1842 г.

January 3. A note by Metropolitan Philaret on complaints from the Latin clergy about allegedly oppressive actions on the part of Orthodox Christians when converting Uniates to Orthodoxy On the subject of the return to the ancestral Orthodox faith of the former Unites diverted to the Roman Church, after 1798, the Latin clergy: 1) complains about allegedly improper and even oppressive actions, 2) complains in particular about the proceedings of cases of this kind without a Latin deputy, 3) requires that these cases be carried out according to the procedure established in 1827, 4) or at least in a different positive order. I. The complaint of improper and harassing actions is presented without specifying places, persons or cases, without explaining the circumstances, and without evidence. Such complaints are not respectful before the law, and out of ordinary prudence cannot immediately be relied upon as the basis for new orders and new rules of action. This conclusion in the present case is all the more necessary since the complaining party is subject to a reverse complaint on the same subject, which is not difficult to prove. In recent years, several thousand people have been returned to Orthodoxy, whose belonging to Orthodoxy, both recognized by themselves and not disputed by anyone, and whose return was scheduled for another thirty years. Such a long failure to fulfill the appointment occurred, no doubt, not because the former Unity, now Orthodox, clergy did not want to accept those belonging to its flock, but because the Latin clergy retained those not belonging to its flock. II. The complaint about the action of returning to Orthodoxy those diverted into Latinism, without a deputy from the Latin side, is contrary to the Highest approved opinion of the State Council, which says: admonished seduced persons must be removed from heterodox influence. III. The requirement to conduct cases of this kind according to the procedure established in 1827 cannot be allowed: 1) because this order was then established for one Vilna diocese, and was not extended to other former Unite diocese by the highest authority. 2) Because this order, established for two spiritual departments, neither of which belonged to the dominant religion, can in no way be applied to the dominant church, to which the former Unite flocks belong and enjoy rights. IV. The demand for the return of new positive rules to Orthodoxy would deserve respect if it were proven that the current action does not achieve the desired fair and useful goal, but causes harm, and that this occurs precisely from the imperfection or lack of accepted rules; for even if there were unfavorable consequences due to the fault of the actors, then even then it would only be necessary to correct personal deviations from law and order, and not change the rules. But since the Latin clergy does not represent and does not prove that the rules currently in force were not in accordance with a just and useful goal, or caused harm, but makes complaints about the actions of persons that have not been proven, makes demands contrary to the laws and rights of the ruling church: then all this does not provide grounds for drawing up new rules. When, therefore, it is discovered that the present matter cannot, in fairness, be looked at from the side from which the Latin clergy shows it, then the following objects remain subject to consideration: 1) The action to return to Orthodoxy is displeased by the Latin clergy, as simply noted, and not recognized as fundamental (de facto non de jure). This encourages the use, if possible, of precautionary measures so that the action is not only fair, but, as far as possible, peaceful. 2) The opposition of the Latin clergy, which turned out to be the extension of the rules of 1827 to dioceses for which they were not prescribed, the application of them to the case, while they, due to changed circumstances, could no longer have an application, the announcement of them through printing, the order for Latin priests to teach the needs of parishioners whose belonging to Orthodoxy was recognized by spiritual and civil inquiry. These actions, as contrary to law and order, obviously must be stopped. 3) Lack of a correct and complete list of people subject to return to Orthodoxy. The way to satisfy this need requires special attention. But the idea of ​​entrusting the compilation of this list to Latin priests, with a six-month deadline, is, without a doubt, not a reliable method. This would be similar to if someone who knows his property is in the wrong hands, allows the person who took possession of it to search himself and make an inventory of what he must return to the rightful owner. All these considerations finally lead to the following conclusions regarding the present case: 1) About the complaints of the Latin clergy, the Orthodox bishops whose dioceses this may concern should be informed to observe and take precautions so that no reason is given for such complaints. 2) To compile lists of people subject to return to Orthodoxy, use Orthodox deans with a civil official and with Orthodox and Latin parish priests, for which church documents of both Orthodox and Latin churches must be opened to these trustees. 3) At the same time, we instruct the Orthodox bishops to pay special attention to those whose subject to return has not been clearly and reliably deduced, and who, having long belonged to Latin parishes, consider themselves to correctly belong to them, and in such cases not to rush into decisive action, waiting until the belonging of such persons to Orthodoxy is brought into greater clarity, and they themselves are convinced of this. 4) The above-mentioned illegal opposition of the Latin clergy should be stopped by administrative measures. February 11. Report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod on the measures taken by him in the Moscow diocese upon the discovery of an incorrect translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament The Eminence Metropolitans of St. Petersburg Seraphim 48, Kiev Philaret 49 and Moscow Philaret, in January 1842, received from the mail a copy of an unnamed denunciation about the existence of an incorrect translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament. The Right Reverend Metropolitan of Kiev, dated January 4, 1842, No. 6, forwarded the copy of the denunciation he received to the synodal chief prosecutor 50, as a result of which an official investigation into this case began. His Eminence Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, reported to the Holy Synod about the measures he had taken in his diocese regarding the discovery of the above-mentioned translation. Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. Having received in one of three copies, known to the Holy Synod, from Vladimir, an unsigned denunciation about the existence of a lithographed incorrect translation of some books of the Old Testament, with notes that deviate far from the true reason of the word of God and the interpretations of the holy fathers, with the confidence that the other two copies were being properly examined, I immediately felt concerned in relation to the diocese entrusted to me, so as not to the tares are sown. The first concern was paid to the academy, in which, with a special disposition towards curiosity, it was especially necessary to be careful that some would not be attracted by curiosity to the unfortunate news. Therefore, I secretly proposed to the academic board: 1) In the most modest and informal way, but, if possible, as accurately as possible, find out whether anyone at the academy has copies of this translation. 2) At the same time, explain to those who may have it that by presenting it to the authorities now voluntarily, they will thereby prove that they acquired it only out of curiosity, and not through participation in an illegal enterprise, and that they do not share those non-Orthodox opinions about prophetic books and prophecies, which this publication expresses. 3) If the copies are opened and delivered, put them under seal, in a secure storage, and report them to me in detail, without extending to any further actions, and without allowing any publicity. On February 1st, the Academic Board presented me with the following: 1) immediately, but in the most modest and informal way, find out who has copies of the said translation in the academy; 2) upon searching, it turned out that in the academy, among its students, there are eight copies of this translation; 3) without allowing any publicity, it is explained to those of the academy students who have copies opened, so that they present these copies to the rector of the academy; 4) all the students of the academy who had copies of the translation immediately and voluntarily presented these copies to the rector of the academy, expressing their own conviction in the non-Orthodoxy of the translation and showing that they acquired this translation out of sheer curiosity and thinking that the lithographing of the translation was not carried out without permission from the authorities; 5) all delivered copies of the translation are sealed and placed in the academic library for storage 51. On February 4, the academic board additionally informed me that there were four more copies, which were added to the others for storage. I direct this duty to be brought to the attention of the Holy Synod, for consideration of the ongoing work. Your Holiness, humble novice. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow February 28. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion regarding the appearance of an incorrect lithographed translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, on February 10, 1842, proposed to the Holy Synod for consideration the case of the discovered incorrect translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament. Regardless of the consideration of this case and the determination of the Holy Synod, dated February 13–18, 1842, on taking measures to study all the circumstances of it, the Right Reverend Metropolitans of St. Petersburg 53, Kiev 54 and Moscow presented for their part to the Chief Prosecutor special notes on the same issue, which, together with the above-mentioned determination on February 13–18, were submitted through Chief Prosecutor at the Highest discretion, and His Imperial Majesty, on March 7, “fully approved” the opinion of His Grace Seraphim, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. Note from Metropolitan Philaret. A false, inconsistent with the dignity of the Holy Scriptures and harmful concept of prophecy and some books of the Old Testament, which was expressed and more or less spread through a lithographed translation, requiring a medical remedy. Prohibitive means alone are not quite reliable when curiosity, which is spreading more and more every day, rushes in all directions for its satisfaction, and the more intensely it rushes into illegal paths, where legal ones are not well organized. Therefore, care must be taken to provide a correct and convenient aid to the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. For this purpose, the following assumptions are submitted to testing and selection: I. To publish gradually interpretations of the sacred books, starting with the prophetic ones, which are especially attacked, and whose thorough interpretation is especially important in relation to their contents to the new testament. The interpretation should be based on: a) Greek text of seventy commentators; b) where necessary, in the words of Blessed Jerome, the Jewish truth, that is, the Jewish text 55; c) self-interpretation of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament in the new; d) interpretations of the holy fathers. Interpretations should not be burdened with space and heavy scholarship; but short, simple, aimed at confirming faith and edifying life. II. To make an edition of the entire Slavic Bible, adapted for the most convenient use and understanding. So that it is not too huge, it is necessary to exclude from it additional articles, such as: an extensive report in previous amendments to the text, and a catalog of proper names burdened with unnecessary words. Instead, above each chapter of the Slavic biblical text, which must remain inviolable in its composition, briefly, but sufficiently, state its contents and print it in distinctive small letters. Such an indication of the content will generally be a useful direction for the attention and reflection of the reader, especially in prophetic and difficult chapters it will be a guide to the correct understanding of the text. Then, at the end of the chapter, where necessary, also in distinctive small letters, print brief notes in which: a) explain obscure words and expressions in the text; b) for darker texts, point to other passages of scripture that are clearer and serve to explain them; c) in prophecies, briefly indicate the most important events; d) on some texts, which are especially harmfully abused by false teachers, make brief protective interpretations. For example: the text: they are eunuchs who have accumulated kingdoms for themselves for the sake of heaven, interpret so that the eunuch, having opened the Bible to defend his teaching, immediately finds a refutation. III. Publish the Slavic Bible, with a sign above each chapter of its contents; and at the end add a dictionary of obscure words with an interpretation of them, which, however, it must be admitted, is difficult to make satisfactory, because the darkness does not always lie in the word, but often in the composition of words that are individually intelligible, and because it is tiresome for the reader to often switch from text to dictionary. April 26. Remarks of Metropolitan Philaret on the opinion of Metropolitan Seraphim regarding the appearance of an incorrect translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament When a case arose regarding the incorrect translation of certain books of the Holy Scriptures, the Right Reverend Metropolitans of St. Petersburg 57, Kiev 58 and Moscow presented on this occasion the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, Count Protasov, each with their own opinion, and the opinion of the Right Reverend Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow 59 was forwarded by the Chief Prosecutor for consideration His Eminence Seraphim, Metropolitan of Novgorod, and the latter’s opinion and analysis to His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. The comments are marked with Philaret’s own handwriting: “It was required; but returned unused. April 26, 1842." In the first of two relations of the Metropolitan of Novgorod 60, the desire was rightly expressed that the reasoning of his Eminence be communicated In both respects, dogmatic subjects are spoken of, which, according to church rules, require conciliar consideration. But this could not be done to the Holy Synod, first because the relationship was not communicated to it, and then because all its attention was directed to the fulfillment of the Highest command about the inviolability of the Slavic edition of the Bible and other things, and it was untimely to be distracted by discussions about some special sayings of His Eminence, the Metropolitan of Novgorod. In the meantime, the following requires attention: I. The saying that the Holy Scriptures were given by God not to the people, but to the class of shepherds and teachers opens the way to the Eastern Church for the teaching of the Western Church, which from this beginning draws consequences that are inconsistent with the word of God and unfavorable to true Christian enlightenment. The Eastern, or better to say, the universal Church has always recognized that the Holy Scriptures were handed over by God to the entire Holy Church inseparably, and pastors have the duty to explain it Orthodoxy. a) the prophets preached the word of God and wrote not only to the priests and Levites, but to the whole church and all the people. b) Our Savior preached and commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel not only to the priests and Levites, but to the entire newly created Christian church. c) Most of the apostolic epistles were written not only to pastors, but to the entire church, sometimes without even mentioning pastors, for example, to all those who are called saints in Rome. d) The Holy Spirit, having previously denounced Latin opinions, and presenting the Holy Scriptures as the property of the whole church, inspired the holy Evangelist Luke to write the Gospel to Theophilus, who did not belong to the class of shepherds, and the holy Evangelist John wrote a letter to the chosen lady. Orthodox pastors are obliged by the bishop's oath to protect the Orthodox flock from latinism. II. The judgment according to which any interpretation of Holy Scripture, even compiled by comparing paternal interpretations, is considered unnecessary and dangerous, is also not based on principles recognized by the Orthodox Church, and would lead to unfavorable consequences if it were accepted as a rule. a) this judgment is contrary to the word of God, which says: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly and often,” and admonishing yourself. When it is commanded to admonish one another in the word of God: this is commanded to explain or interpret it, verbally or in writing, it makes no difference. b) The Ecumenical Church has never prohibited, but has always encouraged the interpretation of Holy Scripture. That is why the fatherly interpretations arose. c) The Holy Synod also always encouraged, and did not prohibit, the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, partly by decrees, partly by publishing interpretive works, and in addition to domestic ones, such as: enlightened ones, Nicephorus 61 of Astrakhan, Gabriel 62, Metropolitan of Novgorod, Archbishop Irenaeus 63, and the current Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret 64 . d) The patristic interpretations are numerous, and for this reason are inaccessible to many of the clergy, especially the rural ones, who cannot have extensive libraries: therefore, the compilation of a brief interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, based on the interpretation of the Holy Fathers, is an important need for the priesthood, which the Holy Synod has tried to satisfy until now and should try to open the door of understanding the word of God, and not close it. III. The requirement to consider the organization of the educational part in theological schools is a subject of important concern about how this will be fulfilled. The most essential need, but left in silence, is that schools should be placed with special attention under the immediate, constant and unwavering supervision of diocesan bishops. a) Bishops are obligated by their episcopal charter to take utmost care of the schools. b) With the weakening of the influence of spiritual power on theological schools, one cannot help but fear that the secular direction will strengthen in them, which will partly attract spiritual students to the secular rank, and partly will bring the secular spirit into the ecclesiastical rank. c) Experience already shows that an illegal and daring attempt to lithograph and distribute an unauthorized and unorthodox translation was discovered in that academy, which, due to the extreme old age of its archpastor, did not quite take advantage of his close supervision over it 65. In April 1842. Opinions regarding: a) notes on Riga schismatics and b) newly drawn up rules for stopping immorality in marriages and families 1) The note about the Riga schismatics exposes two evils in this class of people: 1) immorality, especially in relation to married and family life, and 2) lack of religious instruction and conviction even in schismatic opinions. Against this last evil, the newly drawn up rules do not propose any remedy, but on the contrary, the note says that “one should try not to talk about religion with them at all.” Consequently, this new assumption only leads to the perpetuation of the discovered evil. 2) As for immorality, against it the newly drawn up rules propose again, by the way, such means that already exist in the laws, such as, for example, to consider children born from schismatic girls as prodigals, and to act as such (Rule 6), not to allow marriages of minors (Rule 8), against a schismatic who left his wife, and against a schismatic woman who left her husband, accept a complaint, and stop disorder by legal measures (Rules 12, 13, 15), fornicated children should not be given inheritance rights (Rules 33), and no outward signs of schism should be allowed (Rules 53:54). If such a proposal for introduction in the form of new rules existing in laws occurs because existing laws remain unenforced; and if this is hinted at in the note with the words: “there is still a whole class that should be indulged,” then what should be demanded is not new rules, but the active implementation of existing laws. 3) The newly proposed rules grant the police the right to approve schismatic disputes in special forms without a wedding (Rules 5–10). This would mean introducing a new type of marital union, unknown and contrary to the laws, recognizing what is not recognized by the laws, legalizing what is illegal, and turning what is tolerated out of necessity into something protected. This would serve as a strong reinforcement of the split and would create new difficulties in relation to existing laws. 4) The newly proposed rules recognize schismatic unions without weddings (Rule 5) and reject marriages performed in chapels (Rule 40). But if the latter is bad, then the first is even worse. 5) The right given by the supposed rules to schismatics (Raw. 47:48) to baptize children according to the confession of their mothers into the Roman or Lutheran confession is contrary to state law, according to which tolerant confessions cannot accept people from the dominant religion; schismatics are a branch of the dominant religion, although damaged. Assuming this, while the schismatics are especially in need of Orthodoxy, and have become close to the people of other faiths in Riga due to local circumstances and adopted their customs, there is reason to fear that the schismatic population of Riga would begin to overflow into the other faith, losing at the same time their national character. 6) The new rules propose new, special civil laws on inheritance for schismatics (Rules 26, 27, 28), even with special advantages for schismatics, such as, for example, the wife of a childless schismatic is awarded his entire estate. Such a change in general laws in favor of schismatics cannot be considered possible. Review of the note and rules leads to the following conclusions: 1) The rules cannot be considered either convenient or useful. 2) It is necessary to confirm to the local authorities that the existing laws, which they represent in the form of new rules, will continue to apply unabatedly. 3) In order to attract schismatics to perform legal marriages in pan-Orthodox or Edinoverie churches, give the Pskov diocesan authorities 66 the same instructions given to Perm 67 on the occasion of solemnizing marriages for schismatics 68 . May 6. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on synodal reviews of diocesan administration 1) Each diocesan bishop, by oath, upon ordination, undertakes to visit the diocese entrusted to him, for the immediate observation of how the faithful remain in the faith and in the correction of good deeds, in what condition the places under his charge are, how subordinate officials act, so that edification, motivation, correction, improvement exactly correspond to the identified needs. What is the relationship of the diocese to the local bishop: this is the relationship of all dioceses together, to the Holy Synod. Therefore, there can and should be synodal reviews of diocesan administration. 2) In order for the attention and observation of the diocesan bishop to reach, as far as possible, every rector of the monastery, every priest of the parish, diocesan visits and reviews should be frequent, which is more or less convenient, depending on the space of the diocese. It is not so convenient for Synodal reviews to be frequent, covering many subordinate dioceses; and this is not so necessary, because here the agents who are more educated and experienced are subject to supervision, and they are more visible to the Holy Synod than to the diocesan bishop, the officials subordinate to the district towns and villages. Therefore, diocesan reviews tend to be annual and ordinary actions, and synodal reviews are only time-based and extraordinary. 3) The rules of synodal reviews can be compiled from previous examples of actions of this kind, and from the application of church rules to these actions. 4) Synodal reviews are undertaken: 1) when the Holy Synod, based on information, cases, or complaints entering into it, sees in any diocese the course of administration is unsatisfactorily firm and strong, significant deviations from the legal order, disorder or confusion, due to the use of local methods, unexplained or continuous. 2) When in the state of the diocese such objects and circumstances are seen that cannot be processed through the efforts of the diocesan authorities, but require special inquiry and higher measures. 3) Sometimes even without the urgent requirement of circumstances, in order to support the activity and serviceability of local authorities by force of supervision, and to discover the need and methods of improvement. 5) The purpose of the synodal review is: 1) restore the shaken order in the diocese under review, or enhance its improvement. 2) By example of supervision, encourage other diocesan authorities to act vigilantly and prudently. 3) Discover the need and possibility of improvements that could be extended to other dioceses. 6) One of the bishops is appointed to oversee the diocese: 1) predominantly senior to the one whose diocese is expected to be surveyed, by place of service, or by time of service, or at least not too much junior, 2) not too distant, 3) who did not have as an observer of his diocese the one whose diocese should now be surveyed. 7) If the review of the diocesan administration should be combined with the study of affairs of particular importance, then the reviewing bishop is joined by a collaborator from the senior and most worthy archimandrites or members of the white clergy, who forms a presence with the reviewing bishop. 8) The review is undertaken, and the reviewers are appointed by the Highest will, or by the Highest permission, to the most submissive representation of the Holy Synod. 9) The Reverend Observer, in the diocese under review, depending on need and convenience, can visit churches, monasteries, offices of the diocesan department, sacristies, archives, schools, charitable institutions, and review the official acts, affairs, inventories, receipts and expenditure books, documents. 10) On the subjects and progress of the review, he demands the necessary information regarding the conduct of affairs and diocesan orders through relations with the diocesan bishop and through proposals from the local consistory. 11) If the Right Reverend Observer finds it necessary to take testimony or explanations from any of the clergy of the diocese under review: he can invite the local consistory to do this in its presence, and also demands from it who it is necessary and asks in its presence. 12) The Most Reverend Observer keeps a journal of daily review activities, which, upon completion, he presents to the Holy Synod. 13) If the Eminence Observer, when reviewing affairs, sees slowness or wrong movement in them: he turns to the diocesan Eminence with fraternal advice about the best direction for them, reporting this at the same time to the Holy Synod; but by itself it is not included in the orders for the diocese under review. 14) He ensures that the administration of the local bishop remains inviolable during the review, and the respect of the flock for their archpastor is not violated. 15) Therefore, in the diocese under review, he enjoys the ecclesiastical benefits of his rank, only to the extent that this is granted by church rules to a bishop residing in the diocese of another bishop, with the consent of this latter, in the spirit of mutual brotherly love. 16) The Right Reverend Reviewer receives complaints about the consistory, spiritual boards and deanery of the reviewed dioceses, and, depending on the type and importance of them, enters into a proper inquiry into the truth and presents it to the Holy Synod with his conclusion; or, if the complaints brought to him were not considered by the local bishop, he refers them to his consideration, informing the Holy Synod about this. 17) The Right Reverend Reviewer accepts complaints against the local bishop only if he is especially authorized to do so by the Holy Synod, when appointing the review, and then so that these complaints are written in the Most High Name and designated for submission to the Holy Synod. The observer, without taking any action, immediately submits them to the Holy Synod, at its discretion and order; the inquiry is entered into according to them no other way than by a special order of the Holy Synod. 18) If the review continues for a considerable time, then the Reverend reviewer briefly reports to the Holy Synod about its progress twice a month. 19) At the end of the review, he draws up a detailed report on it and submits it to the Holy Synod, including all the necessary information, evidentiary papers and review journals. 20) For writing, the Eminence Observer uses a clerk attached to him, or, moreover, as necessary, one of the most reliable clerks in his consistory; and sometimes he may require scribes from the consistory in question, since need requires it and there is no doubt about it. 21) In the case stated above, in Article 7, with special attention to the Eminence Observer, a trustworthy and experienced official is appointed as Secretary, at the discretion of the Holy Synod, or at the election of the Observer. 22) The Reverend Observer, during the review entrusted to him, does not cease to govern his diocese, just as during his absence from the diocesan city to review his diocese; but for the strict performance of ordination to the clergy, he has the right to use the assistance of one of the neighboring bishops, if he does not have a vicar or another resident bishop in his diocese. May 12. An act personally written by Metropolitan Philaret on the completion of the interrogation of the archpriest of the Tauride Palace, Gerasim Pivsky, in the case of incorrect translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament By resolution of the Holy Synod, dated February 13, 1842, it was, among other things, decided: to instruct the Metropolitans of Kyiv 70 and Moscow to interrogate the archpriest of the Tauride Palace, Gerasim Pavsky 71, about his participation in the above translation. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and Archbishop Gabriel 72 of Ryazan, instead of the Metropolitan of Kiev who had departed for the entrusted diocese, continuing to fulfill the determination of the Holy Synod, about the question of Archpriest Pavsky on the case, about the lithographed translation of some Old Testament books, read: 1) question points with answers from Archpriest Pavsky, March 20, 2) additional question points with answers on the same day, 3) an explanation, as a result of the exhortations, according to the Highest command, received from Archpriest Pavsky, April 24, 4) Addition to this explanation, April 30, 1) that Archpriest Pavsky admitted to compiling the translation, tables of contents, introductions and notes, in addition to the inscription over the book of Ecclesiastes and the large inscription, after the two initial sections, over the last chapters of the book of Isaiah; 2) that he gave the translation of the Song of Songs to the priest of Sidon 73, which is therefore subject to further questioning; 3) that the archpriest does not recognize himself as having participated in the lithography and having consented to this; and further inquiry about this is directed to the editor of the lithographed translation; 4) that in his testimony on March 20, he discovered important irregularities against the Orthodox understanding of some prophecies; but in an explanation on April 24, he admitted and corrected them; 5) that his testimony and explanations regarding the Orthodoxy of the translation, introductions and notes are insufficient and unsatisfactory; 6) that, however, he recognizes all Holy Scripture as inspired by God, and that, according to his explanation, he never thought of retreating from Orthodox dogmas and rejecting others; 7) that he takes part of the blame for the temptations caused by the translation upon himself, and asks his indiscretion to be covered up with prudence, and the temptations that have occurred and may arise from the translation to be tamed with pastoral instruction; 1) recognize the order of the Holy Synod as fulfilled as far as possible; 2) the above-mentioned acts, together with this journal, be submitted to the further discretion of the Holy Synod 74. May 14. Metropolitan Philaret's opinion on the abbreviated hermeneutics compiled by Archimandrite Athanasius 75. In abbreviated hermeneutics: Country 4. The definition of canonical books “included in the list of sacred books” is not enough and does not determine the essence of the matter. It is not shown why non-canonical books are not included in the canon. If hermeneutics is a science, then its provisions must be based on reasons. There is a missing list of canonical and non-canonical books for these categories. Country 5. The third book of Ezra is omitted. And it is in the Slavic Bible; and therefore it is impossible not to say a word about her. Jeremiah's lament is silent. Country 6. About the existence, in Hebrew, of the book of Esther, it is said: “excluding chapter 10, art. 4. even up to chapter 16, verse 24.” The one who wrote this did not look into the Slavic Bible. The Book of Esther has only 10 chapters, and what is missing from the Hebrew original is scattered in different chapters. Satisfactory classic books are not written with such care. Among those written in Hebrew are the “books of Maccabees.” Not true. This testimony is only suitable for the first of these books. In general, the article on the Holy Scriptures is vague and incomplete. Country 9–12. The article “about spiritual means” is in a good spirit. Country 13. “When reading Holy Scripture, one must constantly have the Holy Scripture before one’s eyes. chronology and geographical map." The rule is too vague and therefore not instructive. Chronology and map are needed to read the historical; but the books of Holy Scripture are not all historical. What kind of map will be given to the reader of the books of the Old Testament, whose geographical names for the most part do not appear on maps? What and chronology? We can say vice versa that whoever wants to know the ancient sacred. Geography and chronology must constantly be turned to the Holy Scriptures for inquiry and verification. The rule should have been proposed more definitely, and in case of some inevitable uncertainty, explained and made convenient for use through examples. On the same page, under number 2, it speaks of the “consideration of the narratives” of St. writers one with another about the same subject. But it happens that one writer talks about the same subject in two different places, so that one place is supplemented and explained by the other. Why is this not mentioned? The rule of comparison is useful for interpreting not only narrative passages of Holy Scripture, but also teaching and prophetic passages. Why is it applied only to narratives? “Taking into account” the instruction is not enough. In words: take into account the four Gospels; you cannot teach how to interpret the four Gospels. It would be desirable if rules were taught and examples were given on how to understand and compare and identify passages of scripture related to the same subject, and to distinguish between different subjects, although they represent some kind of similarity. Saint Chrysostom, in his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, provides examples of this hermeneutical action. Country 14. It is strange to come across, almost at the beginning of hermeneutics, a rule about comparing the Holy Scriptures with Jewish and pagan writers. This is an external matter, and only incidentally necessary, and therefore it would be better to compose an additional article at the end of hermeneutics, which has rather internal matters. It is unpleasant to hear from a theological teacher that the narratives of pagan writers “can serve to confirm sacred legends.” These legends are solid without Plutarch 76 and Pliny. Plutarch and Pliny can be referred to for an unbeliever, in denunciation of unbelief; but this applies most of all to polemics, and least of all to hermeneutics, assigned to a seminary student and a future parish priest. Country 18. Against the imaginary contradictions of dogmas with the principles of reason, one rule appears: believe more than hope. This rule alone would show that we do not hope to reconcile apparent contradictions, and this would be a triumph for unbelievers. If the contradictions are only imaginary, then there is a way to expose them; and it would be good to give a rule for this. Country 19. The cause of darkness is considered to be brevity. The thought is one-sided, because often brevity does not interfere with clarity. A one-sided thought led the writer to reasoning, partly one-sided, partly not quite related to hermeneutics. Country 24. The idea that “not all dogmas are contained in sacred 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 can lead to conclusions that are offensive to the dignity of Holy Scripture, which should have been removed. The idea that the dogmas contained in the Holy Scriptures are “deliberately covered with some darkness” has not been proven, is unfair and offensive to the dignity of the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Spirit spoke scripture to enlighten, not to obscure 77 . Country 25. To understand the dark in the Holy Scriptures, the writer advises turning to church rules, liturgical books and to the fathers of the church. Good and well-intentioned: but a very important thing was missed, namely, that from the dark places of sacred scripture one must turn to the clear parts of the same scripture 78 . If liturgical books decide the matter: then a Western Christian, according to this principle, will and should forever read from his liturgical book: Filioque; and therefore will never turn to Orthodoxy. A higher principle is needed, which would show that in which the church's liturgical books have preserved the purity of dogmas: this principle is in the Holy Scriptures. The apostle commands to turn to him, like a shining light (2 Peter 1:19), and the holy councils and holy fathers of the church have always turned to him. Proving the importance of apostolic and conciliar rules and liturgical books is not a matter of sacred hermeneutics. The importance of liturgical books of various degrees. The importance of the liturgy of St. James the Apostle, St. Basil and St. Chrysostom is not at all the same as some church hymns, the compilers of which are not even considered saints by the church. Discernment is necessary in thorough and careful teaching. Country 31. The idea that Holy Scripture does not set forth a model of sound doctrine is unfair and inconsistent with the dignity of the word of God. The idea that such a pattern appeared in the Nicene symbol is one-sided. Was there not a pattern of sound doctrine before the Nicene symbol? The idea that the dogma of bishops is vaguely stated in the Holy Scriptures is one-sided and favors the opponents of the hierarchy. If some epistles speak vaguely about the episcopal office, then the epistles to Timothy and Titus speak definitely and distinctively. So, according to these last things, it is necessary to explain the other sacred books about this subject, and not lay the blame on the entire sacred scripture. Country 32, 33. “The Holy Scripture makes the church the supreme judge in matters of faith. It is the Lord Himself who says: command the church, etc. 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 - they both testify about Me, and so on. And the Holy Church, following the Week of Orthodoxy, says that heretics and schismatics “subject themselves to the judgment of the most holy word of God.” It also says: “traditions and scriptures that agree with divine revelation are acceptable and affirmed.” About the consecration of oil it is said in the hermeneutics under consideration that the Holy Scripture does not explain who established this sacrament. This indicates in the Holy Scriptures a flaw that is not there. When the Lord sent the apostles to preach and do good with grace, then, as it is said in the Gospel, they anointed the sick with oil and healed the sick. It is obvious that this Anointing of Anointing was performed at the command of the Lord, and thus Holy Scripture testifies that the Blessing of Anointing was established and given by the Lord Himself. Country 34. It is said here that the sacred scripture says about the sacrament of the Eucharist: do this in remembrance of Me, but it allegedly does not explain whether there is a holy one. Eucharist "true sacrifice for all." Again, the accusation against the Holy Scriptures is unfair, grave, due to the importance of the subject, and dangerous because such an opinion provides weapons to heretics, and the arguments against them are given the appearance of weakness to the Orthodox Church. When the Lord says: this is My body, which is broken for you, this is My blood, which is shed for you and for many, it is obvious that the Lord, and the Holy Scripture which gives us His verbs, is speaking about St. the Eucharist not only as a remembrance, but as a true sacrifice for all. Country 35. “Christ is God. Here the Socinians cry out: Christ cannot possibly be God,” and so on. And here the writer makes it seem as if there is no satisfactory answer to the Socinians in the Holy Scriptures. But Holy Scripture testifies a hundredfold and unceasingly to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and thereby stops the blasphemous lips of the Socinian. The duty of fidelity to God and His holy word and His holy Church obliges us to testify here that judgments about the Holy Scripture, based on intense attention to discovering imaginary shortcomings in it, without at the same time pointing out its true perfections, no matter how inconsistent with the dignity of the inspired Scripture, can be just as dangerous for Orthodoxy. This cautionary reminder seems necessary for many places in the hermeneutics under consideration. Such, for example, is the judgment on page 62 that “the Hebrew text of the Old Testament does not have the dignity of the authentic word of God.” This is the judgment on the same page that, according to many options, “it is difficult to determine which word is the word of God and which is human.” There are also many options in the manuscripts of the New Testament, as well as the Old: then, if we accepted the judgment of the hermeneutics under consideration as fair, we would not know reliably either in the Old or in the New Testament which word is the word of God and which is human. It's scary to even think about it. Thank God that the judgment of the hermeneutics in question is unfair. There are options both in the Slavic Bible, published by the Holy Synod, and in the Gospel read in church. For example: In the beginning was the Word. Destroy the Word. The word is to God, the Word is with God, and so on. Is it really possible to draw from this the disastrous conclusion that in the Slavic Bible and in the Gospel read in church, it is impossible to know which word is the word of God and which is human? Country 62. “The most important thing is that it (the Hebrew text) is not canonized by the church.” The word canonized is quite new in the Orthodox church language; and is familiar from the Roman church, where it is used about the canonization of saints. Therefore, it is not quite clear what concept is connected with this word in the hermeneutics under consideration: since it can be understood, the saying of hermeneutics either does not serve to humiliate the Jewish text, or serves to humiliate all texts of Holy Scripture. The well-known books of the Holy Scriptures have been canonized, that is, by the rules of the holy councils and holy fathers, the well-known books of the Holy Scriptures have been: but no text has been canonized, that is, it has not been determined which reading and expression to follow in all parts of the Holy Scriptures, and which options to reject. The church fathers in some places of the Holy Scripture present different readings, refer to the Hebrew text, and even use expressions from different translations of the Holy Scripture, as can be seen in the interpretations of St. Basil the Great and St. Chrysostom. The wondrous work of God's providence in preserving the sacred scriptures in the church is that the Divine teaching is not obscured in it by variants and differences in translations, that different readings either do not change the essential meaning, or are found in subjects that do not relate to the essential truths of the revelation of God. Country 62 et seq. The statement “the Greek translation of the LXX interpreters is in many respects more important than the original text” is one-sided. So is the evidence. There are cases in which the primacy of the Hebrew text cannot be disputed. For example: Ili, Ili, lima sabachthani. Why is alleluia sung in church if not because of the overriding importance of the Hebrew text? Country 63. Slavic translation published by the Holy Synod; and this is not yet “canonized”. He was canonized in the publication of the Holy Synod no more than in that ancient translation, which is still used by the Russian Church in liturgical books, and which is not always similar to that published by the Holy Synod. Which of the two translations is canonized? And isn't the one that is read in church greater? But if the translation found in the church books had been canonized, then the Holy Synod could not correct it: however, we see that the Holy Synod corrected it. And on the contrary, if the text published by the Holy Synod were canonized, then the ancient uncanonized one would have to be destroyed; but it remains in the liturgical books. Country 65, 66. “Pay attention to the purpose of speech.” And that's all. Here it would be necessary to say about the purpose of sacred scripture in general, about the purpose of this or that sacred book, and about how to discover and define this goal, about the purpose of a special place and expression of sacred scripture. Such incompleteness of the rules has been noted in more than one place. It would take a long time to notice this in detail, and it is not really necessary. Any decent textbook on hermeneutics can remind you of this. Country 68. In explaining the words: I don’t want to, in the end there is confusion. It’s not that I want, it’s not that I don’t want. In the latter case, desire is denied, while in the former it is affirmed. Country 72. “With one guide of general hermeneutics, one can distinguish a figurative expression from a proper one.” Unsatisfactory. It would be useful to give rules for this, adapted specifically to the Holy Scriptures. “With the help of concordance,” but concordance will not tell whether the figurative meaning is exactly in the place that you want to explain, and what if the word allows different meanings. We need a rule; but he’s not there. Country 80. The book of proverbs is not a “parable” in the sense in which parables are spoken of here. Country 83. "Visions, having similarities with parables." This cannot be said about visions in general, although there are parables in some visions. The vision of the Lord in the open heavens by the Apostle Paul, what similarities does it have with the parable? Country 87. “This moon under our feet is the Old Testament church.” Does the New Testament church trample on the Old Testament? Saint Andrew does not mean the disbelieving synagogue, which once shone with the reflected light of prototypes, but is now damaged and underfoot? Country 93–96. The doctrine of the mystical sense is presented, with brevity, as it should be. Country 96, 97. The signs of the educational meaning in the Holy Scriptures are shown correctly, but not all of them. Country 98–101. The ecclesiastical and paternal indications of the educational meaning are made as they should be. There is not enough time to continue these remarks. Those proposed so far can show both that the essay requires revision, and what particularly requires revision 79 . May 24. Metropolitan Philaret's report to the Holy Synod about the author of an unnamed denunciation about the existence of an incorrect translation of some books of the Old Testament In January 1842, the Metropolitans of St. Petersburg, Kiev and Moscow received by mail from Vladimir a copy of an unnamed denunciation about the existence of an incorrect translation into Russian of some books of the Old Testament. From the report of Metropolitan Philaret to the Holy Synod and the letter to him from the inspector of the Moscow Theological Academy of the Cathedral Hieromonk Agafangel (later Archbishop of Volyn) it is clear 80 that this latter was the author of the above-mentioned nameless denunciations. Report to the Most Holy Governing Synod, from its member Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. The rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Eusebius 81, informed me that on this May 18th day of the academy, the inspector, cathedral hieromonk Agafangel, announced to him that three petitions sent from the provincial city of Vladimir, addressed to the members of the Holy Synod, regarding the disseminated lithographed translation of the Holy Scriptures, had come from him. I submit this duty to inform the Holy Synod, in the hope that this circumstance will contribute to maintaining the favor of the Holy Synod towards the Moscow Theological Academy, as proving that this academy not only did not participate in the illegal enterprise, but from it also arose the first denunciation of the non-Orthodox case. Your Holiness's most humble novice Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow No. 26. May 24, 1842 82 . July 1st. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, on abbreviated hermeneutics Count N.A. Protasov, dated May 25, 1842, wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “Upon your Eminence’s departure from St. Petersburg to Moscow, I had the honor of receiving your comments on the hermeneutics 83 compiled by the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Athanasius, 83, along with the original manuscript. As these remarks extend only to page 107 of the said manuscript; Meanwhile, it would be desirable for me to have your opinion on the merits of the entire work, then I consider it necessary to forward the rest of the manuscript to your Eminence, humbly asking you, dear sir and archpastor, not to leave your opinion about it to me, as much as possible in a short time.” In response to the above letter, Metropolitan Philaret, dated July 1, 1842, wrote the following. Most Excellent Count, Dear Sir! To your Excellency’s most respected letter, dated March 25, received by me on June 1, to respond starting from the last lines of it, I humbly ask you, dear sir, to be sure that the participation that falls to my lot in matters related to the benefit of the service, by the goodness of God, does not bore me, but only naturally bring care so that I can fulfill what is required of me to the best of my ability, according to the rightful understanding, in the direction of the true benefit, without misunderstanding and reason for misunderstanding, not even intentionally, which of course is not always convenient, and finally, without bias, which sometimes due to my weakness and other circumstances is impossible for me. So now, from the receipt of your Excellency’s letter until the day of my departure from Moscow to the Lavra (June 25, after the highly solemn celebration), I could not begin the work required of me, due to the complete exhaustion of my time with church service, consideration of urgent diocesan affairs and personal requests, visits to some schools to observe the teaching of the law of God, and finally, due to my illness, treatment that weakened my strength before bringing any benefit. In the Lavra, from the 26th day, while engaged in Divine services and the review of the academy entrusted to me, I, however, find hours for homework, and, without losing them, I read the rest of the abbreviated hermeneutics forwarded to me from your Excellency, and what considerations and comments were presented, hastily putting them on paper, and herewith I forward them to your Excellency. Having fulfilled the rather unpleasant duty of noticing the particular shortcomings of the work in question, I would like to dwell on this and bring it to your Excellency’s attention, from a comparison of my comments with the work, to draw a conclusion about the merits of the entire work. But you would also like to demand feedback from me about this very thing. By the same concern for truth and benefit for which your Excellency demands this, I am convinced not to renounce the fulfillment of this demand. The abbreviated hermeneutics under consideration does not present sufficient completeness, order, firmness in principles and judgments and consistency in parts, so that in this form it can be usefully used as a classical book. Especially thoughts and judgments that give rise to a lower opinion about the merits of the books of Holy Scripture are scattered in this work so abundantly that one cannot help but fear unfavorable consequences from their dissemination in the minds. This is very important: because if (from which God will preserve) respect for the Holy Scriptures were shaken, then, of course, respect for church tradition, by which the Scriptures are explained and supplemented, but which itself has the strongest support in the Holy Scriptures, would not survive. I hasten to bring to your Excellency’s attention what I said in my remarks: the true and legitimate interpreter of obscure passages of Holy Scripture is: 1) Holy Scripture itself, in its clearer and more complete places, and together 2) Church tradition, contained in the symbols, dogmas, rules and interpretations of St. cathedrals and St. fathers. The saints have always acted according to this law. cathedrals, St. fathers, holy patriarchs, Holy All-Russian Synod. According to this law, it is necessary to correct the hermeneutics in question, which attempted not so much with arguments as with doubts to shake and refute the first half of this law. There is no doubt that there is no intention in this that is contrary to Orthodoxy; the intention, no doubt, was to establish in every possible way respect for church tradition, but the means were chosen without much caution 84 . In order to establish respect for church tradition, there is no need to lower respect and trust in the Holy Scriptures, which would be both sinful and terrible. I hope that your Excellency’s zeal for the benefits of Orthodoxy and for the peace of the Orthodox Church will pay insightful and caring attention to this matter, and that the Holy Synod, if it enters into its consideration, will pronounce on it the same judgment that he pronounced in the summer of 1751 in his solemn proclamation during the publication of the corrected Slavic translation of the Bible, and which he repeats to this day in editions of the Bible called prefaces. An extract from it is in my comments on the abbreviated hermeneutics, which are also attached. I earnestly invoking God's blessing, protection and all-good help to your Excellency, with perfect respect and devotion, I have the honor to be, Continuation of the indication of some places of the abbreviated hermeneutics that are approving or require revision. Country 107. “Just as water can become muddy if the channel is unclean, so the sacred scripture, having become the property of the mind, can be understood erroneously.” The comparison here is not correct: water, becoming cloudy from an unclean riverbed, is damaged; but the Holy Scripture remains intact, although whoever understands it wrongly. The expression is unclear: sacred scripture has become the property of reason. Property means worthily owned, or legal property. Can Holy Scripture become the legal property of the mind? On the other hand, it is not determined whether the official use of reason in the knowledge and recognition of the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures is allowed; since the ability given by God to man for the knowledge and recognition of the revealed truth is the mind, just as the heart is for accepting feelings of good, and the bodily feelings are for the impressions of the bodily world. Country 108. The position that reason cannot be the beginning of the understanding of Holy Scripture is fair and orthodox. But the position that the Holy Scripture itself cannot be the beginning or touchstone of the true understanding of the 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 the fact that, in order to understand the Holy Scriptures, they do not accept the interpretation of the Holy Church and the Holy Fathers as a guide, and not in the fact that one place of the Holy Scriptures is explained by another, more clear one. Country 110. “Clarity and darkness are relative and indefinite concepts.” If this situation prevented the dark from being explained clearly, then no interpretation in the world would be possible. When I present to you the interpretation of the holy father, and say: here is a clear interpretation; you will say: I am not convinced; because clarity and darkness are vague concepts. But interpretations are possible and exist: therefore, the relativity and uncertainty of the concept of clarity does not completely refute the rule: to explain the dark in clear terms, both in any other and in sacred scripture. For example: Luke 11:20. If only through the finger of God I will cast out demons. Matthew 12:28. If only I would cast out demons in the Spirit of God. Who, reasoning impartially, does not recognize that the expression: about the Spirit of God, as direct, is clearer than the expression: about the finger of God, as allegorical? And so, should hermeneutics prohibit the one who reads the quoted words of the Evangelist Luke, and stops at the dark expression: about the finger of God, to resort to the Evangelist Matthew and interpret the dark clearly? 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 the Holy Scriptures, if not so that whoever encountered something unclear or incomplete in one text could turn to another about the same subject of the text, 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 term used to describe different passages in the Holy Scriptures that agree with each other, so that the darkest will be revealed from the clearest, and even the doubtful will seem doubtful. And this is not a new invention, but of the most ancient Holy Fathers. Saint Clement of Alexandria 85 at the end of 1 Stromatov says: scriptures are explained by other and similar scriptures. Saint Irenaeus 86: arguments, speech, in the scriptures cannot be explained, unless not from the scriptures themselves.” And so the rule: to explain the Holy Scripture in accordance with the clear passages thereof, was accepted and solemnly preached by the grace of God by the Most Holy Governing Synod, recognizing it not as a new invention, but as the tradition of the most ancient holy fathers. The consequently abbreviated hermeneutics in vain recognizes this as a Lutheran error 87 . To reject the rule, to explain an unclear passage of holy scripture to others that are clearer, would mean to deprive the truth of a powerful means and weapon. For example: Mark 10:11. If anyone lets his wife go and marries someone else, he commits adultery with her. This saying is used by the Roman Church to completely prohibit divorce, which the Orthodox Church in certain cases allows. The most correct and satisfactory defense of the Orthodox rule is to explain the above saying with a similar passage from another Evangelist, where the same saying is pronounced with greater completeness. Matthew 19:9. Whoever lets his wife go is an adulterer, and so on. 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 places where it is clearer and more complete, and collectively 2) church tradition contained in the symbols, dogmas, rules and interpretations of holy councils and holy fathers. 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. Country 111. Different interpretations of the Lord’s saying: this is My body, do not serve to refute the rule of interpreting the dark with clear. They did not arise from this rule, but from the fact that the false interpreters did not take into account the traditions, that they accepted reason as the beginning of interpretation, and especially from the fact that they were driven by the passion of covetousness and hostility against the hierarchy and the church. Lutheran interpretation of the expression: κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως, truly unfair. But this does not refute the rule in question; since (one may notice in passing) this did not prevent the Viennese canon John 88 in Enchiridio Hermeneuticae from placing among the means of interpretation (§ 32) analogiam doctrinae the analogy of doctrine, and saying that haec analogia doctrinae ex locis clarioribus et consilio authorum sacrorum ducitur, this analogy of doctrine is borrowed from the clearest passages and intentions of the sacred writers . This is not Lutheran. Country 112. “Verifying dark places with clear ones is actually not possible.” On the contrary, experience and the above examples, and the testimonies of the holy fathers, and the saying of the Holy Synod prove that it is possible. “The Lutherans themselves verify their understanding of the Holy Scriptures not by the Holy Scriptures, but by symbolic books.” The latter is true, but the first is not. They believe in the Holy Scriptures, and not only Lutherans, but also Roman Catholics, as the above example of Jan shows. “Or a council of the entire universal church - or a council of the entire Orthodox Church.” It is not clear what hermeneutics wants to say here. Is the entire universal church and the entire Orthodox Church separate and opposed objects? Page 115. From this page it is necessary to return to the previous ones, for consideration. It was said above that the beginning of interpretation cannot be either reason or the Holy Scripture itself. Having rejected these principles, what kind of beginning does the hermeneutics under consideration posit? None? This would only mean destroying, not creating. Which one? It’s not literally said, but it seems to be in countries. 112, symbols and symbolic books are taken as the beginning of interpretation. But here, in the countries. 115, hermeneutics orders one to look for a correct explanation not in symbolic books, but refers to its first branch. It seems confusing, and not quite clear and precise for a classic book. Pages 116–119. The imaginary contradictions are discussed correctly and the examples are given well. But here it is impossible not to notice that the rule of explaining the dark in the Holy Scriptures by the clear, against which hermeneutics rebelled, she herself uses when the less clear word of St. Apostle James: justify, explains his clearer word: save. Pages 120 and 121. Regarding the damage to the text of the Holy Scriptures, it is said without much caution that there are damages in both the Old and New Testaments. Such a judgment degrades the dignity of the Holy Scriptures and sows doubt, whereas science should resolve and remove doubts. In the example given (2 Kings 8:26), the Hebrew text is damaged; but the sacred scripture is not damaged, because the pure reading has been preserved in the text of seventy interpreters. Options do not prove damage to the Holy Scriptures, but only damage to one or another list: because between the options, according to fundamental signs, a pure and worthy reading of the word of God is revealed. Disagreements were in vain mixed with contradictions when, according to the testimony of St. Chrysostom, on the countries. 122 quoted, “Evangelists all agree.” Page 124. The comparison of the interpreter with the painter is brilliant, and does not contain the exact instruction that science requires. Country 129. Questions about the authenticity and reliability of sacred books are prescribed to be left without explanation. Hermeneutics here seems to contradict what she herself said in her first part, where she prescribed to look for confirmation of sacred legends even in pagan writers. “The interpreter must not forget that he is not dealing with unbelievers.” This cannot be applied to every interpreter. Unfortunately, there are non-believers, and weapons must be prepared against them. It was necessary to distinguish between a parish interpreter of sacred scripture and a scholar or missionary interpreter. Country 130. Questions about different readings and about the relative merits of the original and translations are considered “superfluous” here. But further it is prescribed, per country. 131, “keep this activity within the tightest boundaries.” Consequently, it is no longer considered superfluous. Was it not the difference in readings that allowed the hermeneutics above to resolve the confusion about the text (2 Kings 8:26)? – Here it would also be necessary to distinguish between interpreters, as stated above. Country 132. “Important inconveniences” are presented regarding the translations of the Holy Scriptures, and as proof of this, such skeptical thoughts are presented that, if accepted as fair, one would have to conclude that a good translation of the Holy Scriptures is hardly possible. How did 70 interpreters translate? What about Cyril 89 and Methodius 90? Will hermeneutics say that they, too, could not overcome important inconveniences, and that consequently their translations are unsatisfactory? And if students of hermeneutics believe this, then with what confidence will they read these translations? The abbreviated hermeneutics does not believe the Hebrew text; a good translation of the Holy Scripture seems unattainable: in this case, what can we rely on? If hermeneutics does not consider a good translation of the Holy Scriptures to be completely impossible, then justice and benefit would require not only to expose the inconveniences, but also to show the means to overcome them and teach the rules of good translation. Country 133. Without giving translation rules, hermeneutics offers criticism of the Russian translation of the New Testament. Why is this necessary in hermeneutics? Why is criticism directed at this one translation? How does hermeneutics decide to replace this translation with its own, having previously presented the task of translation as almost impossible? Is it proper in a classical book to direct critical weapons at just one translation, undertaken by the Highest command, of the blessed memory of the most pious Sovereign Emperor Alexander the First, actively considered by the late leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Michael 91, and the leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Seraphim 92, and signed by both of them? Should a classic book arouse in students the spirit of gossiping about their superiors and the government? And this is in order to replace some inaccurate expression: to suppress the truth with untruth, with another inaccurate one: to offend the truth. Country 136. "Characteristics of the department." Is it possible to determine the content only in departments? Is it not possible to determine the content of an entire book? Country 137. “The parts containing the historical are arranged in the same order in which the incidents follow one after another.” But sometimes the book is not all arranged in the exact order of time: then this rule does not apply. Country 138. “Teaching books are somewhat more difficult to arrange.” Where should you place them? The author arranged them, and you must discern his arrangement and therefore divide them into parts. “Historical order is not always appropriate here.” But not always? Is it really necessary to look for historical order in non-historical books? Country 140. The sacred writers “had no idea at all to outline in them (in the epistles) a complete system of Christian doctrine and moral teaching.” This is said without proof. On the contrary, some epistles, for example, to the Romans, represent a rather significant character of the system of catechetical teaching, but not a school one. But it is true that God’s providence had the intention of teaching in the sacred books a complete and sufficient composition of the truths of faith and moral teaching. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the apostle to say that God-inspired Scripture is useful for teaching, for reproof, for punishment, even in righteousness, for correction, so that the man of God may be prepared for every good work. Country 156. “And clear away the stones.” This is a new translation from the Hebrew. For in the Slavic text it reads: and trenches. How can hermeneutics now agree with itself? She previously said that “The Hebrew text does not have the dignity of the authentic word of God”: but now she herself leaves the text of the seventy and translates it from the Hebrew, and consequently finds more authenticity in this than in that one. Country 157–164. The analysis of the prophetic speech of Is.5 was done fairly well. We find it useful to place here a letter from Philaret, Metropolitan of Kiev, to the Metropolitan of Moscow, dated August 13, 1842, about hermeneutics. “And on the second half of the well-known hermeneutics, I received your comments with the most sincere gratitude to your Eminence. Your conclusion about this book is absolutely correct. You analyzed its contents with your characteristic insight - a gift from God, for which I have always thanked the Lord. And they made a comment with zeal about the Orthodoxy of the worthy true shepherd of the holy church. God delivered me from the temptation to give a hasty review of this creation, which they tried to get out of me with extraordinary persistence” 93 . August 17. Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, with an opinion about which of the schismatic sects and interpretations are recognized by the spiritual authorities as especially contrary to the teachings of St. churches The Minister of Internal Affairs 94, in view of the fact that by the Highest Command, on February 13, 1837, the Doukhobors, Molokans, Judaizers and Skoptsy were recognized as more harmful than other schismatics, asked the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, for immediate considerations on this subject and for the precise division of schismatic heresies, provide him with information: which of the schismatic sects and delusions are recognized by the spiritual authorities as especially contrary to the teachings of St. churches, and in what order they follow each other according to the degree of their harm to the Orthodox faith. Count Protasov turned to Metropolitan Philaret for resolution of these issues. The latter wrote about this: Getting to the answer to the question posed in relation to your Excellency, dated July 9, No. 4255: which of the schismatic sects and delusions are recognized by the spiritual authorities as especially contrary to the teachings of St. churches and in what order they follow each other, according to the degree of their harm to the Orthodox faith, I make it my duty, first of all, to bring to the attention of your Excellency that no matter how convenient it is to determine the non-Orthodoxy of one or another sect by comparing its opinions with Orthodox dogmas, it is so inconvenient sometimes to imagine deviation from Orthodoxy in the form of a descending ladder, because it does not always happen along the same line to the bottom, but in different directions, and the beginning of the judgment about the comparative unworthiness of sects and opinions may be different. The well-known and most influential sects can be ranked in three degrees as follows. 1) Judaizers. For this is worse than heresy. This is a complete falling away from Christianity and significant enmity against Christianity. 2) Molokans. Although, apparently, they adhere to the Holy Scriptures: but they take from it only what they like. They do not recognize any sacraments, no hierarchy. Without taking an oath, they do not respect loyalty, they do not recognize any authority as God-ordained; they obey only because they cannot resist. The sect is destructive. 3) Doukhobors. As far as we know, they share the same spirit with the Molokans. 4) Khlystovism. The heresy is blasphemous because, without rejecting outward communion with the Christian Church, it introduces human adoration. 5) Skoptsy. Also a blasphemous heresy, because the leader of the sect is worshiped as Christ. Harms society by ruining marriage, distorting people and destroying offspring. 6) Those priestless sects that reject marriage and prayer for the Tsar. They write and pronounce cruel blasphemies against the church and the sacraments, and they consider every power of the present time to be Antichrist. By rejecting marriage, immorality is introduced. Those from the priestless side who accept marriage (newlyweds) and do not renounce praying for the king. Based on these traits, they could be considered less harmful; but they are decidedly harmful because they reject the priesthood and the sacrament of the Eucharist and, in addition to what has been said, they borrow everything from the worst branches of priestlessness and, among other things, the democratic spirit. Popovshchina. This is not a heresy, but a schism. It preserves more of the church and represents more hope. In offering these lonely judgments, I remain in the hope that your Excellency, in order to resolve this subject, with the most accurate research possible, will deign to subject them to the consideration of the Holy Synod 95. From an autograph. storing in secret. department. chancellor chief proc. Holy Synod, map. 3, case 1842, No. 28, parts 1–4. See also the case of the same chancellor. 1841, No. 181, dept. III, table I. size. 3. Seraphim (Glagolevsky), Metropolitan. Novgorod and St. Petersburg, from June 29, 1821; mind. 17 Jan 1843 Filaret (Amphitheaters), Metropolitan. Kyiv and Galician, from April 18 1837, from 1841 schemamonk Theodosius; mind. 21 Dec 1857 About the lithographed translation of books in. Testament, M. Philaret, privately, more than once wrote to the governor of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony. See these letters to Anthony No. 312, 313, 314, 315 and 317, M., 1878, part II. The case of the Holy Synod, keeping. in secret. department. his archive, No. 307–11 vol. 1 cg. 1–11 and 34. Reported. this is from the beginning to the word: “Academic board…. published in op. I. A. Chistovich: “History of the translation. Bibles in Russian language, St. Petersburg, 1873, part 1, pp. 181 and 182. See also below, No. 258 and 259. See ibid., p. 52, no. 264. Look at the preface to the publication of the Slavic Bible, 1751. In the same preface you can see an example of this. Books of the Prophet Ezekiel, ch. XLI, verse 8, the Holy Synod corrected the Slavic translation not according to the Greek, but according to the Hebrew text: “and I saw the heights of the church.” In justification of this correction it is said: for now this saying Friel, abandoned in all Greek compositions (texts), taken as a proper name, is not known what it means; and it is made from the Hebrew verb raa, which is here in the first person, and means: saw. Note Metropolitan Philareta. The case of the Holy Synod, keeping. in secret. department. his archive, No. 307–11, vol. 1, pp. 1–42, and from drafts. papers, storing to Moscow spirit. acad., pak. No. 2, doc. No. 7. This opinion is printed verbatim. in op. I. A. Chistovich: “The history of translating the Bible into Russian”, St. Petersburg. 1873, part 1, pp. 189–191. See ibid., No. 264, p. 52. The opinion of His Grace Seraphim, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, is as follows: “Your Excellency, dear sir! Due to my illness, I could not take personal part in the consideration of the case received by the Holy Synod about the distorted and wicked transcription of the teaching and prophetic books of the Old Testament that turned out to be here, published in secret and distributed through lithography; but, due to the special importance of the occasion, I charge myself with the duty, having gathered the rest of my strength on my sickbed, to communicate to your Excellency the considerations and thoughts that the duty of my title, the holiness of the oath, filial devotion to our ancient Russian Orthodox faith, and the experiences of many years of service to the Holy Church inspire in me. At the news of the aforementioned translation, I was filled with spiritual sorrow, both because such an abuse of the sacred obviously threatens the purity in which the teaching of the faith was taught in our fatherland, protected from harmful foreign superstitions by the help of God and the care of the most pious Sovereign Emperor, and because such a malignant attack appeared in the name and in the midst of the spiritual youth, from whom we expect faithful and diligent shepherds and ministers of the church, who educates them through their labors and donations. Considering this case from all sides, I, to great regret, see in it the sad consequence of those false concepts regarding the use of the word of God, which, once brought to us by infidels and captivating the minds of some of us, threatened the hierarchy with an undermining of power, the people - with the inculcation in them of a seductive, but at the same time disastrous, sense of independence from the church, the Orthodox - with the subversion of its root principles; for, according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, the Holy Scriptures were not given by God to the people, but to the class of shepherds and teachers, and through them to the people. Malicious opinions, the suppression of which required great efforts from zealous zeal for the church, now revived and appearing in all their ugliness, have shown through experience how deeply rooted and with what difficulty such ailments are cured. The unholy corruption of the Holy Scriptures arouses indignation and sorrow all the more because it appeared at a time when our Orthodox Church so recently, with the truths of its uncorrupted teaching, brought back to itself millions of fallen children, when others are beginning to come to their senses, sinfully reproaching us for allowing changes, and when our Church sees with consolation the growing pious feeling among the people, aroused by the example of piety in the Sovereign. In these thoughts I believe. 1) find out with complete certainty who exactly is the one or those who aroused the students to begin such a task, for I cannot allow the students to begin this on their own, without guidance, without experience, without connection with the previous forbidden way of thinking; and then the guilty to stop any opportunity to encroach on such actions, to test the conscience of those who, for some reason, knew about the existence of evil and showed sinful indifference, without attempting to discover what both the oath and the benefit of the church required, and 2) strengthen the measures that your Excellency so diligently promote and which I have always looked at with true gratitude, calling on them the blessing of God, so that in the future all the education of spiritual youth was directed towards preserving in all its integrity the direct Orthodox teaching of the faith and protected from any hesitation by the thoughts of other believers, and so that no one, under any guise or pretext, would dare to encroach on the translation of the sacred scripture, which must remain in the form in which we received it from our pious ancestors and until now has served as a guarantee of our well-being. Deeply convinced of this truth, I tried to protect it, to the best of my ability, throughout the continuation of my service, I am ready to go out now with the same zeal, and if the Lord God wills to leave me on my sick bed, then I convey this to your Excellency as my last wish, as the testament of a bishop who served the Church and the Sovereign until a very old age in true love and devotion for them. I fully knew your Excellency’s completely Orthodox way of thinking and your zeal for the service of His Imperial Majesty, I remain at peace and am consoled by the thought that you will take all the necessary measures in this so important case, asking you, dear sir, to convey my thoughts to the Holy Synod, if I am not able to be present in it soon. However, I have the honor to be with complete respect and spiritual devotion. No. 37, March 1, 1842 Letter from Metropolitan Seraphim to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, gr. P. A. Protasov, published with minor discrepancies in op. N. A. Chistovich: “The history of translating the Bible into Russian, St. Petersburg, 1873,” pp. 185–188. Nikifor Feotoki, from a noble Corfu family, who received an extensive education at Italian universities, from 1779 archbishop of the Slavs, from 1786–92 of Astrakhan; On May 31, 1800 he died in retirement. His interpretations of the Sunday Gospels and readings from the Apostle, written in Greek and translated into Russian, are known; published in Moscow in 1803 and 1809. Gabriel Petrov, died in 1801. After him there remained: 1) interpretations of the conciliar messages, printed in Moscow in 1794 and 2) an explanation of the Savior’s conversation about the beatitudes and several psalms, in manuscript. Irinei Klementyevsky, Archbishop of Pskov, died on April 24. 1818 retired. He owns the interpretations: on the epistles to Rom. and Phil. (M. 1787), to Hebrews, to the prophets, to the psalms and others. Filaret Amphitheatrov, died on December 21. 1857 in the rank of Metropolitan of Kyiv. His conversations on Matthew 5–11 (Kyiv, 1842) and on John are known. (Kyiv, 1847). In response to these remarks by Metropolitan Philaret, Metropolitan Seraphim, on March 4, wrote to the chief prosecutor: “Dear sir, Count Nikolai Alexandrovich! Having examined the note sent to me by Moscow Metropolitan Philaret, compiled by him on the occasion of the appearance of the lithographed Bible, I find the assumptions set out in it: 1) unnecessary. In the Orthodox Church, the preservation and dissemination of the saving truths of the faith is designated by the class of pastors, to whom, for this very purpose, the gift of teaching is taught, and who are deliberately prepared for this in religious institutions. This path of instruction to the people, as the only legal one, will be preserved and preserved in our Orthodox Church in all its strength. If the translation that has appeared is the fruit of curiosity alone, it is necessary to give it another direction, more consistent with the benefits of the church; 2) dangerous. The gradual publication of the interpretations of the Holy Fathers, as it was, will be the most useful feat for the Holy Church. But interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, based either on the interpreter’s own judgment, or on a comparison of the patristic interpretations of one with another, as well as the Hebrew text with the Greek, can weaken the reverence that the Orthodox have for the holy fathers, and make objects of faith the objects of one cold study. To publish the Bible with the introduction of any table of contents and notes, which by their very brevity are unsatisfactory, would mean giving idle minds a reason for disputes, differences of opinion and many misconceptions. Such a publication will not only not destroy the temptation created by the wicked notes to the text of the lithographed translation, but will also produce a new temptation, planting in the minds the idea that the holy word of God needs human justification, and that the people can be judges in matters of faith. For these reasons, in accordance with what I already wrote to your Excellency, upon receiving news of the appearance of a lithographed translation, I believe: leaving the sacred text of the Bible in the exact form in which it is now, pay all attention to the subjects of teaching in seminaries, strictly forbid instructors in theological teaching to go beyond the limits set by our Orthodox Church, and also subject the very organization of the educational part in theological institutions to strict examination. I mentally ask you, dear sir, to convey this to the Holy Synod.” Printed verbatim in Op. P. A. Chistovich “The history of translating the Bible into Russian”, St. Petersburg, 1873, hour. 1, pp. 192–194. The case of the Holy Synod, keeping. in secret. department. his archive, No. 307, vol. 1, pp. 35–38 and 42–44 and with black. author., storage to Moscow spirit. acad., inv. No. 2, doc. No. 10. Nathaniel (Pavlovsky), bishop. Pskov, from May 12, 1834; mind. in Aug. 1849 Arkady (Fedorov), bishop. Perm, from August 8 1831, from 25 Dec. 1833, archbishop; from March 29, 1851 archbishop. Olonetsky; mind. retired, in schema, May 8, 1870 See Collection of resolutions regarding the schism under April 17. 1842 See in the same place under November 28. 1839 From own. black authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod according to inventory No. 99, doc. No. 7. With regards black authentic, storage in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 80, doc. No. 1; keeps a copy. in secret. papers chancellor Chief Prosecutor St. Synod, 1836, No. 154, pp. 52–57. See above, no. 264, p. 52. Pavsky, Gerasim Petrovich, adv. prot., doc. theologian.; mind. 6 Apr. 1863 Gabriel (Gorodkov), archbishop. Ryazan, from July 15, 1837; dismissal retired, May 10, 1858; mind. Apr 7 1862 Sidonsky, Fedor Fedorovich, prot. SPb. Kazansky Sob., Dr. philosophy; mind. Dec 6, 1873 Case of St. Syn., keeping. in secret. dept. his archive, No. 307–11, vol. 1, p. 25; black boom. Metropolitan Philaret, keeping to Moscow spirit. acad., pak. No. 2, doc. No. 12. Avanasy (Drozdov), since 1841 rector of St. Petersburg. spirit. academician, later Archbishop of Astrakhan, retired, April 6, 1870, deceased. in 1876. Plutarch, Greek philosopher and historian; mind. OK. 120–130 AD Saint John Chrysostom, in his homily on reading the Holy Scriptures, says: “I have always urged and will not cease to convince you, so that you not only here listen with attention to what is preached, but also in your home constantly study the Holy Scriptures.” And he who touches the Gospel immediately changes his thoughts and removes them from worldly things, even at one glance at it. When careful reading is added to this, at that time the soul, as if turning to holy places, is purified and becomes better, since God Himself speaks to it through the Scriptures. But what will they say if we do not understand what is contained in Scripture? Even if you did not understand what is contained in it, everything from the reading itself, we receive great sanctification. However, it cannot be that you understand absolutely nothing. Therefore, the grace of the Holy Spirit arranged for these books to be written by tax collectors, fishermen, tabernacle workers, shepherds, simple and illiterate people, so that what was read would be understandable to everyone, so that the artisan, the servant, the widow, and the most unintelligent person would gain some benefit from listening.” In fact, who doesn’t understand everything that is written in the Gospel?” See Risen. Thursday, 1841, No. 10 in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, 1841, August, pp. 124–126. Note from Metropolitan Philaret. “Pick up the Bible, read the whole story, and, keeping in mind what is understandable, often review the incomprehensible and obscure.” St. Chrysostom in the above word. Note from Metropolitan Philaret. From a copy, storing in the spirit of Moscow. acad., package No. 3, doc. No. 13 Print. verbatim in Read. Moscow total loves. spirits enlightenment, for 1868, book. V, pp. 150–159. Continued, see below, under No. 272. On May 24, the inspector of the Moscow Theological Academy, cathedral hieromonk Agavangel addressed Metropolitan Philaret with a letter with the following content. Your Eminence Bishop, gracious archpastor and father. Hearing from some of those around me that many undoubtedly know my participation in the report on the lithographed translation of the Old Testament, and fearing that this will reach your Eminence in an unfavorable form, I dare to explain to you the whole course of this matter. When the Russian translation was published in St. Petersburg, I too joyfully accepted the news of its appearance, knowing from experience how difficult, and even impossible, it is to teach lessons on the Slavic translation in the Holy Scripture class. I myself wanted to purchase the translation, although I could not, because all copies were already sold out. Meanwhile, the students who had it in their hands announced to me that the translation was distorted in many places, that the authenticity and truth of some prophecies were questioned in it. This forced me, when explaining the prophetic books, to reveal in class in particular detail the foundations on which the teaching of the Holy Church is affirmed, and to refute all the objections on which unbelief bases its false thinking. It was instilled in the students that translation also belonged to this last class. When meeting with mentors, I heard a desire to express themselves about translation more definitely and directly. Why did I take one copy to my cell to carefully examine it, and discovered that the temptation of unbelief was widespread throughout almost the entire translation, that everything in it, even the clearest prophecies about the Savior of the world, was completely distorted. Remembering the lofty thoughts of my unforgettable mentors about the Word of God and bearing in my heart the commandments of the Lord Himself and the apostles about how sacredly the Divine treasure of Scripture should be preserved, I could not remain indifferent to the errors that undermined the foundations of our holy faith, and I decided to report the quality of the translation to my superiors, depicting the need for a new, pure translation. At first, my intention was to submit this report to the board of the local academy or present it directly to your Eminence. But knowing from one written message what kind of illness your previous feat regarding such a work by the translator caused to your saintly heart, and imagining that the report could be considered the fruit of your orders due to displeasure towards the translator, that the action of the local academy could be accepted as the truth with the St. Petersburg one; Finally, not considering it possible to reveal my name without the need, I decided to submit a report in special copies to Your Eminence, to His Eminence Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg Seraphim and to His Eminence Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galich Philaret, and, bypassing the local and other nearby post offices, send it through Vladimir. I wanted to ask through the rector’s father for your archpastoral blessing for this; but this meant informing your Eminence about the whole matter. Your Eminence Bishop! Plunging to the mercy of your Eminence, I ask for fatherly forgiveness that I dared to directly bother the most holy archpastors and caused concern to your Eminence, when this could have been achieved peacefully through the nearest authorities. I also ask for your gracious forgiveness for the fact that due to haste (the matter was carried out during the exam days), unfounded thoughts and expressions that were contrary to my true feelings were included in the reports. Your Eminence Bishop! Your Eminence, most merciful archpastor and father, an unworthy novice of Moscow. of the Theological Academy, cathedral inspector Hieromonk Agafangel. Eusebius (Orlinsky), from August 29, 1860, archbishop. Mogilev; mind. 21 Feb 1883 The case of the Holy Synod, keeping. in secret. department. his archive, No. 307–11, vol. 1, p. 184; black boom. Metropolitan Philaret, keeping to Moscow spirit. acad., pak. No. 2, doc. No. 13. Perhaps, perhaps, this led to oversights because it was not done according to the order prescribed by the Holy Synod, that is, the outline of the book was not drawn up first, which would have been better able to foresee the imperfections of the composition before they were covered by the plausible clothing of presentation? Note Metropolitan Philareta. Clement of Alexandria, banner. teaches. churches of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries. according to R.H.; time conc. it is dated to 217. Irenaeus, St., Bishop. Lyonsky, who was martyred. death, in 202. Here is another testimony from the book Stone of Faith, ed. 1839, part, 2 countries. 344. “Whoever doubts the words of the New Testament should argue against the words of the New Testament, rather than against the words of the Old Testament. This means that words in the New Testament, the meaning of which is doubtful, must be explained by reference to other places in the New Testament, where the meaning is clearly visible from these words. Note Metropolitan Philareta. Jan (Iahn), Johann, professor at the University of Vienna. oriental and archaeol.; pack Here his works were published in Vienna in 1812. Cyril, educator of the Slavs, brother of Methodius, from Thessaloniki; reposed Feb. 11, 869 Methodius, educator of the Slavs, brother of Cyril, from Thessalonica; reposed April 6, 885 Mikhail (Desnitsky), Metropolitan. Novgorod. and St. Petersburg from June 23, 1818; mind. 24 Mar 1821 Seraphim (Glagolevsky), Metropolitan. Novgorod. from June 29, 1821; mind. 17 Jan 1843 From a copy stored in Moscow. spirit. acad., package No. 3, document. Nos. 12–16. Printed verbatim in Reading. society loves. spirit. education, for 1868, book. V, pp. 159–167. Perovsky, gr. Lev Alekseevich; mind. November 10, 1856 With own black authentic, storing in the archives of the Holy Synod, according to inventory No. 44; doc. No. 2. Printed in the collection of resolutions of the min. in. d. regarding the schism, under the 9th hour of Dec. 1842