, although with fear. And there are apostates who were born and raised in the Christian faith, and not in captivity, not for the sake of torment, but voluntarily rejected Christ: such, if they turn to Christianity, must, according to the 73rd rule of Basil the Great and the 30th of Gregory of Nyssa, spend their entire lives in repentance and pray not together with the faithful, but separately from them, and only before their death can they be awarded St. participles. Finally, there are also apostates, worse than both the first and second: these are the Novgorod apostates who have now appeared, who not in infancy, not in captivity, not for the sake of need, but in mature years, self-willedly and spontaneously rejected the Orthodox Christian faith and uttered many blasphemies against St. consubstantial Trinity and the Most Holy. Theotokos, and on all the Saints, and they created many “defilements” on the St. church, and on St. icons, and on St. crosses, and on St. the relics of saints, and many Orthodox were deceived and led into Judaism. These apostates are more evil than all the heretics and apostates who were in ancient, middle and last generations. To justify such a review of the Judaizers, Joseph advises reading the “Tale” about them placed at the beginning of his book, which presents their history before Metropolitan Zosima, then describes their further actions, which are highly offensive to Orthodox Christianity, continuing this story until the council of 1504, and notes that thirty-four years have passed since the retreat of the Judaizers (which means this word was written in 1505), and not a single one one of them did not repent; when they were exposed at the council and began to be executed, they began to repent not of their own free will, but out of necessity. Thus, Joseph approached the last question regarding the Judaizers, with the solution of which he ended his book and because of which he was primarily subjected to many controversies in his time, and is even more exposed in our days, to the question: should repentant heretics or apostates be accepted and pardoned if they begin to repent after they have been convicted of their heresy or apostasy and condemned? Not only the Judaizers themselves answered this question in the affirmative, but also many Orthodox Christians, as Joseph confesses, and even some rulers, as his biographers testify, having witnessed the execution of heretics after the council of 1504, began to “mourn and grieve” for them and said that it was necessary to accept their repentance and honor them with pardon 22 . And this question was the main point of disagreement between Joseph and the Trans-Volga elders, and even the elder prince Vassian Kosy himself. And they agreed that heretics, while they are heretics, that is, “unrepentant and disobedient heretics, are ordered to be imprisoned,” and so on. agreed more or less with the content of the thirteenth word of Joseph; but they asserted only in their first letter that repentant heretics and those who curse their heresy should be accepted into the church with open arms and shown mercy, without explaining, however, whether they repent voluntarily or out of need 23 . And the elder prince Vassian himself taught: “as it is fitting for the saint and the entire sacred cathedral to curse heretics, if they do not repent or, even more so, violently resist; It is appropriate for the king and prince to imprison and execute these..., and the holy scriptures command those who repent to be accepted for repentance" 24 . Getting to the solution of this issue, in his 16th word, the monk says that how to accept heretics and apostates who voluntarily repent, he showed in the previous word from the priest. rules from other divine scriptures; but how to accept the Novgorod apostates, who repent after their condemnation, not of their own will, is not written about this in any of the books that have come down to us, nor in the holy books. rules, nor in any other divine scripture. Therefore, he invites everyone - princes, judges, saints, and Orthodox Christians in general - to earnestly pray to God, that He may enlighten and enlighten and teach Him how to accept the repentance of heretics or apostates who repent unwillingly. After such an attack, however, Joseph, directly and without hesitation, expressed the following thoughts: 1) If the Judaizers themselves, before being exposed, began to repent and confessed their apostasy, then their repentance would be pleasant; but they did not do this, and when they were convicted and condemned to death, then they began to repent; therefore, their repentance cannot be pleasant (i.e. accepted). For God said: speak out your iniquities first, so that you may be justified (Ps. 43:26); and Adam, Cain, Riezius, although they repented after their reproof, were not pardoned, but condemned by God. 2) If the repentance of the Novgorod heretics and apostates who repent after their exposure and condemnation is accepted, then it is necessary to accept the repentance of thieves, robbers, murderers and other villains, who, after their exposure and condemnation to death, usually repent. But their repentance is not accepted; and heretics and apostates, in their crimes, are much more guilty than any villains. And one cannot help but be surprised how the Orthodox, seeing their fellow believers condemned for some grave sins and led to death, do not complain about them, consider them worthy of execution and even abhor them; and about the heretics and apostates who arbitrarily rejected Christ, cursed Him and tried to take all Orthodox Christianity into Judaism, they mourn and grieve when they learn about their condemnation to death, and they say that they need to have mercy, as if St. the fathers and pious kings were not merciful, having established rules for the punishment of heretics and apostates. 3) It is true that God does not want the sinner to die, but to turn and live for him (Ezek. 34:11), and the Son of God came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:13); but here we mean true conversion and repentance, and not flattering, not feigned. Who can know and prove what is true, and not flattering, that the Judaizers are now repenting of? Who dares to accept them as truly repentant and weaken them and thereby accept terrible responsibility before God for all that evil. What will they do if they lure many more Orthodox Christians into Judaism? 4) If there is nothing in the scriptures about how to accept such heretics and tempt them to repentance: then we must, after praying to God to admonish us, turn to the examples of previous times and see how Orthodox kings and saints acted in similar cases. fathers. And they, under the curse of the heretics, at ecumenical and local councils, although sometimes they were not ordinary Christians, but the patriarchs and saints themselves, condemned them to imprisonment and kept them in prison until the end of their lives, fearing that they would deceive the Orthodox: for whoever wants to repent can repent in prison, and God hears this kind of repentance, as numerous examples testify. 5) In all those cases when, after the condemnation of heretics, they were sent to prison and kept in prison until their death, their heresy ceased and was eradicated, just as the heresy of the Strigolniks was eradicated among us. But when the kings and saints, under the curse of the heretics, gave them weakness, believing their repentance, their heresy not only was not eradicated, but even intensified, and they again seduced many Orthodox, as happened with us, with the Judaizers themselves, who, when V.K. Ivan Vasilyevich believed their repentance and gave them weakness, produced incalculable evil and carried away many Orthodox into Judaism. And therefore, if even now they have mercy on these apostates and do not throw them into prison until their death, the Church of God will not be reconciled, and their Jewish teaching will not fade away. 6) Where kings and saints weakened heretics and apostates, they destroyed with their heresies not only villages and cities, but also entire countries and kingdoms, such as the Armenian, Ethiopian and Roman. Therefore, it is fitting for all who love Christ to show great diligence and feat, so that we Russians will not perish in the same way as the kingdoms of the Armenian, Ethiopian and Roman perished, due to the negligence of the then Orthodox kings and saints... and so on. We have outlined the contents of “The Enlightener” in some detail in order to more clearly see not only the merits of the work, but also the author himself. The Monk Joseph appears here before us as a theologian with extensive knowledge of the sacred. scripture and in the writings of St. fathers and teachers of the church, with such knowledge that we have not yet encountered in anyone. He cites countless texts, mostly from the books of the Old Testament, although one cannot help but admit that he does not always use and explain them successfully. He also cites countless testimonies from almost forty St. fathers, church teachers and other writers, as well as from the lives of saints, patericons and similar books, although it does not follow from this that Joseph re-read all the works of these people, or that all these works then existed in Slavic translation. Joseph most used three writers - St. John Chrysostom, St. John of Damascus and Nikon the Montenegrin: the works of the first two, although not all, have long been translated into the Slavic language; collections of the latter - Taktikon and Pandect - are found in our Slavic translation from the 13th-14th centuries. One can count up to twelve more writers cited by Joseph, whose works, at least some, were also used in our Slavic translations even before Joseph and could be reread by him 25 . The evidence of the other writers cited by Joseph could have been borrowed not from their works, but from ready-made collections that existed in the Slavic language, such as: the famous collections of Svyatoslav (listed XI and XV), collections of teachings from various saints. fathers and teachers on Sundays and holidays (XII, XIII and XV centuries), the golden goal (XIV-XV) and especially the two extensive collections named by us by Nikon the Montenegrin, from which Joseph actually cited the testimonies of various teachers of the church, even Chrysostom. Thus, without re-reading the entire library of the fathers, but only having two or three dozen books and collections at hand, Joseph could select from them all the evidence that he presented in his “Enlightener.” But not only do we see in the author of “The Enlightener” a well-read and knowledgeable man, we cannot help but recognize in him a bright, broad and educated mind; his mentality is excited and significantly developed; he reasons logically, consistently, and is familiar with the techniques of sound dialectics; he not only expresses his thoughts, but also proves them, explains them, enters into a detailed study of subjects, and presents his research in connection, even in some system, so that the book “The Enlightener” can rightly be called our first experience of a properly scientific theological work. The reverend himself Joseph repeatedly admits that he “collected his words against the Novgorod heretics from many and different divine scriptures,” and he confesses, as we have seen, quite rightly. Nevertheless, these words constitute his own, original work in the theological sense. Any Orthodox work on the dogmas of faith and, in general, on positive truths must inevitably borrow its material from the Holy Scriptures. scriptures and from the writings of the fathers, or general - from the tradition of the church. The whole dignity of the writer lies here in the fact that he is able to make proper use of this rich material, is able to extract the appropriate evidence from these sources, assimilate it and dispose of it as if it were his own property, combine and arrange it according to a certain idea, combine, revive, supplement it with his own considerations and explanations and present it in his work as one harmonious whole. This is how Orthodox theological systems and private theological studies are written, and no one calls them unoriginal for one thing: the main thing, their main content is the texts of the Bible and the testimonies of the church fathers. This is how St. wrote his “Exact Exposition of the Faith,” the first attempt at Orthodox dogmatic theology. John of Damascus, who not only cites many testimonies of previous fathers under their names, but often uses their thoughts, even entire excerpts from their writings and speaks literally in their words (especially St. Gregory the Theologian), without indicating the source. He also wrote his words against the Novgorod heretics and the Venerable. Joseph: all the countless testimonies and other borrowings from various saints. He knew how to subordinate the writings to his own thoughts, arrange them according to his own plans, penetrate them with his own spirit, furnish them and strengthen them with a multitude of his own reasonings and reflections. That is why the whole of Joseph was reflected in “The Enlightener” - with his strong mind, with his firm and living faith, with his fiery, indomitable zeal for Orthodoxy. In its content, “The Enlightener” concerns, more or less, almost all the dogmas of faith and aphoristically sets out all the rules of morality; but he examines in detail only some dogmas: and Rev. Trinity, about the deity of the Son of God - I. Christ, about His incarnation, about St. icons, and considers it almost exclusively on the basis of the Old Testament, and not the new one, on which they are mainly affirmed - therefore, it cannot in any way be called a systematic presentation of all Orthodox dogmas and Christian moral teaching and could not serve for the Orthodox as a complete guide in general in matters of faith. But the Orthodox valued this book very much, often copied it, in whole and in parts, and sought “enlightenment” in it for themselves, especially because it thoroughly refuted heretical speculations that undermined the very foundations of Christianity and which did not die in our country during almost the entire 16th century, and then resumed, under the influence of Protestant ideas, in the 17th century 26. It remains to be said about the last four words of the “Enlightener,” which serve as a subject of temptation and controversy for many. The thoughts that Joseph expresses in words XIII and XV cannot be imputed to him: here he is right. He proves in the thirteenth word that the church has the right to condemn and excommunicate heretics and apostates, unrepentant and disobedient, or, which is the same, to anathematize, curse: and this right of the church is based on the sacred. scripture and undeniably belongs to her. He proves that, upon condemnation of such heretics and apostates by the Church, the civil authority has the right to subject them to civil punishment, even the death penalty, and rightly refers to the royal rules or laws on this, which, of course, were part of the Helmsman that operated in our Church, as well as on the example of ecumenical councils and Greek emperors. That is why none of our Orthodox Christians rebelled against the thoughts expressed in the XIIIth Word. The Trans-Volga elders also agreed with them, writing that unrepentant heretics were ordered to be imprisoned; The prince, Elder Vassian Kosoy, also agreed, saying that unrepentant heretics should be imprisoned and executed. John III also agreed, who in 1488, following Metropolitan Gerontius with a council of bishops, according to the rules of St. apostles and saints fathers, condemned and anathematized the first Judaizing heretics, sent by Gennady from Novgorod, handed them over, according to the royal rules, to city execution and wrote to Gennady, referring to the same royal rules, so that he and other stubborn heretics who would not repent would be handed over to the governors for the same city punishments 27 . If, later, John expressed concern to Joseph whether it would be a sin to execute heretics: then this could have happened due to the long influence of some Judaizers on him. You can disagree with the thoughts of Word XIII; one can, if anyone wishes, condemn and blame them: but, in this case, the blame should fall not on Joseph, but on the very laws and system that have been in effect in the Orthodox Church since ancient times, or it should fall not on Joseph alone, but also on the Trans-Volga elders, and on Prince Vassian Kosy, and in general on everyone who before Joseph held the same thoughts among us, followed the same system 28 . Likewise, in the fifteenth word, Joseph quite rightly proves that those who live in Judaism are not heretics, but apostates, and that, according to the rules of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, who are accepted by the universal Church, such apostates and repentants should not be immediately allowed into the church, along with believers, and should be honored with St. communion, or you can honor St. communion only at the end of their life, which they must spend in repentance. But as for the thoughts that Joseph defends in his words XIV and XVI, these thoughts should be imputed to him personally. In the XIV word, he tries to prove that all Orthodox Christians are obliged in every possible way, even using cunning, to test, search for and torture hiding heretics - and refers to two examples from the ancient history of the church, which, however, do not fully confirm this idea and, as particular ones, cannot be obligatory for all Christians; He then refers to the royal rules and to the words of Chrysostom, which, however, only prohibit Christians from hiding heretics already known, from remaining silent about them when they clearly blaspheme or act against Orthodoxy, and are by no means commanded to look for heretics who are still unknown, and to look for them by all possible measures. In the sixteenth word, claiming that even repentant heretics and apostates, such as the Judaizers, if only they begin to repent after their condemnation, traces. not by his own will, should not be accepted and pardoned, Joseph himself admits that he did not find direct evidence and basis for this thought in the books, and then proves it with his own considerations alone. It should be noted, however, that Joseph in no way teaches in his sixteenth word that Novgorod heretics who do not voluntarily repent should be put to death or burned at the stake, but only says that, in order to protect the Orthodox from their harmful influence, they should be imprisoned, sent to prison, where they could repent for the rest of their lives and be deprived of any opportunity to spread their heresy and harm Orthodoxy: that’s all, no more than that, Joseph demanded in his second letter (in 1511) to V.K. Vasily Ivanovich and, according to this very thought, Vasily Ivanovich finally acted with the Judaizers to suppress their heresy 29 . Such a strict attitude of the monk towards Novgorod heretics, even those who repent, is hardly fair to explain by the spirit of the times, when it is known that many other Orthodox Christians, including some of our bishops, then treated them completely differently and wanted their pardon; but rather can be explained by the spirit of Joseph himself and his beliefs, which he expressed in his XVI word. He considered the Judaizers the worst of all the apostates who had ever been; to the depths of his soul he was outraged by their impudent blasphemies, their blasphemous actions against everything holy and revered in Christianity, he saw and realized that they had already caused incalculable harm to the Russian church, that they never sincerely repented of their heresy, and when they received leniency from the authorities, they even intensified their activities to seduce the Orthodox; he was convinced that if you believe the repentance of the Judaizers, have mercy on them, leave them to live in complete freedom, then they can completely destroy both the Russian church and the state itself - and, inspired by boundless zeal for Orthodoxy and fiery love for the fatherland, he said and insisted that the repentance of these apostates should not be believed, that to stop their destructive heresy there was only one way - to send them to repentance to remote places for confinement, or imprison everyone in dungeons until the very end of their lives. We show the content of all these messages in “History of the Russian Church,” vol. VI, pp. 90–98, St. Petersburg. 1670 These are the messages: to the. book John III about the heretic Klenov, second letter to c. book Vasily Ioannovich and to boyar Chelidin (see in the same “History” VI, 135, 154, 155). These are the messages: to Niphon, Bishop of Suzdal, to Mitrofan, Archimandrite Andronikovsky, and especially the message to the elders about obedience to the council’s decision (ibid., VI, 112, 134, 137). “The Enlightener” was published by the Kazan Theological Academy with fairly detailed information about it, set out in the preface to the publication (Kazan, 1455). Then the following people wrote about the “Enlightener” in more or less detail: 1) the author of the article “The Enlightener Rev. Joseph of Volotsky" (Orthodox Sobesedn. 1859, III, 153); 2) prof. Shevyrev in “History of Russian Literature” (IV, 148–175, Moscow, 1860); 3) priest N.A. Bulgakov, in the essay “Rev. Joseph of Volokolamsk" (pp. 95–145, St. Petersburg, 1865), and 4) G. Khrushchov, in his “Study on the Works of Joseph Sanin, Rev. abbot of Volotsk" (pp. 133, 162, 189, 192; St. Petersburg, 1868). Thus, when presenting the teachings of the Judaizers in the “Tale,” he lists all the subjects about which he wrote not only in the first, but in all 16 of his words, and says: “a thousand and five hundred years have passed since the birth of Christ” - which, under Metropolitan Zosima (1491–1494), he could not have said. (Enlightenment, pp. 45–48). Demolished. IIposvetit., pp. 74–77 and Preface “Books of our venerable and God-bearing father Nikon, abbot of the Black Mountain,” printed. at the Pochaev printing house in 1795. When explaining these three texts, Joseph undoubtedly used the thoughts of St. Basil the Great, although it does not refer to him. Demolished. Enlighten. pp. 81–86 and Created. St. Fathers in Russian translation. vol. V. 171–173; VII, 216. This message is printed in the Ancient Russian Vivliof. XIV, 218. Demolished. Prosvet., St. Petersburg. 157, 163–164, and St. Chrysostom's Words, trans. from Greek at St. Petersburg. Spirit. Acad., vol. III, 534–537; 581–585, St. Petersburg, 1850. Demolished. Enlightenment, pp. 194–200, and St. Damascus. Word about those who died in the faith, Chr. Read 1827. XXVI, 324 et seq. This message was published in Reading. Moscow Histor. General 1847, 1, dept. IV, stat. 1. The most important word about the icons of St. Damascene, namely III, printed. in Chr. Read 1823, part XI and 1828, part XXX. Demolished. Clearance. 289–299 and St. Damascus. An accurate presentation of the Orthodox. faith, book IV, ch. 2 and 13, Moscow, 1844. Especially from the book. I, ch. 1, 2 and 4, and book. IV, ch. 23. This message was published in Reading. Moscow East. total 1847, 1, dept. IV, art. 1. Preface to Enlightenment, p. 15. See our “Ist. Russian Churches,” VI, 134–138. City Law edge 39, ch. 31–33, to Slavyansk. Helmsman Part 11. It should be noted that Rev. Joseph considered these city laws, as placed in the Kormcha along with the rules of the Councils and fathers, completely on a par with these latter divine writings and taught: “if anyone says: these are the city laws, and not the Holy One. the father of the Scriptures, let him read the third tenth word about this, which is written in this book, and then the news about the city laws, as if they are similar in essence to the prophetic and apostolic and holy ones. father by writing." (Enlightenment. p. 588. Demolished. Words. XIII, pp. 537–538). Law. Gradsk. Gran. 39, ch. 28, in Slav. Helmsman ch 11. Enlighten. 588. Savv. Krutitsk. Life of Rev. Joseph Volok., p. 36, Moscow, 1865. Ancient Ross. Vivliof. XVI, 424. Polemical writings of the monk-prince Vassian Patrikeev, in Orthodox. Interview 1863, III, 201. Vassian also says in another place on page 199. These are precisely: Antiochus, Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory the Double-Speaker, Dionysius the Areopagite, Ephraim the Syrian, Isaac the Syrian, John the Climacus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor, and Niketas of Herakleia. Their very works, which were used in our Slavic translation even before Joseph, are shown in our “Histor. Russian Church." II, 208; III, 219 (2nd ed.); V, 246–248. About the lists of the Enlightener in the preface. to Enlighten. 33–37 and in Research. G. Khrushchov X–XI. Act. Histor. 1, pp. 521–522. Let us recall, for example, the words of St. Jonah, Metropolitan of Moscow, about Metropolitan Isidore, who fled from Moscow: “The noble Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich did not send for him to return him, nor did he want to keep him, as it is senseless and abominable, because the holy rules of the divine law of St. The apostle commands such a harlot to burn the church with fire or to bury him alive in the ground.” Last to the Lithuanian bishops, in our “Histor. Russian Church" VI, App. 1, p. 367). Our “Histor. Russian Churches, VI, 155–156. You might be interested in: