ЧАСТЬ ВТОРАЯ. ОБ ИСТОЧНИКАХ ПРАВОСЛАВНОГО БОГОСЛОВИЯ

Brothers, stand and keep the traditions that you have learned, either by word or by our message. Yes, show how it is fitting to live in the house of God, since the Church of God is alive, the pillar and foundation of the truth. § 108. The concept of the sources of Orthodox Theology and their division The teaching of the Christian faith, which constitutes the subject of Orthodox Theology, lies in Divine revelation or the Word of God, which, therefore, is the one and only source of Orthodox Theology. But, since God himself deigned to communicate his revelation to us in two ways: orally and in writing, and, having communicated it, entrusted it to his saint. Church for safekeeping and teaching to all, then with the same justice we can say that, in particular, there are two sources of Orthodox Theology: St. Scripture and St. Tradition, and, moreover, understood only according to the understanding of the Orthodox, that is, the true Church of Christ, the divinely established guardian and interpreter of both. Hence the three sections of this second part of our introduction: III. about the Orthodox Church, in fact only as the custodian and interpreter of St. Scriptures and St. Traditions 315. And that, in fact, this is how the Orthodox Church itself views the sources of the Orthodox faith, it is clear: 1) From the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East. Here, in the answer to the question of the 4th first part, we read: “An Orthodox Christian must accept as true and certain (Council. 6, right. 82) that all members of the faith of the Catholic and Orthodox Church are betrayed to it by our Lord Jesus Christ through His Apostles, explained and approved by the Ecumenical Councils, and believe in them, as the Apostle commands: therefore, brethren, stand and hold traditions, which you have learned, either by word or by our message (2 Thessalonians 2:15). From which it is clear that members of the faith receive their importance and firmness partly from the Holy Scriptures, partly from church tradition and the teaching of the Councils and Holy Fathers. That is, dogmas are of two kinds: some are handed down in writing and are contained in the Theological books of the Holy Scriptures; others were committed orally by the Apostles; and these were explained by the Councils and Holy Fathers. Our faith is based on these two kinds of dogmas.” In answer to question 96: “Although the Church is a creation of God, made up of men, she has as her head Christ himself, the true God and the Holy Spirit, who continually teaches her and makes her, as the Apostle says, the bride of Christ, without spot or defect (Eph. 5:27), and a pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and its dogmas and teachings do not come from men, but from God. Therefore, when we say that we believe in the Church, we mean that we believe in the Scriptures devoted to it by God, and in its divinely inspired dogmas. This very thing encourages us to believe not only in the Holy Gospel, accepted by the Church, which Christ commanded when he said: Believe in the Gospel (Mark 1:15), but also in all other Scriptures and Council definitions.” 2) From the message of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church about the Orthodox Faith. The preface of this message, by the way, says: “our dogmas and the teaching of our Eastern Church have been studied since ancient times, correctly and piously defined and approved by the holy ecumenical Councils; It is not permissible to add to them or take away anything from them. Therefore, those who wish to agree with us in the Divine dogmas of the Orthodox faith must, with simplicity, obedience, without any research and curiosity, follow and submit to everything that is determined and decreed by the ancient tradition of the Fathers, and approved by the holy and ecumenical Councils, since the time of the Apostles and their successors, the God-bearing Fathers of our Church.” In paragraph 2 of this epistle: “We believe that the Divine and Holy Scriptures were inspired by God; Therefore, we must believe it unquestioningly, and not in our own way, but exactly as the Catholic Church has explained and presented it. For even the superstition of heretics accepts the Divine Scripture, but only misinterprets it. Therefore, we believe that the testimony of the Catholic Church is no less valid than the Divine Scriptures. since the Author of both is the same Holy Spirit, it makes no difference whether one learns from Scripture or from the universal Church. A person who speaks for himself can sin, deceive, and be deceived; but the universal Church, since she never spoke and does not speak on her own, but from the Spirit of God (whom she constantly has, and will have as her Teacher until the end of time), cannot in any way sin, nor deceive, nor be deceived; but, like Divine Scripture, it is infallible and has eternal importance” (Sn. ch. 12). 3) From the lengthy Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church. Here, to the question: “Where does the teaching of the Orthodox faith come from?” – the answer is given: “from Divine revelation” (see the article on Divine revelation); to the question: “how is Divine revelation distributed among people and preserved in the true Church?” – answer: “in two ways: through Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture”; to the question: “Is there a true repository of Sacred Tradition?” - answer: “all true believers, united by the Holy Tradition of faith, collectively and successively, according to God’s dispensation, constitute the Church, which is the faithful repository of the Holy Tradition, or, according to the saying of St. Paul, the Church of God is alive, the pillar and affirmation of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)" (see article about Holy Tradition and St. Scripture); to the question: “What should one observe when reading the Holy Scriptures?” – answer: “firstly, it must be read with reverence, as the word of God, and with prayer for the understanding of it; secondly, we must read it with pure intention for our instruction in faith and encouragement to good deeds; thirdly, it must be understood in accordance with the explanation of the Orthodox Church and the Holy Fathers" (see the article on Holy Scripture in particular, and compare with the article on the ninth member - answers to the question: “what does it mean to believe in the Church?” and to the question: “what important advantage does the Catholic Church have?”). 4) From the Order of joining the Gentiles to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the East, where, among those who accept Orthodoxy, it, among other things, requires the following confession: “Apostolic and church traditions and other legitimations of the Church, the statutes and dispositions I truly and firmly accept; also St. The Scripture, according to understanding, was and is contained by the Holy Eastern Church, our mother, and it is fitting for her to reason about the true understanding of the Holy Scriptures, I accept” 316. SECTION I. ABOUT THE SACRED SCRIPTURES § 109. The concept of St. Scriptures and composition of this department Under the name of St. Scriptures refer to books (βιβλία - bible) written by the Spirit of God through people sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles. In this concept of St. The Scriptures, obviously, are two separate: the first is that the holy books were written by famous persons, Prophets and Apostles, and the second is that they were written precisely by inspiration from the Holy Spirit. To reveal the first thought means to show the importance (or, more precisely, the reliability) of the books of St. Historical Scriptures; to reveal the last thought means to show their dogmatic importance. Thus, the dignity of St. will be fully revealed. Scripture as a source of Orthodox Theology. CHAPTER I. ON THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OR ACCURACY OF THE BOOKS OF ST. SCRIPTURES § 110. Point of view on the subject of research and division of the chapter The question of the historical accuracy of the work consists of three separate ones. Paying attention to the essay itself, they ask: a) does it truly belong to the author or time to which it is attributed? – and if it’s genuine, – b) has it reached us in the same form as when it left the writer’s hands? Then paying attention to the writer, they try to determine: c) could he know the truth about what he is talking about, and did he convey it to us, i.e., was he somehow deceived himself, or did he not have an impulse to deceive others? But since the divinely inspired writers wrote not from themselves, but from the Holy Spirit; since, even eliminating this thought for a while, we already had the opportunity 317 to show that the sacred writers themselves could, even with natural means, fully know the events they narrate, and had no incentive to mislead others, and actually speak one truth: then here we only have to consider - a) the authenticity of St. books and When researching the historical authenticity of St. It is natural for the Scriptures to dwell first on the books of the Old Testament, and then on the books of the New Testament. In particular, we consider it necessary, when reviewing the books of the Old Testament, to pay special attention to the reliability of the Pentateuch of Moses, and when reviewing the books of the New Testament - to the reliability of the Four Gospels: on the one hand, because, just as in the Pentateuch is, in a sense, the basis of all Old Testament revelation and all Old Testament books, so in the Four Gospels is the basis and beginning of all teaching and books of the New Testament; and on the other hand, because the reliability of the Pentateuch and the Four Gospels is predominantly attacked by freethinkers. I. ON THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS § 111. Authenticity of the Pentateuch of Moses: a) external evidence 318 The authenticity of the Pentateuch of Moses is confirmed by all evidence of the authenticity of the writings: direct - external and internal, and indirect. 1) Numerous testimonies about Moses from pagan writers, some of which have not come down to us in the originals themselves, but have been preserved only in fragments by Josephus, Justin, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras and Eusebius, while others have come down in the originals themselves. Yes - From Egyptian writers: the most ancient historian of his fatherland, Maneton, who lived 378 years ago. BC, around the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, mentions Moses as the legislator of the Jewish people 319; Chaeremon, who flourished in the age of the Augustans, as a sacred writer 320; Lysimachus 321, Apion 322, Ptolemy of Mendes 323, who lived in the same century, are mentioned as the leader of the Jews who led them out of Egypt. From Greek writers: Polemon, an Athenian philosopher (313 BC), calls Moses the leader of the Jewish people 324; Eupolemus (about 200 BC) - the wisest man who gave writings to the Jews 325; Diodorus Siculus (about 45 BC) - the legislator of the Jews, who derived his laws from Jehovah God himself 326, also the leader of the colony that came out of Egypt - the leader who divided his people into 12 tribes, gave them a Faith completely different from the faiths of other peoples, and taught that the Divine cannot be represented under any human form 327; Nicholas of Damascus, a contemporary of Diodorov, speaks of Moses as a writer and lawgiver of the Hebrews 328; Strabo (born 50 BC) speaks with special praise both of him and of his religious teaching 329. At St. Cyril of Alexandria and Eusebius also provide some other evidence from Greek writers about Moses 330. From Latin writers: Trogus Pompey (c. 80 BC) presents Moses as the leader of the Israelites during their exodus from Egypt 331; in Tacitus, in addition, - the founder of new rituals, which are different from all others that had previously existed 332; Juvenal (at the end of the first century AD) - the legislator of the Jews, who had deep respect for his books, carried out his laws and turned away from foreign rituals 333. We do not even mention the testimonies of many other pagan writers of Egypt, Syria, Greece and Rome of the second, third and subsequent centuries of Christianity, confirming the same truth 334. To understand the importance of the evidence we have given about Moses, we must take into account - a) the disunity of the Jews until a certain time with other peoples: it will very well explain to us why the most ancient pagan writers say almost nothing about the Jewish people and their divine legislator; b) the deep antiquity of Moses in comparison with these ancient pagan writers, according to which they are separated from the Jewish lawgiver by whole centuries 335, and, therefore, could not be contemporary witnesses about him; c) the fact that the later pagan writers we cited borrowed their tales about Moses from the most ancient pagan tales, which were preserved mainly in Egypt, as Josephus Flavius ​​336 showed. And in particular it is known about Maneton, who, in compiling his Egyptian history, where he clearly mentions Moses, used, according to his own consciousness, the sacred books of the Egyptians, which he erected to the deepest antiquity 337. About Diodorus Siculus 338 and Apion 339, who also confess that they learned about Moses from the elders and priests of Egypt, and d) finally, that these testimonies of pagan writers about Moses are not borrowed from the sacred books of Israel, but from third-party sources, as can be seen partly from the aforementioned consciousnesses of Maneton, Diodorus Siculus and Apion, and even more from the disagreement of all these pagan testimonies, sometimes extending to the extreme, with the Biblical narrative. Bearing in mind this importance of the pagan testimonies about Moses, we can, for our purpose, deduce from them at least this: a) Moses really existed, b) gave the Israelites Faith and laws, and c) put it all in writing, in a book. Which book exactly? This will be reliably resolved - 2) Testimonies of Jewish writers and the constant, unanimous tradition of all Jews who considered the authenticity of the Pentateuch of Moses to be one of the main tenets of their faith. In all, in order, the books of V. 3. and in the books of the New Testament, written by persons from the Jews, and in all other writings of the Jews, it is assumed beyond doubt not only that Moses wrote the book of the law, but that this book is precisely the Pentateuch. In the book of Joshua, at the very beginning, we read that God commanded him: be strong and be of great courage, keep and do as my servant Moses commanded you... and let not the book of this law depart from your mouth, and let you learn in it day and night, and understand to do everything that is written (1: 7-8). Here the entire Pentateuch is obviously understood; for, taken separately, not one of its five parts contains the whole law. In the middle of the same book it is said that Jesus created an altar to the Lord God of Israel on Mount Ebal, just as the commandments of Moses the servant of the Lord the son of Israel were written in the law of Moses (Joshua 8:30–35): indeed, this is what we find written about in the book of Exodus (20:25) and in the book of Deuteronomy (20:25). And at the end of the book of Joshua it is narrated that he, having called all the sons of Israel to himself before his death, brought to their memory the wonderful story of their ancestors (23, 24): this speech of his is, as it were, an abbreviation of the entire Pentateuch. In the books of Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, some laws from the Pentateuch of Moses are cited, or some historical legends contained in it are mentioned, or even clearly speaks of Moses and the law of Moses (Judg. 3, 4; Ruth. 4, 7 and 12, sn. Deut. 25, 7 and Gen. 38, 29; 2 Kings. 14, 5. 6; 2 Chronicles 24, 9). The book of Ezra says that Jesus, Zerubbabel and his brethren, upon returning from the captivity of Babylon, created an altar to the God of Israel..., as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God (1Ezra 3:2), and when the church was finished, they appointed priests in their ranks, and Levites in their parts..., as it is written in the book. Moiseov (-6, 18). By combining these passages with what is written in chapters 3 and 6 of Numbers, there is no doubt which book of Moses is meant here. In the book of Nehemiah, in addition to the fact that it is mentioned more than once about the law of Moses (8, 1. 2. 14, etc.), it is said that in this book of Moses it was written: Let the Ammanites and Moabites not come into the church of God until the end of time: until the children of Israel have come together with bread and water, and Balaam has been laid upon them for their curse (Neh. 13, 1–2). This, indeed, is written in Art. 3. Chapter 23 Deut. and 23 ch. Number The book of Tobit relates that the son of Tobiah, as a result of his father’s instruction, got himself a wife from his father’s seed (4:12), according to the law of Moses (7:12). This law is written in Art. 7. Chapter 26 Numbers In the Psalms, expressions from the Pentateuch are found, the entire story of Moses is repeated, his wonders and signs are remembered (Psalms 104–106; 113–114). As for the books of the prophets: they very often mention the events described in the Pentateuch (compare Ex. 14:21 and Isa. 51:10; Isa. 52.4 with Gen. 46.6; Micah 6:4–5 with Num. ch. 22–24, etc.), laws and other thoughts are given, obviously borrowed from the Pentateuch (compare Jeremiah 34, 14 with Exodus 21, 2; Ezek. 4, 6 with Num. 14, 34; Ezek. 20, 11 with Lev. 18, 5; Abd. v. 10 with Gen. 27, 42) and often directly refers to the law of Moses. So Baruch the prophet writes: the Lord established his word, which he spoke upon us... to bring upon us great evil, so that it would not be created under all heaven, as was created in Jerusalem, according to what is written in the law of Moses and further (2, 2-4). The prophet Daniel reasoned in exactly the same way at one time: and the oath and curse written in the law of Moses came upon us..., just as it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil came upon us (Dan. 9, 11 and 13). These disasters are exactly what are predicted in chapters 27–29. Deuteronomy. Finally, the prophet Malachi concludes his and all Old Testament prophecies with the following words: Remember the law of Moses my servant, as I commanded him in Horeb to all Israel with commands and justifications (4, 4) 340. We find the same thing in the books of the New Testament. For example, the Evangelists cite the words of Jesus Christ to the leper: go show yourself to the priests and bring the gift that Moses commanded in the law as a testimony to them (Matthew 8:4): this law is in chapter 14. books of Leviticus; - the words of the Savior to the Sadducees: were they carried in the books of Moses, by the bush, as God said to him: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Mark 12:26): this place is contained in the book of Exodus ch. 3, 6; - the words of the Pharisees and Sadducees to the Savior, pointing to the two laws of Moses - in the Pentateuch (fn. Mark. 12, 19 with Deut. 25, 5; John 8, 5 with Lev. 20, 10). The Apostle James mentions that Moses was present throughout the city, preaching him, in the congregations throughout the entire Sabbath (Acts 15:21). Ap. Paul speaks (2 Cor. 3:13-16) about the veil that Moses put on his face (Exod. 34:30), and about the reading by the Israelites of the Law of Moses 341. It would be unnecessary after this to cite countless testimonies about the authenticity of the Pentateuch of Moses from the writings of Philo, Josephus, Talmudists and all the rabbis. It remains to be noted that the testimony of the Jews regarding the authenticity of the Pentateuch, although domestic, in the eyes of every right-thinking person, should have high importance, because: a) this is the testimony of an entire people, passing, according to continuous tradition, from generation to generation, and going back to the time of Moses himself; b) the writer of the Pentateuch is the most famous person in the entire history of the Jews, as their liberator from Egyptian captivity and lawgiver, whom, therefore, they could not help but know more than anyone else; c) his book itself was at all times held in the greatest respect and use by them, as a sacred code from which they studied their Faith, learned the laws of citizenship, genealogy and the rights of various generations, the fate of their ancestors, etc.; d) for this book, out of adherence to the Faith and laws contained in the book, for centuries, Jews agreed to endure the contempt of peoples and even persecution, but did not agree to abandon it. 3) Finally, the testimony of the Samaritans 342, and a testimony also of the greatest importance. It is known that this small sect, which still exists in Palestine, retains as a sacred book of the law the Pentateuch of Moses, written in the ancient Hebrew letters used before the captivity of Babylon 343. It is absolutely impossible to allow the Samaritans to borrow the Pentateuch from the Jews, or the Jews from the Samaritans, after the captivity of Babylon: for a) at the first return of the Jews from this captivity, the Samaritans already present themselves to them as their co-religionists - therefore, they already had and knew their law; b) from that very time, on the occasion of the refusal of the Jews to the Samaritans to participate in the construction of the second temple of Jerusalem, irreconcilable national hatred flared up between both of them, reaching the highest degree (John 4.7-9) and not allowing one to believe that one of these peoples could borrow the Faith from the other; c) finally, in this case it would be impossible to explain in any way why the Samaritans, accepting the Pentateuch from the Jews, did not want to accept all the other holy books of the Jews that already existed at that time, which they, in fact, do not accept. So, when and from whom did the Samaritans borrow the Pentateuch? Sacred history clearly says that they voluntarily accepted the Jewish Faith, although they did not abandon their ancient one, even under the Assyrian king Assaradan (200 years before the return of the Jews from captivity) from one Israeli priest (2 Kings 17, 26-31; Ezra 4, 2), who, having come to preach to them the new faith, of course, could not help but bring with him the books of the law; He also says that even from the days of Assaradan they, in their own words, offered sacrifices to the God of Israel (Ezra 4:2), which again suggests the existence of a book of law among them. Now it becomes clear why the Samaritans have only the Pentateuch of Moses, and no other sacred books of the Jews: most likely, because the Israeli priest who enlightened them with his sermon brought with him only the Pentateuch, as the most necessary book at the beginning of his great work. He didn’t bring any other books, either because it was difficult to quickly copy them for himself before going to preach, or even because the Israelites themselves, by their separation from the Jews, indulged in idolatry and fulfilled only the ritual law of Moses (1 Kings 12:28-33). For which it was completely enough for them to have only the Pentateuch, they did not accept all the other sacred books of the Jews, considering them unnecessary for their faith, perhaps not having any respect for them, as they had appeared shortly before and were written by persons (for example, David, Solomon) whom they (the Israelites) did not respect. If the Pentateuch came to the Samaritans from the Israelites; then where did the Israelites themselves come from? Judging by the hatred that has arisen between the Israelites and the Jews since the time of their division into two kingdoms, it cannot be allowed that one or the other, after this event, could borrow from each other the Faith and the book of the law. Consequently, the appearance of the Pentateuch must be attributed to the time when both of these peoples constituted another nation. Which one exactly? It is known that the Pentateuch, in its content, was very unfavorable to the views of the first king of Israel, Jeroboam, and also to the views of the priests he chose, who did not come from the tribe of Levi, as should have been the law of Moses. Therefore, of course, they would have willingly, even at the very beginning, rejected this book if their people had not had deep confidence that the book belonged to the great lawgiver, Moses. But could this confidence have taken deep root in the hearts of the Israelites if the Pentateuch had appeared only a few decades earlier, for example, in the days of Solomon or David? In this case, would not Jeroboam and the priests chosen by him try by all means to expose the news of this book and the forgery to the people? And would not the Israelites have refused to respect it, having learned that it belonged to the reigns of David or Solomon, for whose institutions, following the example of their kings, they had no respect? As for the most ancient Jewish history from David even to the first successors of Moses: it presents us with some times of unrest, completely unfavorable for the forgery of such a book, which could only be accepted with the general consent of the entire people. Thus, the Pentateuch, which is still in the hands of the Samaritans, necessarily leads to the idea that this book owes its origin to Moses himself. § 112. b) Internal evidence Internal evidence of the authenticity of the Pentateuch of Moses is: 1) its content. In the book of Genesis we read: a) narratives - about the creation of the world and the human race, about the flood and the dispersion of people, about the origin of the first states, about the beginnings of cities, about the locations of the then regions. And all these stories not only do not contradict the most ancient historical traditions of peoples, but are even confirmed by these traditions, giving them, on their part, the proper clarity, order and completeness; b) descriptions of the home life of the patriarchs, their altars, festivities and burials, their weapons, the image of war and other activities. And again, descriptions are completely consistent with the customs of primitive humanity, about which legends, although fragmentary, were preserved in the memory of peoples and in the writings of the most ancient pagan writers 344. All this shows in the writer of the book of Genesis a man who was still close to the primitive time about which he narrates, and who used the most reliable guidance (which is inspiration from the Holy Spirit) in depicting such ancient events. In the other four books of the Pentateuch, by the way, there are a) legends about Egypt, about its political structure and laws, about its local customs and many small details (for example, Exodus 7, 18; 8, 22; 14, 6). But these details, mentioned as if in passing, and yet in all details agree with the reliable narratives about Egypt of the most ancient pagan historians and with the latest discoveries of archeology 345, especially testify that the writer of the Pentateuch himself lived in this country, was trained in all Egyptian wisdom, and generally had reliable means of knowing the truth. Are located b) detailed descriptions and even names of the places where the Israelites traveled since their exodus from Egypt, the number of each tribe, the names of the leaders and their genealogies, the calculation of the size of the tabernacle, the calculation of the materials used to maintain it, lamps, vessels, tables and everything that only served to decorate the tabernacle; The order of sacrifices is depicted in detail, the number, very nature and quality of the sacrifices, the duties of the priests and Levites, their dedication, clothing, etc. are defined. All such details are very natural and understandable when we know that these books were written by the divine lawgiver of the Jewish people. Not without a wise purpose was such a description of the places in which the most important events in the history of this people took place: it could all the more deeply imprint in the memory of the Jews the countless benefits of God to them. It was necessary to count tribes and surnames in such a way that everyone knew their place during the journey. Such a precise definition of all religious decrees is also necessary, for they were just introduced by God through Moses, and, being very numerous, could not have been accurately preserved and established in the people of Israel if they had not been contained in writing. But if the writer of the Pentateuch is not Moses, but someone else who lived in a later time, remote from the events described in the Pentateuch, when the Israelite faith with all its institutions already existed, then neither the reason nor the purpose of all these details in the description are clear. 2) Its location. Let’s not even talk about the general arrangement of the Pentateuch, about how natural it was for Moses, the first legislator and educator of the Jews, to first convey to them the concept of the origin of the world and man, about the original fate of their ancestors and all humanity, then depict before them the history of modern events: their miraculous liberation from Egypt, their miraculous journey in the desert, the miraculous legislation of Sinai. Next, set out in detail the very laws of this Divine revelation: moral, ritual and political, and finally, as if in conclusion, again briefly repeat to the children of Israel the entire will of God. Let us focus only on some particulars of the Pentateuch. In it there are repetitions of the same thoughts, and sometimes seeming contradictions, which the deceiver would try to avoid for his purpose, and could avoid with complete convenience. Very often the narratives are interrupted by long speeches and other digressions; laws are set out in a mixture with events, and by no means in the same order and severity as is the case in precise codes; in general, there is no visible deliberate care about the artificial placement and presentation of objects. All this should have been in the Pentateuch, if its writer was Moses. He described the events as these events happened, and therefore it is natural if, while narrating about something, he suddenly interrupts the story and puts his speech to the people, as it actually happened. If in the book he makes the same frequent repetitions that happened in reality, and, speaking about any incident, he immediately sets out the law for the establishment of which this incident gave rise to. Moses did not need to make skillful transitions and any philosophical considerations in his book, talking with the Jews about the events that took place before their eyes, and only wanted to more deeply imprint these remarkable events in their minds. Frequent repetitions of the same sayings, strong conversations with the people, fatherly admonitions, reproaches and threats - all this was very appropriate for Moses in reality, in his relations with the Jews, and naturally in his books. 3) His syllable. According to the testimony of experts in the Hebrew language, the syllable of the Pentateuch bears the stamp of extreme antiquity; in it they do not find any of those new words, expressions and figures of speech that have come into use among Jews since the time of David and Solomon; on the contrary, there are archaisms that are already sought in vain in the later sacred books of the Jews. To prove this, it is enough to cite two generally understandable cases. It is known that in the Pentateuch the months of the year are called not by proper names, but by numbers in the order they appear, i.e., first, second, third, etc. (Gen. 7, 11; 8, 4 and 5; Lev. 23, 34), while in the books of Kings and subsequent ones they already have their own names. In ancient times, months were indeed counted that way before they received certain names. We also know that all five books of Moses never had and do not have their own names among the Jews, but are called by the first words with which each one begins, such as: Berêschîth - at the beginning, Weêllè schemôth - these names, etc. A clear sign that these books were written at a time when the Jews did not yet have any other books: because the names of the books are given to distinguish them from one another. And now the subsequent Jewish books are indicated by their own titles. § 113. c) Indirect proof Having in mind the direct evidence of the authenticity of the Pentateuch that has been presented so far - external and internal, we can easily, with some new remarks, present indirect evidence. 1) There is no doubt, according to the testimony of the pagans, Jews and Samaritans, that Moses existed and gave the Jewish people the book of the law. Consequently, if the real Pentateuch attributed to Moses does not belong to him, then the original work of Moses was lost by the Jews and a false one was taken in its place. But - 2) The original work of Moses could not have been lost and was not lost. It could not because it constantly had to be in the hands of the judges and Levites, as the only code of political and religious laws, and, consequently, because everyone had the strongest incentives to take care of its preservation. For, without the book of the Law of Moses, neither the Levites, nor the judges, nor the people themselves could fulfill their religious and political duties. It has not been lost: for, as we have seen, Jewish writers of all times, starting with Moses himself, cite in their books passages from his Pentateuch, which, therefore, they constantly used 346. 3) And for the forgery of the Pentateuch, we cannot indicate either the time in the entire history of the Jewish people, or the method. It is undeniable that 250 years BC. the real Pentateuch existed: for then the translation of seventy interpreters was made. It also existed under Ezra: for he himself appears to be skilled in the law of Moses (1 Ezra 7:6). And since the time of Ezra, the Jews have maintained a continuous tradition about the Pentateuch, as well as about other sacred books. It existed before Ezra: for several decades before him, according to his own testimony, Zerubbabel and other compatriots, returning from the captivity of Babylon, created an altar to the God of Israel, so that they would offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses (1 Ezra 3:2). And the Samaritans asked Zerubbabel to allow them to participate in the restoration of the church, pointing out that they honor the same God with the Jews and in the same way (1 Ezra 4:2), which means they also had the Pentateuch of Moses. We see the existence of the Pentateuch both in the days of Solomon, who created the house of the Lord, where service according to the law of Moses began, and in the days of David, Saul and Samuel, who, as their history shows, knew no other law except the law of Moses. The Pentateuch existed even before Samuel: for even then the Jews already had the ark of the covenant, which was in Shechem, there was the Levitical service, the tabernacle and holidays, celebrated at certain times - and all this was in accordance with the laws prescribed in the books of Moses. In a word: gradually ascending through the entire series of times in the history of the Israeli people to Moses himself, we everywhere encounter the existence of the Mosaic Law. Even more incredible is the alleged forgery of the real Pentateuch, in place of some other work of Moses, allegedly lost, if you consider what was required of the deceiver to succeed in such an enterprise. To him - a) for this it was necessary to compile and enclose not only the Pentateuch alone, but also all the other books of the Old Testament, historical, teaching and prophetic: for in all of them there are clear indications of the Pentateuch, laws are given from it, miracles and other events set forth in it are recalled. b) it was necessary to assure all the Jews that the newly compiled books were the same ones that the Jews had revered as sacred since ancient times. To assure the judges that the laws contained in these books are the same ones according to which judgment and punishment were carried out in Israel before. To assure the priests and Levites that the sacred rites and rituals prescribed by the counterfeit books were previously performed in the church. Force all Jews to accept new, arbitrarily invented prophecies and psalms as ancient and sacred; c) finally, in order to confirm the truth of the contents of the forged Pentateuch, it was necessary to make many new institutions in the Jewish church and state and pass them off as Mosaic institutions. For example, to separate from the other tribes the whole tribe of Levi for sacred service to the altar, to establish the high priestly dignity, which is inherited through the descendants of Aaron, etc., and to assure the sons of Israel that all this originates from their most divinely inspired legislator. How many inconsistencies, difficulties and even impossibilities there are here! If after this we combine all the evidence of the authenticity of the Pentateuch of Moses, then in this respect we will have to give it complete advantage over all the ancient books known among different peoples, which, moreover, are all much newer than the Pentateuch. § 114. Integrity of the Pentateuch of Moses The integrity of the Pentateuch of Moses can be demonstrated with no less thoroughness. For significant damage could not have happened in it, and indeed it does not. 1) It couldn't happen. Let us only remember that this book was the first treasure for all Jews, as a copy of their faith, their legislation, their history and other knowledge, given by God himself, and was especially in constant use among some Jews. It is known, firstly, that the autograph of Moses, by his command, was placed and constantly kept, from the country of the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31, 26). That Moses strictly forbade anything to be added to his law or taken away from it (Deut. 4:2). And that the whole tribe of Levi, consisting of about 50,000 people, was appointed to preserve this law. It is known, secondly, that from the autograph of Moses, according to his will, a faithful copy was made for each New king or ruler, upon their very election, so that they could study the law and be guided by it (Deut. 17, 18 and 19). And that the same copies should always have been in the hands of the Levites, who, otherwise, not only would not have known the teachings of the faith, but would not even know how to make sacrifices and perform all other rites of worship. The same copies were also necessary for judges, who otherwise could not know the civil laws of their fatherland and carry out justice and punishment. They are also necessary for the people themselves, so that they can conform to these laws in matters of faith and life, public and domestic. How, after all this, can we allow the Pentateuch of Moses to be significantly damaged? It is unreasonable to assume that such damage was caused by the Jews themselves. To support it, one cannot come up with either a reason, a purpose, or the very method of the supposed event. And if, somehow and for some reason, the Jews had committed this crime, then most likely it would have been expected that they would have destroyed those passages in the Pentateuch where Moses speaks about rebellion, idolatry and other vices of the Jews, or prescribes very strict laws for them. Meanwhile, all such places are intact. It is also impossible to allow the Pentateuch to be damaged by the pagans: for how could they do this? And having damaged one, two, or even several copies, how could they spread the damage to all other copies in the hands of the Jews? How could the completely pure teaching about the One God, so inconsistent with the beliefs of the pagans, stories about his miracles, about his preferential favor towards the Jews over all pagans, etc., remain in the Pentateuch? Neither the Samaritans nor the Christians could have caused this damage, even if such an intent was assumed in them (without any reason). For the Jews, as the worst enemies of both, would not have failed to reproach them for such a great atrocity, which, however, did not happen. 2) That is why the Pentateuch of Moses has indeed been preserved intact and undamaged even to this day. The passages from the Pentateuch, or references to it 347 that are found in all subsequent holy books of the Jews, sufficiently convince us of this. The places and instructions are numerous and varied, covering almost the majority of the Pentateuch, and relating to the dogmas set forth in it, the laws of moral, ritual and political, and history. This means that the sacred writers themselves at all times loved to study this Divine book, knew it perfectly, and, despite the different times of their lives, it is the same for all of them in its content. The integrity of the Pentateuch is much more confirmed by the unanimous and constant testimony of all the Jews about it, who for centuries preserved the book of the Law of Moses with such respect and in such integrity that, according to some of them, they did not change a single word in this book 348. We have no reason not to believe the testimony of an entire people about what happened among themselves, and what could only be truly known to them alone. Finally, to complete the conviction of the integrity of the Pentateuch, some scholars 349 took special care to demolish and compare with each other all the manuscripts of the original text of the Pentateuch, even all the manuscripts of its ancient translations, such as the translation of the Seventy, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotsion, the Syrian translation, the Vulgate and various copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch. What came out of all this? That they did not find any significant difference between the ancient authentic copies, the ancient translations and between the real editions of the Pentateuch 350. § 115. Authenticity of other books of the Old Testament The authenticity of the other books of the Old Testament, like the authenticity of the Pentateuch, is proven: I. By external evidence. Among the Jews we find a continuous and universal tradition about these books: 1) Now their canon 351 contains the following books, which they recognize as Divine and undoubtedly authentic: 1) Genesis, 2) Exodus, 3) Leviticus, 4) Numbers, 5) Deuteronomy, 6) Joshua, 7) Judges, 8) two books of Samuel (or the first two books of Kings), 9) books of Kings (third and fourth), 10) Isaiah, 11) Jeremiah, 12) Ezekiel, 13) twelve minor prophets, 14) Psalms, 15) Proverbs, 16) Job, 17) Song of Songs, 18) Ruth, 19) Lamentations, 20) Ecclesiastes, 21) Esther, 22) Daniel, 23) Ezra and Nehemiah, 24) Chronicles. The Jews now divide their sacred books into twenty-four parts, according to the number of letters of the Greek alphabet. Although there are thirty-eight books in all, just as they previously counted twenty-two books, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet, for this purpose connecting the book of Ruth with the book of Judges and the Lamentations of Jeremiah with the book of his prophecies. In addition, the Jews divide all these sacred books into three, more general, sections, of which the first is called the Law 352 (352), the second is called the Prophets 353, the third is the Scriptures or sacred scriptures άγιόγραψα 354. 2) The Jews adhered to the same canon during the earthly life of the Savior, as can be seen, on the one hand, from the contemporary testimonies of Philo and Josephus, who speak of both the twenty-two sacred books of the Jews and their division into three designated parts 355. And on the other hand, from the testimonies of Jesus Christ himself and his Apostles: for in the New Testament, in addition to the fact that three classes of Old Testament books are distinguished under the name of law, prophets and psalms (Luke 24:44), passages from almost all of these books are given 356. 3) The Jews adhered to the same canon 300 years before the coming of the Savior. For Jesus the son of Sirach, in his book, which, by all accounts, appeared in Hebrew not after 300 years. before the Nativity of Christ 357, praising the glorious men of Judah, and naming Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, directly mentions the twelve Prophets (Sir. 49:12), without counting them by name. This shows that the writings of the twelve minor Prophets were already brought into one composition and known under the general name of the twelve, and that then the current canon of sacred books already existed among the Jews, in which, indeed, after Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, these twelve Prophets stand under the general name. In addition, it is known that for 250 liters. Before the coming of the Savior, a translation of the Hebrew books into Greek was made by seventy-two Jewish elders, chosen from all twelve tribes: and in this translation all the books that are in the canon of the Jews are placed. 4) According to legend, this canon goes back even to the time of Ezra and was allegedly brought into its present form by Ezra himself - a tradition that not only was and is accepted unanimously by all Jews, but was also accepted by the most famous teachers of the Christian Church: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Theodoret and others 358. In support of this legend, even today one can also point to the written evidence of Josephus and the Talmud. Josephus mentions the custom of the Jews, according to which their priests, at the end of a long war and generally troubled circumstances, usually revised the ancient writings, and, as it were, made a new edition of them - which, however, was not allowed to everyone, but only to the prophets, who knew the most ancient events, by inspiration from God (κατἀ τ ἠ ν ἑπίπυοιαν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ), and wrote the history of their time with the greatest accuracy - and after this he adds: “That is why we do not have countless books that would mutually contradict and refute one another, but there are only 22 books that embrace our entire history and are rightly revered as Divine. Of these, five belong to Moses..., in the thirteen that followed Moses, the Prophets described the events of their time from the death of Moses to the Persian king Artaxerxes, the successor of Xerxes; the remaining four books contain psalms to the glory of God and the most useful rules of life. From the time of Artaxerxes to the present day, although everything that happened is also contained in writings, these writings no longer enjoy the same respect as the previous books we have counted: because the succession of the prophets has ceased προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχὴν )" 359. From these words it is clear: a) that when the Jews returned from the captivity of Babylon, it was natural, due to the custom that existed among them, to make a revision and, as it were, a new edition of the sacred books; b) that such a deed could only be done by one priest-prophet, or several together, and c) that the Jewish canon, which exists to this day, was finally compiled at this very time, during the reign of Artaxerxes. To whom can this matter be attributed with more thoroughness, if not Ezra? This is why Artaxerxes sent him to Jerusalem to restore the church and everything related to the Faith; was a priest of God who had the gift of prophecy, and, as history testifies, all he did upon returning to his fatherland was that he cared with the greatest zeal for the restoration of true reverence and piety among the Israelites, taught them the law of God and, without a doubt, not without reason was called the scribe of the book of the words of the commandments of the Lord and his commandments in Israel (1 Ezra 7:10-12). One can, however, believe that Ezra was not alone in revising St. books and, as it were, published them again. His assistants, in all likelihood, were the prophets who were still living then - Haggai and Zechariah, whose works were included in his canon, as well as the prophet Malachi and Nehemiah (2 Macc. 2:13), who also lived during the reign of Artaxerxes, during which the sacred canon was finally compiled, and contributed their books to it. As for the testimony of the Jewish Talmud about the origin of the canon: in one of the oldest parts of it (the Talmud), called the chapter of the fathers, at the very beginning the following is read: “Moses received the law from Sinai, passed it on to Jesus; Jesus to the ancient ancestors; ancestors - to the prophets; prophets to the members of the great synagogue"; Elsewhere in the Talmud it is said even more clearly and definitely that the canon of the holy books of Judaism ends with the great synagogue 360, which, as is known, according to the teachings of the Talmudists, was formed precisely in the days of Ezra. 5) However, it does not at all follow from this that before Ezra and before the final formation of the canon, Judea did not have a canon of sacred books and did not use them. They vouch for the opposite of this - a) The aforementioned testimony of Josephus about the custom of the Jewish priests and prophets, after each long war, to revise the ancient writings and, as it were, publish them again, a custom that had already ended under Artaxerxes and Ezra, and, therefore, was formed and established in previous times. b) That, indeed, the most ancient Jewish sacred writers added their books to the Pentateuch of Moses, which was located from the land of the ark in the tabernacle, and thus included them in the sacred canon. So, about Joshua we read: and Jesus wrote this word into the book of the law of God (Joshua 24:26), that is, he added his Scripture to the Pentateuch (for the Jews did not have another book of the law of God at that time) so that the book of Joshua with the books of Moses constituted one copy, one canon. In the same way, Samuel, having made public the justifications for the kingdom, wrote it in a book and laid it before the Lord (1 Sam. 10:25). The expression: in the book (basepher) shows that here we are talking about a well-known, already existing book, to which Samuilov’s book was only an addition, multiplying the existing collection of the sacred canon; and the expression: lay it before the Lord clearly indicates a similar position of the Pentateuch from the land of the ark in the tabernacle. c) Links of the later sacred books themselves to the previous ones. Thus, the book of Joshua, or what is contained in it, is mentioned in the book of Judges. The events described in the book of Judges, as well as in the book of Joshua, are spoken of in the books of Kings and Psalms, etc. (which is easy to see from one look at the parallel places indicated in the bibles). The second book of Chronicles, the book of Daniel and Ezra mention a prophecy regarding the seventy-year captivity of Babylon and attribute this prophecy to Jeremiah (2 Chron. 36, 20-21; Dan. 9, 2; 1 Ezra 1, 1). Jeremiah himself testifies to Micah, who prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah (Jer. 26, 18), and cites clear passages from Habakkuk (Jer. 5, 6 with Hab. 1, 6 and 8; Jer. 12, 1 with Hab. 1, 13; Jer. 25, 27 with Hab. 2, 16). d) Finally, the legend that the Jews, much earlier than Ezra, had other sacred books besides the Pentateuch of Moses. Thus, regarding the book of the prophet Isaiah, Josephus tells the following incident. The reason why King Cyrus of Persia allowed the Israelites to return to their own country was the prophecy of Isaiah, which was explained to him and amazed him. the city of Jerusalem and the captivity of the people of God will return (Isa. 45, 1-14). The initial words of Kirov’s decree on this occasion, preserved in the book of Ezra, sufficiently confirm the justice of Flavian’s story: the Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, says Cyrus, and commanded her that I will build him a house in Jerusalem, likewise in Judea (1 Ezra 1:2). Isn’t it natural to think that here - the commandment - directly points to the said prophecy of Isaiah, especially if both of these places are removed? That’s why Josephus gives the beginning of Kirov’s decree in the following form: I believe that Almighty God, who gave me all the kingdoms of the earth, is the God of the Israelites, for He foretold my name through His prophets, and announced that I would renew his temple in Jerusalem” 361. If all this is true, it means that the Jews were still in the time of Cyrus, i.e. about 536 years ago. before Jesus Christ, had in their hands and recognized the prophecies of Isaiah as authentic. Not only that: the tradition of the authenticity of these prophecies goes back even to the time of their origin. For the Talmud clearly states that Hezekiah and his academy included the book of the prophet Isaiah among the sacred books 362; and during the reign of Hezekiah Isaiah prophesied. II. Internal evidence. When carefully examining the style and content of the Old Testament books, one cannot help but admit that they were written by different persons, at different times, and are completely consistent with the character and circumstances of those particular persons and time periods to which they are usually attributed. The syllable in all these books turns out to be different, and bears the imprint of different degrees of development of the Hebrew language. Thus, in the book of the prophet Isaiah, this language is pure, correct, and, one might say, appears in all its perfection. In the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, it is already mixed with some Chaldean phrases, in accordance with the then situation of the Jews. In general, in the sacred books written shortly before the captivity and during the captivity of Babylon, the Hebrew style is not entirely pure, not so clear and tends to decline. The book of the prophet Daniel is written partly in Hebrew (from the very beginning to verse 4 of the second chapter, and then from chapter 8 to the very end), and partly in Chaldean (from the 4th article of chapter 2 to the end of chapter 7). In the same way, the first book of Ezra was written partly in Hebrew, partly in Chaldean (in the latter from 8th article 4 to 19th article 6, and then from 12th article 7 to 27th article of the same chapter). A clear sign that the last two books were written by such persons and for such readers who were familiar with both languages; and such, indeed, were Daniel, Ezra and the modern Jews who were in captivity in Babylon. Let us not mention some special idioms of syllables that are found in some sacred books and not in others, and clearly show the difference between writers. The same difference appears in the content of the sacred books of the Old Testament. Each divinely inspired writer has his own order of presentation of thoughts, his own distinctive way of describing events (for even the souls of prophecy, as St. Apostle Paul testified, obey the prophet (1 Cor. 14:32). And God, inspiring his messengers with supernatural revelation, did not, however, deprive them of natural abilities to convey this revelation to other people). Everywhere in these books you see a reflection of the morals of different times, a reflection of the different political circumstances of the Jewish people and often neighboring peoples - and all this is in full accordance with the time of life and the character of the sacred writers themselves. Everyone knows that the prophet Isaiah is distinguished by his particularly elevated thoughts, clarity and accuracy in his presentation; the tone of the prophet Jeremiah, mainly in his Lamentations, is a gentle and, as it were, lamentable tone; Ezekiel's prophecy is imbued with mystery, full of symbols, comparisons, allegories, parables, descriptions, personifications. In addition, the same, for example, Ezekiel, who lived in Arabia among the Chaldeans, depicts exactly the same events that were contemporary with him. He represents Nebuchadnezzar as the conqueror of the Jews, sees Jerusalem destroyed, the church desecrated, the Jews taken into captivity and divided among the tongues; as a consolation to the unfortunate captives, he foreshadows to them another David, a new Jerusalem, a new church in which the Lord will forever establish his dwelling. The Prophet Daniel reveals a perfect knowledge of the morals and customs of Babylon, the terrain of this country, the political and religious state of its inhabitants, and depicts this with the greatest accuracy 363. In general, you can notice that many of the books of the Old Testament, especially historical ones, are like a kind of diaries. In them, the order of times is observed, descriptions of places are found, names and surnames of people are mentioned, genealogies of generations, succession of kings and high priests are kept; in a word, all sorts of, often the slightest and almost insignificant, details are noticed. What is the most natural way to explain this, if not by the fact that the books of the Old Testament actually took place at different times, and were written by persons who lived in those times, and knew those places about which they speak with such accuracy? III. Impossibility of forgery. An impossibility both on the part of the person who would decide to do such an act, and on the part of the Jews, who supposedly accepted and still maintain counterfeit books as genuine and Divine. It is absolutely impossible for a deceiver, no matter what his abilities, to forge more than thirty books, so consistent with the characters and circumstances of different persons and different periods of time - books so dissimilar from each other in subjects, in tone of presentation, and especially in syllables, which bear the indelible stamp of different degrees of development of the Hebrew language. To assume that there are many deceivers, whether contemporary with each other, or who lived at different times, there is not the slightest basis and is clearly reckless. Those persons to whom St. The books of the Old Testament, and especially the Prophets, were well-known and famous persons among the Jews. Acting in the name of Jehovah, they openly and boldly proclaimed the will of God. Hear the word of the Lord (2 Kings 7:1; Jer. 2:4), they cried, appearing everywhere, and each of their prophecies was, as it were, a public matter, and greatly aroused the attention of their fellow citizens; and some predictions concerning the kingdom of Judah itself produced great movements throughout the entire nation. That is why the memory of the Prophets and their prophecies passed down among the Jews from generation to generation. How could it now happen that the prophecies, fictitious and issued under the names of prophets known to all, were accepted by the Jews as genuine? This is all the more incredible because the Jews were very picky and cautious in accepting books as Divine books: for this they certainly demanded that a famous book be included in the sacred canon by some prophet. And therefore they did not agree to include in this canon the books of Tobias, Judith, Jesus son of Sirach and the Maccabees, although they attribute great importance to these books 364. § 116. Their integrity “If anyone were to say, notes Blessed Jerome, that the Jewish books were damaged by the Jews, let him listen to how Origen answers this question in the eighth book of his interpretations of Isaiah: never did the Lord and the Apostles, who convicted the scribes and Pharisees of other crimes, denounce them of this crime, which would be the greatest. And if they say that the Jewish books were damaged after the coming of the Savior and after the preaching of the Apostles, I cannot help but laugh at the thought that the Savior, the evangelists and the Apostles could provide evidence in the same way that the Jews later had to spoil them.”365 To this fundamental remark, the force of which cannot but be felt from the first time, we can add the following: 1) It is absolutely incredible that the Jews could damage their sacred books before the coming of the Savior: for they are a) did not then have the slightest incentive to do so; on the contrary, they had every incentive to guard these books with the greatest care, as monuments containing sweet promises about the coming Savior, by which alone they could recognize him. In addition - b) it is positively known from the testimonies of Philo and Josephus that the Jews were distinguished then, as they still are, by the deepest respect for their sacred books, so that they had a kind of certain reverence for God for every word and for every letter of the Bible. And that for centuries not one of them dared to add anything to it or subtract from it 366. That is why Tryphon the Jew, in the famous conversation of St. Justina, noticing that this latter suspects his fellow tribesmen of corrupting the Holy Scriptures, expresses that this is a crime that in the eyes of a Jew is much more important than worshiping the golden calf, sacrificing children to idols and killing the Prophets. Finally - c) significant damage to the St. cannot be allowed. books before the coming of the Savior, whether from the Jews or the pagans, already at the mere thought of God’s providence. If the main goal of these books was to prepare the human race for the recognition and acceptance of the Messiah, then this goal could not be fully achieved if they were significantly damaged. This special providence of God for the preservation of the Old Testament writings, so important for proving the Divinity of the Christian faith, was often pointed out by the ancient defenders of Christianity 367. 2) The idea that the Jews allegedly damaged the Old Testament books significantly after the coming of Christ is also completely unfair. This they couldn't do a) already as a result of his scattering, and with them the scattering of copies of the Bible, across almost the entire earth 368; b) because many of the Jews, from the very beginning of Christianity, entered the bowels of the Church of Christ and brought into it copies of the Hebrew Bible, which, of course, should have been preserved from damage, even if all the other copies that remained in the hands of the Jews who did not believe in the Messiah were somehow, through malicious intent, damaged by them; c) due to the existence between these Jews of two mutually hostile sects, the sect of rabbis, ardent zealots of tradition, and the sect of Karaites, strictly adhering to the letter of Scripture: if the Masorets (rabbinists), as some suggest, had definitely made important and significant changes in the sacred text, the Karaites would never have agreed to accept these changes, and there would have to be a difference between the lists of both. But there is no such difference. Worthy of note and d) that if the Jews, out of hatred for Christians, decided to raise a sacrilegious hand against their Divine Bible, they, without a doubt, would first of all spoil those striking prophecies in it, which serve as one of the fundamental foundations of our faith and the first denunciation of their unbelief and bitterness; but such prophecies are all intact 369. II. ON THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS 370 § 117. Authenticity of the Four Gospels a) external evidence External evidence of the authenticity of the Four Gospels comes from the testimonies of the Orthodox teachers of the Church and from the testimonies of its enemies, pagans and heretics. There is an extremely large amount of both evidence, and an unbroken chain of them could be drawn through the entire series of centuries from the advent of Christianity to the present time. But there is no need for such an undertaking: because the most stubborn opponents of the authenticity of our gospels agree that they have existed since the beginning of the third century. This means that it is enough for us to present evidence of the Four Gospels relating only to the first two centuries. I. In the last half of the second century, the Four Gospels undoubtedly existed and were generally known throughout the Christian world, in the East and in the West: for here and there we see the use of our Gospels not only in the Church itself, but also among its enemies. 1) In the Church itself. Clement of Alexandria, who became the head of the famous Alexandrian school from the year 189, cites numerous passages from all our four gospels 371, as from such descriptions, the Divine importance of which is beyond the slightest doubt, sometimes mentioning, moreover, the names of the evangelists themselves 372. To understand the importance of this witness, one must take into account, firstly, the fact that he was a student of Panten and spoke with the most ancient teachers of the Church, the Apostolic men, from whom, of course, he learned about the authenticity of the Four Gospels. And secondly, the fact that Clement, as a presbyter of Alexandria and as a teacher of the school from which the shepherds for the entire local region came, in this case serves for us as a representative of the belief of the entire church of Alexandria regarding the gospels, which was even more definitely expressed by his disciple Origen (by education dating back to the end of the second century) in the following words; “I learned about the four gospels from tradition that they alone, without any contradiction, are accepted in the entire church of God under the sun, namely: the first gospel was written by Matthew, the second... etc.” 373. Athenagoras of Athens, in his apology, published about the year 177, quotes the exact words from the gospels of Matthew and Luke 374, and, as a teacher of the same Alexandrian school, presents new evidence of the beliefs of the church of Alexandria regarding the gospels. Theophilus of Antioch was so convinced of the Divine importance and authenticity of the four gospels that he wrote a commentary on them, which, although it has not reached us, was known to the blessed one. Jerome, citing from him an explanation of one parable 375. In addition, in his essay to Autolycus, which has survived to this day, Theophilus cites texts from the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, calling the latter by name 376. As Bishop of Antioch, Theophilus had to know and approve the beliefs of all the private churches under his jurisdiction, and therefore in his voice one can hear the voice of all western Christian Syria. Tertullian (even before his deviation from Orthodoxy) expresses himself in the most definite way about the four gospels, claiming that they were written by the Apostles, or disciples of the Apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and proving the importance of these gospels, on the one hand, by the fact that they have existed in the Apostolic churches continuously since the time of the Apostles themselves, and on the other, by the fact that since the time of their origin they have been recognized as authentic and Divine both by the Apostolic and all other churches 377 . Tertullian, the African presbyter and the most famous scientist of his time, is without any doubt the most reliable witness in this case to the beliefs of the African Church and even all others. Just as many clear sayings about the Four Gospels are found in St. Irenaeus: “We learned, he says, about the economy of our salvation not from anyone else, but from those through whom the gospel came to us, which they first preached, and then, by the will of God, handed down to us in the scriptures, as the future pillar and foundation of our faith.” And having said this, St. the father lists the names of the gospels themselves and the evangelists in the exact order in which they remain to this day 378. A little lower, in the same work, he claims that there are no more or less gospels, just four. And he sees in this their mysterious relationship to the four countries of the world in which the Church is planted 379. Not only this: according to St. Irenaeus, such was the reliability of all our four gospels already in his time that the heretics themselves testified about them, each trying to confirm his teaching in places from these gospels 380. Let us now remember that Irenaeus was a contemporary of the direct disciples of the Apostles, from whom, as he himself confesses, he loved to learn with great care and in particular was for a long time the closest disciple of St. Polycarp, the closest disciple of the Evangelist John. Let us also not forget that Irenaeus, having left Asia, where his youth and upbringing had passed, before arriving in Lyon, visited up to half of the then Christian world, and could conveniently find out everything that was happening in it. Then, while still a presbyter, on some church matters, he visited Rome, and ended his days in Gaul as Bishop of Lyons. It is clear that he could receive information about the Gospels no more than secondhand, from the Apostolic men, and that his testimony vouches for the beliefs of not only the Church of Lyons, but also the entire Western and even almost the entire Universal Church. And therefore, with complete justice, we can say: if there were no other evidence from the second century about our four gospels, one testimony of Irenaeus could indisputably establish their authenticity. However, we cannot remain silent here about two more Christian testimonies of that time regarding the gospels, and testimonies of a special kind. This is, firstly, the Syriac translation of the four gospels from the Greek original, known as the simple translation (peshito) and dating back to at least the last half of the second century 382 (new evidence of the belief in the authenticity of all the gospels of the Syrian church!). And secondly, a catalog of sacred books opened by the Muratorium in one manuscript of the Milan Library, which is believed to be at least a thousand years old. This catalog must date back to at least the second century. For the one by whom it was originally written says that the book of Erma was compiled in his time, under the Roman Bishop Pius 1st. Consequently, the catalog itself was drawn either under Pius I, or not later, as under his successor Anicetus, whom St. Polycarp. And this ancient catalog of sacred books also lists all our four gospels 383 . 2) The enemies of the Church are: the pagan philosopher Celsus and the disciples of the heretic Valentinus. From the numerous passages of Celsus's work against the Christians (which was written about the middle of the second century) preserved by Origen, it is evident that Celsus knew all our four gospels. Thus, in one place he confesses that he himself saw some barbaric books among the Christian priests, in which were inscribed the names of demons and stories about the blind 384; in another he says that he borrows objections against Christians from their own writings - and Origen, refuting him, calls these writings our gospels, and generally reproaches this philosopher for reading our gospels without proper attention; in the third place, Celsus mentions that it was his disciples who wrote the history of Jesus' actions 385; finally, he even directly calls these writings the gospel (ἐυαγγέλιον), a name that shows that in the days of Celsus not only did our gospels exist, but they were already brought into one composition or canon 386. In particular, it is certain that Celsus knew: 1) The Gospel of Matthew: for it speaks of all the events described in the first two chapters of this gospel, and hushed up by other evangelists, such as: about the star that guided the Magi, about their journey to Bethlehem, about the gifts they brought to the born Messiah, about Herod’s persecution against Jesus, the appearance of an Angel to Joseph on this occasion, Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt. He says and himself admits that he borrowed all this from the Christian Gospels 387. Further, Celsus cites many rules from the Savior’s conversation on the mount; talks about the calling of the Apostles; he writes out the very words from the Evangelist Matthew: when you are persecuted in this city, flee to another (Matthew 10:23); mentions the betrayal of Judas, the denials of Peter, the prayer of Jesus Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me (Matthew 26:39), about the cup of milk and gall offered to the Savior during his suffering, about the darkness and earthquake during his death and about many other incidents, as they are described by the Evangelist Matthew 388. Celsus knew 2) The Gospel of Mark: for, in addition to indicating many such events about which he could obtain information both from this and from other gospels, Celsus conveys in another of his objections a particular case, the basis of which could only be borrowed from the Gospel of Mark. Precisely by asserting that the risen Savior was seen only by one wife, frightened and frantic (πάροιστρ o ς) 389. The objector could have based such an idea only on a place in the Evangelist Mark (16, 5 and 8), not found in any of the other evangelists - the place where it is narrated that the women who came to the tomb of the Savior, seeing the Angel in the tomb, were horrified (ἐξεθαμβήθησαν) and left fleeing from the tomb, they were overcome by awe and horror (τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις). Celsus knew - 3) Gospel of Luke: for in one place he complains about the pride of Christian genealogists (τούς γενεαλογἡσαντας), who trace the genealogy of Jesus even to the first man - Adam 390, a detail belonging exclusively to the evangelist Luke (3, 25-38); knew and 4) The Gospel of John: for it points 391 to the Christian teaching about the Word, which is the Son of God; that blood and water flowed from the pierced rib of the crucified Savior; calls it light, belly, etc. - all the details that we find only in the Evangelist John. About the heretics Valentinians St. Irenaeus noted in general that they preferred the Gospel of John to the other Gospels (which, therefore, they also accepted), and the passages cited by Irenaeus from the writings of the Valentinians completely confirm this conclusion 392. One of Valentine's first students, Heracleon - a) compiled a commentary on the Gospel of John, from which Origen preserved many passages; b) also wrote a commentary on the Gospel of Luke, as one can guess based on one larger passage cited from this commentary by Clement of Alexandria; c) finally, in his commentary on John, he cites the words of the Evangelist Matthew twice, with the addition: according to the Gospel 393. Another, no less glorious student of Valentinus, Theodotus, accepted all four Gospels. In an extract from his writings, which was made by one student devoted to him, and was preserved at the end of the works of Clement of Alexandria, - a) many of the words of the Savior are given, with complete accuracy, as they are set forth by the Evangelists Matthew, Luke and John; b) it tells about the Savior’s stay in the desert with those details that are found only in the Evangelist Mark; c) and the expression occurs three times: the Apostle said, before the texts cited from the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John 394. The third, most famous student of Valentinus, Ptolemy, in his letter to Flora, preserved by Epiphanius 395, repeats many passages from the Gospel of Matthew and one from the Gospel of John with the addition: said the Apostle. The fourth disciple of Valentine, Mark, according to the testimony of St. Irenaeus, attached to his teaching about the aeons many passages from the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and one from the Gospel of Mark 396. Taking together the evidence we have given so far, we must conclude that all our four Gospels existed and constituted a definite canon not only in the last half of the second century, but also in the first: for, undoubtedly, the book from which passages in any writings are cited must have been written before these writings, and in order for the Gospels to be able to spread throughout all the Christian churches located in Asia, Europe and Africa, they could be unanimously accepted by all Christians and to become known to the pagans themselves - all this required quite a lot of time. II. But there are, in addition, direct, reliable witnesses who clearly confirm that the Four Gospels definitely existed in the first half of the second century. These are – 1) From among the church writers of that time: St. martyr Justin, St. Polycarp and Papias. a) in one of his apologies he speaks of the memorial books of the Apostles (ἀπομνημονέυματα τῶν ὰποστόλων), which were read by Christians in sacred assemblies and were usually called Gospels: what about St. Justin actually understood our Gospels; this is immediately vouched for by the passage he cited from the mentioned books about the establishment of the Eucharist in such expressions as we find in St. Matthew, Mark and Luke 397 ; b) in all his writings he assumes the Gospel story to be certain, trying, for example, in his conversation with Tryphon the Jew to prove the perfect agreement of the Old Testament prophecies with the events of the life of Christ in the form exactly as they are depicted by our Evangelists; c) finally, in different places of his writings, he cites numerous texts from all our four Gospels almost word for word 398. The circumstances of the life of St. Justin greatly exalts the importance of his testimony. Born at the beginning of the second century (103) in Palestine, he, no doubt, could have known many of those people who lived with St. Simeon, a disciple and close relative of the Savior himself, who was the second bishop in Jerusalem and suffered martyrdom in 107; could also know the disciples of St. John the Evangelist, who died around 100 AD, and treat both those and others. In addition, he traveled to Rome, where he wrote his second apology, stayed for a long time in Alexandria, passed through Asia Minor, and in Ephesus composed his conversation with Tryphon. This means that he visited all the most famous Christian churches at that time, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Ephesus and Rome, and he himself could directly find out which Gospels were used in them. St. Polycarp, Apostolic husband, disciple of St. John the Theologian and the Bishop of Smyrna, in his letter to the Philippiseys, written around the year 107 (item 2 and item 7), cites passages from the Gospels of Matthew (5, 3 and 10; 6, 13; 26, 41), Mark (14, 38), and Luke (6, 37 and 38). And if he does not cite a single passage from the Gospel of John, he cites (item 7) words from the first letter of this Apostle (4, 3). And everyone has taken it for granted that this epistle could not have had any other writer than the one who wrote the Gospel of John. It should be remembered here that, in addition to the message from St. Polycarp has come down to us five passages in the Latin translation of the sixth century, which the best critics recognize as authentic. In the third of these passages, St. the father gives us the most striking evidence that in his time all our Gospels with the names of the Evangelists themselves were already known, and, moreover, no more, no less than four 399. Contemporary of St. Polycarp, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (who himself tells the following about himself: “When I met any of the ancients who lived with the Apostles, I carefully tried to ask what they taught, what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord said, what the priests Aristion and John, who were also among the disciples of the Lord, said”) - this same Papias in the same way composition, according to the testimony of Eusebius, he clearly conveyed from the ancients, and especially from his teacher the priest John, the legend that one Gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew, another by Mark, a companion of the Apostle Peter, and cites texts from the first letter of John - which, like St. Polycarp, gives testimony about the Gospel of John 400. 2) But if, due to the loss of many Christian works of the first half of the second century (for example, some works of St. Justin and Papias), little evidence from the Church itself about our Four Gospels has reached us from that time: for this reason, completely clear evidence about it has been preserved from the enemies of the Church, heretics, and, therefore, the evidence is all the more important. Tatian, who was a student of St. Justin, and then became the head of the Encratite or Severian sect, a) before he deviated from Orthodoxy, he wrote a book against the pagans, in which he cites two exact passages from the Gospel of John 401; b) and by deviation, he composed his own four Gospels (διὰ τεσσάρων), in which, taking texts from all our four Gospels, he tried to arrange these texts so that a consistent history of Jesus Christ would emerge. And he did not make any additions to them on his own, but only maliciously omitted everything that was contrary to his errors, and especially relating to the genealogy of the Savior and his descent from David. For the authenticity of this work by Tatsianov - a) Eusebius, Epiphanius and Theodoret vouch: the testimony of the latter is all the more remarkable because he, having become the bishop of Syria, himself found in his diocese more than two hundred copies of this book, which was used not only by the followers of Tatian, but, through the cunning of the heretics, even by some of the Orthodox; and, therefore, he himself could see and figure out whether the heretical four Gospels were actually extracted from our four Gospels, as he says: otherwise, of course, he would not have affirmed this thought before his contemporaries 402; b) another ancient Syrian writer vouches, saying the following: “Tatian, a disciple of Justin the martyr and philosopher, compiled one Gospel out of four, and called it ∆ιὰ τεσσάρων; the first words of this work are: in the beginning there is the Word “403; c) finally, it also guarantees that the followers of Tatian actually accepted our Gospels, as well as the Mosaic Law and the books of the Prophets, rejecting only the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Apostle Paul 404. What other proof can one ask for that in the first half of the second century all our four Gospels existed, and in a certain canon, if the disciple of St. Justina undoubtedly used them as the writings of the Apostles?.. A student, no doubt, would not have accepted such an important truth for a Christian if his teacher had not accepted it. Therefore, if the evidence about the Four Gospels, extracted from the few surviving writings of St. himself, does not seem entirely decisive. Justin (while those who died, perhaps, were the most accurate and perfect): then isn’t the voice of a disciple a sufficient guarantee for him?.. How Marcion, another famous heresy leader at that time, looked at our four Gospels is quite well known from the refutations of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. The first says that Marcion, accepting with respect one Gospel of Luke, reviled the other three, not because he did not recognize them as genuine, that is, as coming from the Apostles and their disciples, but only because the Apostles, not understanding the teaching of Christ, mixed into it in these Gospels much of the Old Testament teaching of the Jews (of which Marcion was an enemy), while the Evangelist Luke (from whom Marcion thought to find confirmation of his thoughts), writing under the direct supervision of St. Ap. Paul, avoided this 405. The latter (Tertullian) reminds Marcion that he, too, once believed in the story of the Evangelist Matthew about the manger of the Savior and the worship of the shepherds and wise men to him, as he himself confessed in one of his letters 406. He reproaches the heretic for rejecting the Gospels, which apparently condemn him, and damaging even what he accepted, whereas John’s Gospel alone could have overthrown his false teaching 407 . Finally, wanting to prove to the enemy that the Gospel accepted by the Church is true and not damaged, on the contrary, Marcion’s Gospel is untrue and damaged, the famous teacher points out that the first is older than the last, was accepted until a certain time by Marcion himself, and has its origins continuously from the Apostles themselves in all the Apostolic and other churches 408 . It is impossible not to notice that if Marcion had not believed in the origin of the Gospels he rejected from the Apostles, would he not have taken advantage of this plausible means to justify himself? And Tertullian, having examined all Marcion’s justifications in order, would he have omitted this one thing and not tried to give a complete answer to such an important question? On the other hand, if our Four Gospels had not, indeed, been unanimously accepted by the entire Church in the days of Marcion: how would Tertullian have dared to oppose it in this case with the testimony of the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippiseans, Thessalonians, Romans and the Asian churches founded by St. John? If it were not also known at that time that our Gospels have been preserved in the Apostolic churches, precisely since the time of the saints themselves. Apostolov: could the most famous learned Christian man have opposed this to the learned heretic? The same applies to the third, contemporary Marcion, heresy leader Valentinus, who appeared with his false teaching around the year 134, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius testify that this heretic only distorted the meaning of our Gospels, and did not at all reject them 409. Even more interesting here is the ancient news about Basilides and Carpocrates, such heresy leaders who lived very close to the times of the Apostles themselves. The teachers of the Church, who refuted the errors of Carpocrates, nowhere reproach him for rejecting the authenticity of our Gospels; on the contrary, they assert that the followers of this heretic tried to base their own opinions on the texts of the Gospels 410. And Basilides, according to his contemporary Agrippa Castor, who wrote refutations of him 411, even compiled up to twenty-four books on the Gospel (τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον). This expression, used by Agrippa and then by Eusebius without any deliberate remark, of course, means for them the same thing that it generally and always meant among Christians, that is, the entire Four Gospels accepted by the Church. Otherwise, if we were talking about some kind of false Gospel, or corrupted by heretics, Agrippa and Eusebius would not have used, against the general custom, the sacred expression of the Church τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον without a decent reservation. We are silent about the fact that Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Epiphanius, who wrote against the followers of Basilides, nowhere reproach them for rejecting the authenticity of our Gospels. III. Finally, there are sufficient grounds to assert that in the first century our Gospels were known, each from the time of its origin, with the exception of the Gospel of John, which appeared towards the end of this century (about 98). This idea follows from the previous one. It is impossible that the writers of the first half, even the first quarter of the second century, who favored and did not favor the Church, agreed together and without any reason to recognize some of the writings of the Apostles themselves, if they had not accepted testaments to this effect from their teachers, their fathers and ancestors... It is all the more incredible that these writings, about which no one had heard anything before, were suddenly accepted by the entire Church, which was already then in different countries of the world, and became the rule of universal belief Christian. No, if at the beginning of the second century they looked at our Gospels with such respect, then this respect, without a doubt, passed on from the first century. Only a few, and even brief, epistles have survived from the Apostolic men of the first century; Fortunately, in these few but precious monuments there is a lot of evidence of our Four Gospels. St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Bishop of Antioch († 107), who personally knew many of the Apostles, and spent most of his life under St. John the Evangelist, - a) mentions the division of St. Scriptures on the Gospel (which, therefore, existed), Apostles and Prophets 412; b) convinces those believers who said: “if I don’t find it in the archives, then I won’t believe the Gospel” to adhere to the teachings of Christ 413; c) expresses the idea that the Gospel contains stories about the coming, suffering and resurrection of the Savior 414; d) and, finally, he cites passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke 415, although he does not mention where he borrows them from. In the message of St. Barnabas, written about the year 76, there are two exact passages from the Gospel of Matthew, namely; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance 416 (Epist. cap. 5 - Matt. 9:13); many are callings, but few are chosen (ibid. p. 4 - Matt. 22:14), and - one place from the Gospel of Luke; Give to everyone who asks you 417 (ibid. p. 19 - Luke 6:30). But the most remarkable thing is that, citing the words; Many are the essence of titles..., the Apostolic husband added: as it is written 418, and thus testified that he borrowed these words not from any oral tradition, but from a written one. Finally, St. Clement of Rome, who lived and treated many of the Apostles, especially Peter and Paul, - a) in his first letter to the Corinthians, he cites, although not literally, many of the sayings of the Savior found in our first three Gospels, and, bringing them, invites Christians only to remember these sayings - which obviously assumes that they, and, consequently, the Gospels, were already known to believers 419; b) in his second letter to the Corinthians, in addition to citing passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke 420, in one case he uses the expression: Scripture speaks 421, and in the other: the Lord speaks in the Gospel 422, although not everywhere he offers the very texts letter by letter. Justice requires that 1) that many writings of the first century have not reached us 423, and among them some even from the writings of the Apostolic men, for example, St. Clement and St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, as the surviving excerpts from them show 424: and in these writings there could be complete and accurate evidence about our saints. Gospels; 2) that if the Apostolic men in their writings that have come down to us, citing passages from the Gospels, for the most part do not point to the Gospels themselves: then it does not at all follow from here that these passages are cited from some other source: for - a) these saints, for the most part, do the same thing. fathers, and citing texts from the books of the Old Testament, which undoubtedly existed then; b) we do this very often, although no one will conclude that we cite passages not from Scripture; c) in some cases, as we have seen, the Apostolic men clearly expressed that they were borrowing words from Scripture, or from the Gospel; 3) if, finally, these venerable men repeat passages from our Gospels, for the most part, not word for word: then, without a doubt, because they quoted the texts not directly from sacred manuscripts, but from memory, as St. Justin, many Christian writers have acted and acted very often, at all times. So, here before us, from the first two centuries of Christianity, are more than twenty witnesses confirming the authenticity of our Four Gospels: eleven of them belong to the number of Orthodox Christians, ten to the number of enemies of the Church. Of the first five, namely: St. Barnabas, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Polycarp and Papias, as direct disciples and men of the Apostles, could learn about the authenticity of the Gospels first-hand, from the Apostles themselves, and, therefore, are witnesses of the greatest importance. Meanwhile, in them alone, if not in each separately, then collectively we find 1) clear passages from all our Gospels: most of all from the Gospel of Matthew 425, which, having appeared before others, managed to quickly spread among Christians; then from the Gospel of Luke 426; further from the Gospel of Mark 427, and, finally, from the Gospel of John, which, being written towards the end of the first century, is cited only by St. Polycarp, and the other Apostolic men who lived before that time could not even have been known; 2) we often encounter legends that they cite these passages not from oral tradition preserved since the time of the Savior in the Church, but from the Scriptures, or even more directly, from the Gospel 428; 3) finally, we find the very names of all four Evangelists and a clear hint about the number of Gospels 429. The remaining six Christian writers are almost all disciples of the Apostolic men, or at least had the opportunity to deal closely with them. Consequently, they could have heard about the authenticity of the Four Gospels secondhand and nothing more than thirdhand: that means, again, witnesses of high importance. These witnesses are not only all together, but even each individually, alone, for example, St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Justin, cite numerous passages from all our Gospels with a direct reference to the Gospels, and others, such as St. Irenaeus and Tertullian also speak about the fourfold number of the Gospels and directly name their writers. As for the evidence about the authenticity of the Four Gospels from the enemies of the Church, one could not wish for better evidence: a) because this is the essence of the evidence of enemies; b) enemies, often very learned (like Celsus), who lived very close to the beginning of Christianity, and, therefore, had every opportunity to expose Christians in the forgery of the Gospels, if such a forgery existed; c) enemies, most of whom - almost all heretics - had respect for our Gospels, one or even all of them, although they allowed themselves to distort them; d) finally, according to the accuracy, completeness and certainty of these testimonies: thus Celsus clearly mentions the holy books of Christianity, calls them the Gospel, and cites passages from all four Evangelists; Heracleon composed commentaries on the Gospel of John and Luke; Tatian - his four Gospels from all our Evangelists, and so on. 430 § 118 b) Internal evidence Considering our Gospels in terms of content, we not only do not find anything in them that would contradict their authenticity, on the contrary, we find complete consistency: I. with the properties of the writers to whom they are attributed, II. with the time when these writers lived, or the events they described took place, and III. with the area where the former lived, or the latter occurred. I. It is impossible not to recognize the evangelists here at first glance. The Greek language in which the Gospels are written, 431 as those who have carefully analyzed it admit, is not a purely Greek language, but, by the meaning of many words, by entire expressions and turns of speech, bears the indelible stamp of the Hebrew language and testifies that the writers of the Gospels were Jews by origin. This is exactly what St. Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This complete artlessness and simplicity in the depiction of events, which is seen in the Gospels, these frequent references to the sacred books of the Jews, to persons and incidents from their history, show that the writers of the Gospels were completely unfamiliar with the secular education of the Greeks and with their artificial historical method, were not rich in worldly information, and knew only one Hebrew Bible. Such were the saints. Evangelists. Finally, this naturalness and vividness with which the events are described in the Gospels involuntarily makes us assume that the writers themselves were eyewitnesses of everything they described, or, at least, heard about it from eyewitnesses. Such were the saints. Evangelists. II. the Gospels contain mainly the history of the earthly life and actions of the Lord Jesus; but, in outlining this story, the Evangelists very naturally left a brief outline of the then state of Judea, which was the field of the Savior’s actions. True, they touch on this subject unintentionally, in passing, and sometimes mention the most insignificant details; but these details, confirmed with perfect accuracy by the testimony of non-Christian historians of that time, 432 serve as striking proof of the authenticity of the Gospels. 1) The evangelists left us a brief outline of the church state of the Jewish people in the days of the earthly life of Christ the Savior. They portray the Jews, on the one hand, as very devoted to their sacred books and zealous for the observance of their ritual laws, especially the Sabbath law. But, at the same time, they speak of them as people who were slavishly attached only to the letter of Scripture and completely neglected its spirit - as a people who were almost at the extreme level of corruption of morals. And one has only to read with attention the work of the then Jewish historian Josephus Flavius ​​- about the war of the Jews - to be convinced of the amazing accuracy of this picture. The Evangelists mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as the two main sects that were then in the Jewish Church: the Samaritans, towards whom the Jews constantly had irreconcilable hatred: but, what is especially remarkable, they present us with Jesus Christ treating all these sectarians in the most decent manner, completely corresponding to the principles and errors of each sect. Thus, when He talks with the Pharisees, He denounces them for hypocrisy, for pride, for the vanity with which they performed their fasts and gave their alms, for their excessive attachment to paternal traditions, which they preferred to the law itself, etc. On the contrary, turning his speech to the Sadducees, He speaks in a completely different language: he sees in them people rude and devoted to the flesh, who, adhering to the letter of Scripture, do not comprehend his spirit, and reject the resurrection of the dead. He speaks even differently to the Samaritans: by exposing them in ignorance and schism, He lets them know that salvation must come from Judea. All this is the most accurate depiction of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Samaritans in the days of the Savior’s earthly life, according to the testimony of Josephus and other modern legends. According to the legend of the Evangelists, the Jewish high priest, who carried out the trial of Christ the Savior, was called Caiaphas, and ruled the church at the same time as Pilate of Pontius was the ruler of Judea. And St. Luke narrates that at the same time two different persons, Annas and Caiaphas, bore the name of high priest: more events, the first and last of which are confirmed by Josephus 433. 2) We find in the Gospels a brief outline of the political state of Judea at the time of the Savior. The Jews were then, according to the description of the Evangelists, under the yoke of the Romans, with whom they were very burdened, sighing over their lost freedom; This is already shown by one question, slyly proposed by some of the Pharisees to the Savior: is it worthy for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not (Luke 20:22) - a question that, being proposed by chance, exactly designates the time when Christ lived: for a little earlier or later this question would not have made any sense. In particular, the Evangelists tell us about the rulers of Judea who were at the time of the Savior, about Herod the great, his successor Archelaus and another Herod, who had behind him Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. They also mention the Pontic Pilate, who ruled Judea at the same time that Herod was the tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip was the tetrarch of Ituraea and the Trachonite country, and Lysanius was the tetrarch of Avilina (Luke 3:1). All these events and persons, precisely, existed in this form according to the testimony of Josephus 434. In the tales of the Evangelists it is often assumed that the Jews at that time, in addition to domestic laws and customs, had in use some Roman laws and customs. For example: a) The words of the Savior: be admonished with your adversary quickly, until you are on the road with him, lest your adversary hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the prisoner, and you be thrown into prison, - Amen I say to you: do not go out from there, until you repay the last coin (Matthew 5:25-26). These words point to the Roman law then in use in Judea, according to which the lender had the right to seize his debtor and take him to the judge, and if the debtor did not have time to make peace with his rival on the way, the judge condemned the culprit to a fine, which he immediately had to pay. Otherwise, he was thrown into prison, from where he could not leave until he had paid the last 435. The Savior’s parable about the two debtors (Matthew 18:23) in its last part (in v. 28 and 30) also points to this very Roman law. b) According to the Evangelists, Jesus Christ was beaten with a cane before He was crucified on the cross. This cruel custom over those sentenced to execution on the cross was indeed used by the Romans, as Titus Livius and Josephus Flavius ​​testify 436. c) The Savior himself was forced to bear the cross on which he had to suffer, it is written in the Gospel. Plutarch says that this custom remained in force among the Romans in his time 437. d) By order of Pilate, the Evangelists say, on the cross of the Savior an inscription was made in Hebrew, Greek and Roman: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. Suetonius and Dio Cassius testify that the Romans had a custom of nailing near the condemned person an announcement about the reason for his execution; and Flavius ​​adds that the rulers of the Jews usually made this announcement in different languages ​​438. e) St. John the Theologian tells that, at the request of the Jews, Pilate ordered the legs of the thieves crucified with Jesus to be broken (John 19:31-32). The pagan writer Aurelius Victor, praising the decree of the great Constantine, which abolished the death penalty, mentions the breaking of the legs, to which the crucified were subjected 439. From the Gospel narrative we see that the Jews then had three types of coins in use, namely: the Jewish shekel, the Greek didrachm and the Roman denarius. This completely corresponds to the time of the Savior’s earthly life, when Judea, which not long before was under the dominion of the Greeks, and which accepted coins from them, along with some laws, already bore the yoke of the Romans, who also communicated to it some of their decrees and coins. And the very use of all these coins among the Jews, as presented in the Gospel story, is completely consistent with the origin of the coins, or their purpose. Thus, payment for something, which was issued from the church treasury, was made with ancient Jewish coins (Matthew 26:15). The taxes introduced in Judea before the Romans ruled over it were paid in Greek coins. For example, a poll tax (Matt. 17, 24, sn. Josephus. Flavius ​​on the war. Jude book VII, ch. 6). But in public affairs, in the payment of salaries, in buying and selling, only Roman coins were used (Matt. 10:29; 20:2; Mark 14:5; Luke 12:6; John. 6, 7; 12:5), with which all the new taxes introduced by the Romans were paid (Matthew 12:19; Mark 12:15; Luke 20:24). III. Even more amazing are some of the topographical details found in the Gospels, which are fully confirmed by non-Christian writers. It is enough to imagine few of these details. According to the Evangelist John, Pilate, carrying out the trial of the Savior in the praetor, when he heard the cries of the Jews, brought Jesus out, and sat down at the court, in the place of the verb lyphostroton (John 19, 9-13), which, therefore, was not far from the praetor or Pilate’s dwelling. And indeed, Josephus, talking about the fact that the Romans attacked the church from the side of the castle of Antonia, mentions the lyphostroton, as an external accessory of the church, located near this castle 440. And Philo in one place casually notes that the praetor or the dwelling of the Roman ruler was located in the chambers of Herod, which, as is known, stood in the vicinity of the church and castle of Anthony to the north-west 441. The cities of Jericho and Capernaum in the Gospel are presented as places where duties and taxes were collected (Luke 19:1.2; Matt. 17:24; Luke 7:1). But it is historically known that the richest of the products of Judea, the balsam tree, which constituted the most important article of trade, grew in the vicinity of Jericho, and that a duty was levied by the government on this product; therefore, naturally, there had to be a tollhouse in Jericho 442. It is also known that the Phoenicians and especially the Arabs, when they brought their goods to Palestine along the Jordan River, passed this river, first of all, past Capernaum 443; This means that here, naturally, there had to be a police office to collect duties for the right to trade. St. Luke (7:1-11) tells that the Savior, leaving Capernaum of Galilee, came to the city of Nain; then, walking near the Jordan, where John baptized (vv. 18 and 19), he reached the outskirts of Jerusalem. Josephus also denotes this road from Galilee to Jerusalem, testifying that when the Galileans, as usual, went to the holy city on holidays through Samaria, they had to cross Nain, which lay on the way 444. The evangelists mention the Samarian city of Shechem or Sychar (John 4:5), which in the days of the Savior was indeed called by this name, and a few later, began to be called Mabartha or Mamorpha, and soon - Neapolis, as can be seen from the medals knocked out after the destruction of Jerusalem 445; they also mention Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27), which during the Savior and the Apostles certainly bore this name, but was formerly called Panea, and later on coins and books Caesarea Panea Καισαρεία πρὸς P ανεῖον 446 . But what is even more remarkable is St. John speaks of Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee (12:21): this city in the days of John was truly called Bethsaida and was counted among Galilee; but very soon it lost its ancient name, and was called first Caesarea, and then Juliada, after Julia, the daughter of Augustus; during the reign of Tiberius it was again called Caesarea, after his death - again Juliada, and was no longer counted among Galilee 447. Could precision be more amazing?.. No matter how few examples of topographical accuracy we have presented from the Four Gospels, they can serve as very convincing evidence of its authenticity for any impartial researcher. He will easily understand the full force of this proof when he remembers: a) with what speed, either from the activities of people or from the actions of nature, the surface of the earth changes: cities are destroyed or lose their ancient names, deserts become populated, and populated areas turn into deserts, rivers dry up or take a new course, routes of communication are laid in new places; b) how difficult it was in ancient times, when they did not know the use of geographical maps, for a writer, even not very distant in time from the events he described, to attribute these events to the exact places where they occurred, and to accurately describe the state of the places themselves during these incidents. The best ancient historians did not avoid gross mistakes in this regard, narrating the events of the centuries preceding 448; c) especially, how difficult it was for a later writer to maintain this accuracy when depicting the state of Palestine in the days of Jesus Christ: how many religious and political upheavals it experienced around that time! Having been repeatedly divided between the Roman procurators, the Herods and the rulers of Syria, and each time in a new and special way, - a victim of tyrants who, at one whim, changed the names of its cities, or, in their rage, turned them into heaps of ruins - alternately conquered by Pompey, oppressed by Herod, devastated by Titus and almost destroyed by Hadrian, who destroyed up to 50 cities in it and to 985 villages 449 - the holy land seemed to change its appearance and condition daily. Was it possible for the deceiver, even one century after the Gospel events, to depict them with perfect topographical accuracy, such as is seen in our Four Gospels? § 119. c) Circumstantial evidence We will see even more clearly the impossibility of deception and forgery of our Four Gospels from the following considerations: 1) Each of St. The Gospels, undoubtedly, had the greatest importance for the ancient Christians at their very appearance: therefore, all the more each had to attract their general attention, and the more impossible it was to hide behind any deception. Christians also had the deepest respect for the persons under whose names the Gospels appeared, and, therefore, had a new urge to investigate with all caution whether the writings attributed to these persons really belonged to them, and - a new opportunity to discover a forgery, if indeed there was one. 2) The difficulty of deceiving an entire society in a matter so important to it increases much more when this society is scattered across different countries of the world, separated by large spaces: for in this case, not one, but several societies must be deceived. The Society of Christians was like that: the Apostles themselves spread it in Greece and Italy, Asia Minor, Egypt and other countries, moreover, founding several separate churches in each country. How was it possible for all these churches to be equally convinced that certain writings, about which they had never heard anything before, originated from the divinely inspired Preachers of St. faith? How could it happen that all Christians in different countries of the world, without the slightest contradiction, could at the same time accept as truth a deception that was so easy and so important for them to discover? 3) This deception seems completely incredible when we remember that in the depths of Christianity, from its very beginning, there existed many heretical societies that harbored irreconcilable hostility against the Church, which, for its part, subjected them to strict condemnation. Under such circumstances, the alleged forgery of the Gospels could in no way be established either in the Church or in any heretical society: for one side would not fail to expose the other, which, whether intentionally or through imprudence, fell into such a gross error. But history says nothing about such denunciations. Moreover, this deception could not be accepted as truth by both opposite parties: for this required that one of them forcibly convey her belief to the other, or both voluntarily agreed to be deceived. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the authenticity of our Four Gospels was unanimously accepted not only by Orthodox Christians, but also by all heretical societies that appeared in the primal Church 450. 4) Finally, it is impossible to indicate the time when the forgery of the Gospels could have occurred. If they say that this could have happened under the Apostles themselves, then, of course, either without their knowledge, or with their consent, or against their will and insistence. But all these assumptions disappear by themselves. If they begin to claim that the forgery was made after the death of the Apostles, then either in the presence of their immediate disciples, or at a later time. But the first is also impossible: for how can it be allowed that the disciples of the Apostles, who had treated them for so long and knew them so well, could mistake unknown works for the works of their Divine teachers? The latter is also impossible: for we find passages from all our Gospels and even evidence about them in the writings of the Apostolic men. Having now put together in our minds the entire series of evidence we have presented for the authenticity of the Four Gospels, we, without hesitation, can say to every sensible person, together with one of the most famous teachers of the Church: “if even with such obvious reliability of the Gospel we still doubt its authenticity: then what book can you point to that an infidel would not call forged” 451? § 120. Authenticity of other books of the New Testament The authenticity of the other books of the New Testament, like the authenticity of the Four Gospels, is confirmed: I. External evidence. All these books have evidence from the most ancient Christian writers. Yes - 1) The Book of the Acts of the Apostles is testified by: a) St. Irenaeus, who in one place says that the writer of this book was Luke, the constant companion of the Apostle Paul, and in another conveys the story of Pavlov's conversion in the very words in which it is depicted in the Acts of the Apostles 452; b) Tertullian, who, citing numerous passages from the Book of Acts, calls it either Acta Apostolica or Apostolorum Acta, or Instrumentum actorum, or Commentarius Lucae 453; c) Clement of Alexandria, who also not only cites many passages from this book, but also directly calls it Πράξεις τῶν Ἀποστόλων and attributes it to the Evangelist Luke 454, and - d) many other subsequent writers 455. 2) From the conciliar letter of the Apostle James there are passages: a) at St. Clement, Pope of Rome, namely: about true wisdom (James 3:13), about the fact that the Lord resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6), about the justification of Abraham and Rahab from works, and not from faith alone (James 2:21.23.25) 456; b) at St. Irenaeus is the same - about the justification of Abraham, how he had the faith of God, and was imputed to him as righteousness, and was called a friend of God (James 2:23) 457; c) at St. Ephraim the Syrian, who even names the writer of this epistle, Apostle James 458. 3) From the first letter of the Apostle Peter, passages from St. Barnabas 459, St. Clement of Rome 460, St. Ignatius 461, Papius 462, St. Polycarp 463, St. Irenaeus 464, Clement of Alexandria 465, Tertullian 466 and Origen 467. Let us not mention Eusebius, who testifies that the first letter of the Apostle Peter was unanimously accepted by all churches 468. 4) The second letter of the Apostle Peter is mentioned in Justin 469 and Irenaeus 470, and is clearly attributed to the Apostle Peter: Origen, Hippolytus, Methodius, Rufinus, Jerome, Athanasius the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Chrysostom and many others 471 5) The first letter of St. John the Theologian, according to Eusebius, was unanimously recognized as authentic by all the ancients 472, and, indeed, is often cited in the works of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyprian and many other writers of the first centuries of Christianity 473. 6) Second and third letters of St. John is cited as authentic by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Athanasius the Great, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian and others 474. 7) The Epistle of the Apostle Jude - in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian and others 475. 8) About the messages of St. The Apostle Paul is testified by: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian and very many others 476. 9) Finally, the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian was recognized as authentic by: Papias, Irenaeus, Justin, Melito of Sardia, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome and others 477. II. Internal evidence. All these New Testament writings do not contain anything inconsistent either with the time to which they refer, or with the persons to whom they are attributed. On the contrary, both in style and in content they are quite befitting of those Apostles whose names they bear. For example, the language in which the book of the Acts of the Apostles is written bears a striking resemblance to the language in which the Gospel of Luke is written. The language of the letters of St. John the Theologian is identical to the language of his Gospel; and in general, the language of the epistles of James, Peter, John, Jude and Paul, although it is a Greek language, is not alien to Jewish figures of speech, and directly indicates in the writers people who came from the Jewish people. In content, almost all of these writings are teaching. But the teaching set forth in them is completely befitting of the disciples of Christ, who had the Spirit of God within them: it is so similar to the teaching of Christ the Savior himself, set forth in the Gospels, and so obviously exceeds all human teaching! Some of these writings, by their content, clearly suggest that they were written before the destruction of Jerusalem: for example, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, many regulations of the ritual law are calculated in detail and speaks of priests and Levites as actually serving at the church; in the Epistle to the Galatians, the writer takes up arms against false teachers who wanted to combine with the Christian Faith the fulfillment of the ritual law of Moses, which was possible only at the Temple of Jerusalem. As for, in particular, the historical book - the Acts of the Apostles: in it we find countless details that are surprisingly consistent with the circumstances of the time when this book was written. For example: in the Acts of the Apostles - a) it is narrated that Peter and John went together to the sanctuary to pray at the ninth hour (3, 1): and Flavius, for his part, notes that the Jewish priests performed their service at the church twice a day, in the morning and at the ninth hour 478; b) the high priest of the Jews appears to belong to the Sadducean sect (5, 17): no matter how unprecedented and amazing this circumstance is, it is also exactly confirmed by Josephus 479; c) it is said that the prophet Agabus predicted a famine, which followed in the days of Claudius Caesar (11, 27–28): the same Flavius ​​mentions this famine under Claudius 480; d) it is written that the Apostle Paul found a church in Athens with the inscription: to an unknown God (17, 23): Diogenes Laertius 481, Pausanias 482 and Philostratus testify about this church to an unknown God, even about many churches to unknown gods in Athens; e) mentions the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius (18, 2): Suetonius says the same thing 484, etc. III. The evidence is indirect. It is impossible to indicate the time when the forgery of the New Testament books following the Four Gospels could have occurred. Shall we say that it took place in the second century? But it is known that most of these books, in fragments, were cited by the Apostolic men who lived in the first century, and in the second century all these books were cited, and moreover, by writers who lived in different parts of the world, and, therefore, are assumed to have already been widespread throughout the Church. Shall we say that the forgery was made towards the end of the first century, when not only the direct disciples of the Apostles were alive, but also some of the Apostles themselves, for example, John the Theologian? But what could be more unrealistic than such an assumption? It is impossible to think of any way in which this forgery could be accomplished. It was necessary to deceive not one or two or three people, but entire Christian societies, to which most of these New Testament writings were directly addressed and sent at first. And, after that, it was necessary to deceive the entire Church and convince all Believers that the well-known books, which the Apostles never wrote, were written by the Apostles. Is it possible to admit that the leading Christians were left by the Apostles and immediate disciples of the Apostles in such ignorance about the true writings of the Apostles, and that, for example, the Christians of Rome or Corinth and others agreed to say that they received certain messages from one or another Apostle, when they did not receive them at all?.. It was necessary, moreover, for all the dissenting Christian sects that appeared from the first centuries and to agree on this. who loved to mutually expose themselves for all not only true, but also imaginary innovations or deviations from Christian truth. Meanwhile, history confirms to us that these sects actually agreed with each other regarding the authenticity of the New Testament books, although they disagreed regarding their internal dignity. How could this happen? § 121. Integrity of the Four Gospels and other books of the New Testament The integrity of both the Four Gospels and all other books of the New Testament is confirmed: 1) The agreement of all ancient translations of these books, such as: Syrian, Italian, Arabic, Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian, Persian, Gothic and others. There is no significant difference in content between them that would harm the truth. 2) The demolition of numerous ancient manuscripts, which was carried out with the greatest caution by some scientists 485, and as a result of which only so-called various readings were found, not in the least related to the essence of sacred truths 486. 3) Places from these sacred books, found in countless writings of the ancient saints. fathers, who, especially in their commentaries, in their dogmatic writings and conversations, seemed to have rewritten the entire New Testament, so that if by some chance (assuming the impossible) the New Testament books were completely lost, we could have them again by only demolishing and arranging in order all the passages from them that are in the writings of the fathers: - obvious proof that the present are our copies of the New Testament, with the exception also only of various readings, completely agree with the most ancient ones, which were used by the first teachers of the Church. 4) Finally, the impossibility of significant damage in these books. Because - a) It is certain that, in the first centuries of Christianity, in the Apostolic churches there were still autographs of the Evangelists 487, as well as other Apostles 488; and, therefore, it was very easy to correct any corruption that, intentionally or unintentionally, had crept into the countless copies taken from the Apostolic Writings for use among Christians, and every Believer who read or heard the autographs of the Apostles could be a direct denouncer of the corruption that he noticed in the copies. b) This damage could not be allowed and, indeed, was not allowed by the zealous shepherds of the Church, who received from the Lord the obligation to preserve the sacred deposit of faith. It is known that in the first centuries of Christianity, heretics, in order to reinforce their errors, more than once attempted to change some passages of our Gospels. But as soon as they began to publish their damaged copies, they were immediately denounced by Orthodox teachers (as Irenaeus and Tertullian especially were before their fall...). So the heretics of subsequent times did not dare to imitate their ancient predecessors, and to confirm their errors they distorted only the meaning of the holy books of the New Testament, and did not at all damage the text itself. And it is remarkable that the heretics, being constantly denounced by the Church for damaging the sacred text, never accused the Church itself of this crime, with the exception of some Manichaeans during the blessed times. Augustine, who, however, vainly called on them to prove this slander. c) Any attempt to damage the Gospels, like other New Testament books, would also be prevented by the fact that they were very well known to Christians and were in great use. Back in the days of St. Justin in churches there was already a custom during public services, for which, according to St. martyr, Christians from surrounding towns and villages flocked to read the comments of the Apostles 489. And the more well-known a book is, the more difficult and impossible it is to deliberately spoil it. d) The greatest respect of Christians, both for the Gospels and for other New Testament books, is a new guarantee that no significant damage could have occurred in them. This respect extended to the point that when, by order of Diocletian, the holy books were taken from Christians for burning, many agreed to be martyrs rather than hand over what was required. And those who, out of fear of punishment, issued books, were not accepted into church communion until after long-term repentance; or when, according to the testimony of Sozomen, one bishop (IV century), speaking a lesson to the people in the church, changed only one word of the Savior in the sacred text, all the listeners were confused, and this bishop was immediately denounced by another bishop, then present in the church 490. Translation of New Testament books made by Blessed. Jerome, was not accepted in the West for a long time because, as the blessed one testifies. Augustine 491 that in some places this translation did not agree, in terms of wording, with the ancient Italian translation to which Christians were accustomed 492. e) Since all handwritten copies of the New Testament, in the original text and in translations, are completely similar to each other in content, with the exception of the variants already mentioned; then to admit that the Four Gospels and the New Testament in general are substantially damaged would mean to admit that all of these copies, every single one, are damaged in the same places, in the same way: a completely impossible case! Could it be that scribes from different places and times could somehow accidentally introduce the same errors into their copies, or could they somehow intentionally agree to do this?.. CHAPTER II. ON THE DOGMATIC IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOKS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE § 122. Concept of this importance and division of the chapter The dogmatic importance of the books of St. Scripture is that these books, as the Orthodox Church teaches, were written by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and, therefore, contain not the word of man, but, truly, the word of God. However, in this regard, the Church also posits some difference between them, calling some books canonical (βιβλία κανονικὰ, κανονιζόμενα), and others non-canonical ὀυ κανονιζόμενα, μὴ κεκανονισμενα, ἀκανόνιστα) 493. By the name of the first are meant those books which, according to legend from the messengers of God themselves, were accepted by the Church into the canon (καν ὼ ν - register, catalog) of divinely inspired books, and are offered by it to the Believers as an unchangeable rule of truth (καν ὼ ν τῆς ἀληθέιας), in the words of St. Isidore Pelusiota 494 ; or, in the words of St. Athanasius the Great, - such books that are accepted into the canon, are committed and believed to be Divine, which are the sources of salvation, so that the thirsty one can quench his thirst with the words in them, in which alone the teaching of piety is preached, and to which no one attaches, let anyone take away anything from them 495. By the name of non-canonical books, we mean, according to the testimony of the same famous teacher of the Church, books that are not included in the canon of divinely inspired writings, but appointed by the Fathers for reading by newcomers and those wishing to proclaim themselves in the word of piety 496 - edifying and good books, as St. John of Damascus, but not included in the number, that is, in the canon 497. Consequently, this chapter should be divided into three parts: I) about the divine inspiration of the books of St. Scriptures, II) about the books of canonical St. Scriptures and III) about non-canonical books. I. ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE BOOKS OF THE SCRIPTURE § 123. Divine inspiration of the books of the Old Testament The Jews also had sufficient grounds to believe in the divine inspiration of the canonical books of the Old Testament, and we, Christians, have even more grounds. I. For the Jews these grounds were: 1) The merit of the very content of these books. They set forth, as we have seen 498, such a lofty teaching of faith, such purest rules of morality, such perfect ritual and political laws that the Jews, using these books, could not, for this alone, not be convinced of their non-human, Divine origin. In addition, among other truths, the Old Testament contains prophecies, many of which were fulfilled before the eyes of the Jews themselves, and presented them with new, striking proof of the Divine origin of their sacred writings. 2) Some fairly clear evidence of this from the sacred books themselves. This includes, firstly, all those places where it is said that God himself is a) ordered one or another of his messengers to write something, for example, to Moses: the Lord spoke to Moses: write this as a keepsake in the books, and put it in the ears of Jesus, for by destruction I will destroy the memory of Amalek from in high places (Ex. 17:14; fn. 31:18; 32:15-16; 34:1 and 27–28; Deut. 9, 10–11; or - Isaiah: take for yourself a new scroll, and write in it with human writing, soon to create captivity for selfish gain (8: 1); b) he commanded to write his words or revelations, for example, to Moses: write these words to yourself: in these words I have laid a covenant with you and with Israel (Ex. 34:27); Jeremiah: write all the words in the books that were spoken to you (Jer. 30:2); Ezekiel: Son of man, write for yourself the name of this day, from whom the king of Babylon was strengthened against Jerusalem, from this day, like this day: and speak a parable to the house that provoked wrath, and speak to the house that provoked wrath, and say to them: This says Adonai the Lord (24:2-3); To Habakkuk: write the vision, and it will appear on the board, so that the one who reads will comprehend (2, 2) - and it is noted that c) the messengers of God, indeed, wrote books according to the word of the Lord (Numbers 33:2), and set forth the words of the Lord in them (Exodus 24:4). Secondly, all those places where the sacred writers, beginning to expound doctrine, or prophetic speech, or stories, or anything else, exclaim: hear the word of the Lord (Ezek. 6:3; Hosea 4:1), hear the word of the Lord Adonai (Ezek. 25:3, etc.); or: and the word of the Lord came to me... (Ezek. 21, 1 and 8; Zechariah 6, 9; 8, 18, etc.), the word of the Lord came to Zechariah Barachiah (Zechariah 1:1), the word of the Lord came to Joel (Joel 1:1); or: thus says Adonai the Lord (Ezek. 2:4.11; Isa. 50:1, etc.), this says Adonai the Lord (Ezek. 23:32, etc.), and thus says the Lord Almighty (Hag. 1:2; Mal. 1:4); or: prophecy of the word of the Lord against Israel by the hand of his angel (Mal. 1:1), the word of the Lord by the hand of Haggai the prophet saying... (Hag. 1:3). There are countless such places in the Holy Scriptures, and the Jews could not help but believe them, knowing that this was the testimony of the true messengers of God, who confirmed their divine embassy with miracles and prophecies. Finally, thirdly, these include all those places where - a) or the sacred writers themselves speak about their divine inspiration, for example, Moses: now go, and I will open your mouth, and I will cause you to speak (Ex. 4:12); Jeremiah: And the Lord stretched out his hand to me, and touched me with his mouth, and the Lord said to me: Behold, I have put my words in your mouth (1:9); David: my tongue is the reed of a scribe (44:2); b) or other sacred writers convey something similar about them, for example, in the 2nd book of Samuel it is written about David that he testified about himself: The Spirit of the Lord is in me, and his word is on my tongue (23:2); c) or in general it is noticed that these or other books were written by Prophets, men of vision, prophets (1 Chron. 29, 29; 2 Chron. 26, 22). One cannot but agree that all the passages we have indicated are not quite decisive and complete: they concern only some, and not all, of the books of the Old Testament, and, moreover, for the most part they do not concern entire books, but only some parts of them, large or small; and, therefore, based on these passages alone, it would still be difficult, if not completely impossible, to reach complete confidence in the divine inspiration of all biblical books. But the Jews also had a third means, namely: 3) Sacred tradition - from the lips of the messengers of God themselves. For simple reasons, it is incredible that the true messenger of God, who testified about himself with miracles and prophecies, handing over his book to the Israelites, did not himself instruct them in detail whether it was a Divine book or an ordinary, human one, in order to protect them in both cases from gross error. It is even more incredible that the subsequent messengers of God, seeing that the Jews unfairly (let us assume this) honor their sacred books, which until then had appeared as divinely inspired books, did not explain their mistakes to the lost. Meanwhile, the Jews constantly believed that all their canonical books were of Divine origin: “The Prophets wrote them, says Josephus, by inspiration from God (κατὰ τὴν ὲπίπνοιαν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ...); we consider them, in truth, Divine (θεῖα τὰ δικαίως πεπιστευμένα), and that is why, despite such a vast space of time, none of us has ever dared to add anything to the sacred books, or to subtract from them, or to make the slightest change in them: for in the heart Every Jew, from infancy, is ingrained with the feeling that they should be looked upon as Divine dogmas (Θεοῦ δόγματα), that they should be constantly followed, that life itself should be laid down for them, if necessity required it” 499. We find the same high reviews of the books of the Old Testament from another famous Jew, Philo, who calls them either the word of God, or the Divine Scripture, or the writings of the prophets, and notes that the prophets did not speak anything on their own, but were only interpreters of the inspirations of God, that God used their organs as instruments, and that the prophets, during the Divine inspirations, became alien to everything outside, becoming the container of the one Spirit of God (τοῦ Θεοῦ πνεύματος), which filled their soul, moved the organs of their voice, and gave them the ability to clearly and distinctly express what they had to prophesy 500. Finally, both Jewish Talmuds and all the rabbis unanimously affirm in their writings that such, indeed, was the belief of all the ancient Jews regarding the sacred books. Not only the Palestinian Jews, but also the Alexandrian and Samaritans, and all three main sects that existed in the days of the Savior in the Jewish Church, accepted it as an undoubted dogma that the books of St. The Scriptures are inspired by God. How can we primarily explain such a constant, unanimous and deep conviction of the entire Jewish people in the divine inspiration of their sacred books, if not by oral instruction from the messengers of God themselves, that is, not by the Holy Tradition, when in Scripture, as we have seen, the grounds for such a conviction are still hesitantly complete and definite? II. For us Christians, in addition to all the indicated grounds on which we affirmed our faith in the divine inspiration of the Old Testament books of Judea, there are also other grounds, the most important: 1) Our Lord and Savior Himself, having appeared on earth at a time when this faith among the Jewish people, as can be seen from the contemporary testimonies of Flavius and Philo, was so universal and undoubted, not only did not reproach the sons of Israel for it, not only did not express in any way that He, at least, did not share it with them, but on the contrary showed complete respect for the Old Testament books as sacred, Divine books. He - a) referred to them, like all Jews, to confirm certain truths, for example, the truth of the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:31), and even the most important truth of his Divine Embassy: try the scriptures, He said to the Israelites, that you believe in them to have eternal life, and that is what testifies about me (John 5:39); If they believed quickly in Moses, they quickly believed in me: for that was written about me (v. 46); And to his disciples, who were going to Emmaus, the prophet began from Moses and from all, a legend from all the scriptures about him (Luke 24:27). He - b) often expressed himself about these scriptures in a way that can only be spoken about the word of God, and not at all human, for example: a scripture cannot be ruined (John 10:35); It is fitting that all those written in the law of Moses, and the prophets and psalms concerning me, should die (Luke 24:44; cf. Matt. 26:54); Amen, for I say to you: Until heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle, will not pass from the law, until they all remain (Matthew 5:18). He even, citing some passages from the Old Testament, c) added: what was spoken by God (Matthew 23:31), God commanded (Matthew 15:4), and at the same time denounced the Jews: you have destroyed the commandment of God for your tradition (-6), transgressing the word of God by your tradition, which you have betrayed (Mark 7:13), and in particular about David in one place he noted: to that (David) speech by the Holy Spirit: the Lord said To my Lord: sit at my right hand (Mark 12:36). Following the example of his Divine Teacher, and St. Apostles: a) cited many passages from the Old Testament books to confirm or reveal New Testament truths (Acts 3:17–25; James 1:10–12.19; 2, 1–4.10.11.23.26; 4, 6; Jude 1:5.12.16 and many others, especially in the letter to Hebrews); b) they called these books holy scriptures (Rom. 1:2), holy scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15), prophetic words (2 Peter 1:19), oracles of God (Rom. 3:2); c) sometimes it was expressed that the Holy Spirit himself spoke through the mouth of one or another Old Testament writer (Acts 1:16; 28:25; Heb. 3:7), and d) finally, they clearly testified to the divine inspiration of the entire Old Testament in general: every book prophecy, said St. Ap. Peter, according to his legend, it doesn’t happen. It was not by the will of man that prophecy came into being, but by the Holy Spirit we were enlightened (ὑπὸ πνεύματος άγίου φερόμενοι) by the holy men of God (2 Peter 1:20-21). From childhood you knew the sacred scriptures (ίερὰ γράμματα), another Apostle said to his beloved disciple Timothy, who is able to make you wise for salvation, through faith, even in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God (θεόπνευστος) and is useful for teaching, for correction, for punishment, even in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:15-17). As a result of such clear teaching, faith in the divine inspiration of the Old Testament Scripture began in the Church of Christ from its very foundation, entered, as an essential member, into all ancient symbols, and was expressed in the testimonies of the teachers of the Church, which we will see later. § 124. Divine inspiration of the books of the New Testament Although the Holy Scriptures nowhere definitely say, as it is said about the books of the Old Testament, that the New Testament books should also be inspired by God: however, this truth is just as reliable. 1) Of the eight New Testament writers, five: Matthew, John, James, Peter and Jude belonged to the twelve Apostles who were rewarded from the Lord first with the promise of sending the Holy Spirit upon them, and then with the very fulfillment of this promise. What were these promises, and, of course, their corresponding fulfillment? a) And I will pray the Father, the Savior said to his disciples, and he will give you another comforter, that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth, but the world cannot receive him, for he does not see him, but knows him: but you know him, for he abides in you, and will be in you (John 14:16-18). If, according to this promise, the Holy Spirit really abided with the Apostles, and abided forever, always, unceasingly, then how can we allow Him to leave them only in those most important moments when they wrote their books? b) The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, in whose name the Father could send, he will teach you everything, and he will remember to you everything that he has told you (v. 26). How can we allow this new heavenly Teacher to leave them without his teaching only at the time when they set out their sermon in a letter? If in such cases they could sin: how would the word of the Savior be fulfilled: you will teach her everything? c) When you are betrayed, do not worry about how or what you say: for in that hour it will be given to you that you say: for you will not be the ones who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you (Matthew 10:19.20); I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which those who oppose you will not be able to resist or answer (Luke 21:15): if the Savior promised to give his disciples a mouth and wisdom even for the time when they would testify to their preaching before their judges and persecutors; Could He leave St. evangelists without such supernatural assistance when they put this sermon in writing for the teaching and guidance of all ages and peoples? 2) The other three New Testament writers, Paul, Mark and Luke, were not among the twelve Apostles. But in the divine inspiration of the messages of St. Paul we are convinced from this - a) that he was chosen and called to the Apostolic ministry by Jesus Christ himself (Acts 9:3–6 and 15; cf. Gal. 1:1; Rom. 1:1 and 5); b) that he received the knowledge of the faith of Christ not from people and not through his own teaching, but through the appearance of Christ: I tell you, brethren, the gospel preached from me is not according to man; c) that he himself derived his wisdom and his preaching from the Holy Spirit: we speak the hidden wisdom of God in the mystery, which God has ordained before the world for our glory, even as no one from the princes of this age has understood, but God has revealed to us by His Spirit: we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is from God, that we know that which has been given to us from God: even as we say not in those who were taught human wisdom of all words, but in those taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2, 7. 8. 10. 12-13) - that he himself called his sermon or his word (of course, both oral and written) not the human word, but truly the Word of God: we thank God unceasingly, because having received the word of God heard from us, we received not just the word human, but as it truly is, the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13); d) finally, from the fact that another Apostle, namely Peter, who was among the 12, in his epistle, speaking about the day of the last judgment, even refers to the teaching of St. Paul about this subject, and notes that Paul wrote according to the wisdom given to him (2 Peter 3, 15-16; cf. Heb. 9, 26; 10, 25). We are convinced of the divine inspiration of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, written by the latter, from the undoubted Apostolic tradition, on the basis of which all these writings from the very first centuries of Christianity were constantly considered among the canonical writings of the New Testament, that is, divinely inspired, along with all others. In particular, from this legend we learn: a) that Mark, the companion of Peter (1 Peter 5:13), who wrote his Gospel at the persistent request of the Romans, set out in it not his teaching, but the divinely inspired teaching taught in Rome by the Apostle Peter, who, in addition, having learned about this by revelation from the Holy Spirit, himself approved this Gospel with his authority for use in the Church 501; b) that Luke, Paul’s companion (Acts 16:10–20), in the same way concluded not his own Gospel in writing, but the Gospel preached orally by Paul, who had the Spirit of God in him 502; c) and that the Apostle John, who lived longer than the other Evangelists, having read all three Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke, equally approved of them and confirmed the truth of their contents with his testimony 503. 3) However, not only regarding the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, but also regarding all the books of the New Testament, one must remember that the doctrine of their divine inspiration is based mainly on sacred tradition, which from the Apostles themselves has been continuously preserved and is being preserved in the Church. We find clear traces of it in the writings of St. Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-Bearer, Athenagoras, Justin the Martyr 504, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory of Neocaesarea, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary 505, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom and countless other teachers of the Church of the fourth and all subsequent centuries 506. 4) Finally, a very important proof of the same truth is the highest and in all respects most perfect teaching of the New Testament writings, which not only the Apostles, simple and unlearned people, but also no human mind in general could have imagined on their own. This teaching bears the indelible stamp of the origin of the Divine 507 . II. ABOUT THE CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE § 125. Canonical books of the Old Testament The Old Testament canon, now contained by the Orthodox Church 508, consists of the following books: 7) the book of Judges, and along with it, as if its addition, the book of Ruth, 8) the first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book, 9) the third and fourth books of Kings, 10) first and second books of Chronicles, 11) the first book of Ezra, and his second, or, according to the Greek name, the book of Nehemiah, This same canon was also contained by the Old Testament Church, to which, before the coming of the Messiah, the word of God was entrusted (Rom. 3:2). Apparently it contained: a) from the testimony of Josephus, who mentions only 22 Divine books, and says that five of them were written by Moses, thirteen by the Prophets from the time of Moses to the Persian king Artaxerxes, and four more contain praise to God and the most useful rules of life 509; b) from the testimony of some ancient Christian teachers, Melito, Origen, Jerome, who deliberately tried to learn from the Jews about their sacred canon, and always found it consisting only of the counted 22 books 510; c) from the constant tradition existing among the Jews, who hitherto inviolably contain this very canon 511; d) can be seen, finally, from the very method of counting these books, which has survived in the Orthodox Church. Even now she counts them as 22, as the ancient Jews counted in relation to the number of letters of their alphabet, combining for this purpose two or even several books under one number, while all the Old Testament books separately, which she accepts as canonical, are 38. This same canon was constantly maintained by the entire ancient Christian Church, having adopted it from the Old Testament Church. There are many witnesses to this: 1) Melito, Bishop of Sardia (end of the 2nd century), deliberately traveled around the east with a sincere desire to correctly learn about the canon of books of the Old Testament, and sets it out in the following form: “the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two Chronicles, Psalms of David, Proverbs of Solomon or Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve Prophets one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra” 512. 2) Origen (beginning of the 3rd century) begins his catalog with the following words: “you should know that the books of the Old Testament, as taught by the Jews, are twenty-two,” and then, having counted these books, he concludes: “outside their number (ἔξω δὲ τ ό υτων) are the books of the Maccabees” 513. 3) St. Cyril of Jerusalem (IV century) inspires in his catechism: “read 22 books, but do not touch the apocrypha” 514. 4) Eusebius of Caesarea (IV century), speaking about Melitonov’s catalogue, notes on his own that in this catalog Melito lists all the books of the Old Testament that have been accepted by general agreement 515. 5) St. Athanasius of Alexandria (IV century) in his message on the holidays and in the synopsis of St. The Scriptures usually attributed to him, counting only 22 canonical books, clearly distinguishes them from non-canonical books 516. 6) St. Gregory the Theologian (IV century) and 7) St. Amphilochius (IV century), listing only 22 books of the Old Testament, does not even mention the others 517. 8) The Council of Laodicea, which took place in 364, said in canon 59 that “it is not proper to speak in the church unsacred psalms or books not specified by the rule (ἀκανόνιστα), but only those indicated in the rules (μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ ) books of the Old and New Testaments,” in the rule following that (60) he continues: “These books of the Old Testament should be read: i) Kings 1 and 2, i) Kings third and fourth, j) Chronicles 1 and 2, k) Esdras the first and second, l) the book of Psalms one hundred and fifty, y) Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, 9) St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus (IY century), speaks three times in his writings about the canonical books of the Old Testament, and each time he counts only 22 of them, noting about the others: “although they are useful and edifying, they are not among the sacred books” 518. 10) Blessed Jerome (IV century), having translated from Hebrew the books that were in the Jewish canon, notes about others: “they are not in the canon and should be considered among the apocryphal” 519. 11) Hilary, Bishop of Pictavia (IV century), also counts the 22 canonical books of the Old Testament, adding: “some, adding to these the books of Tobias and Judith, want to count all the books as 24, according to the number of letters of the Greek alphabet” 520. 12) Rufinus (IY century) clearly distinguishes 22 canonical books from non-canonical books of the Old Testament, which he calls ecclesiastical 521. To all these ancient witnesses one can add more witnesses from subsequent times, for example: 13) Leontius of Byzantium, first a lawyer, then a monk (VI century) 522, 14) St. John of Damascus (YIII century) 523, 15) St. Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople (IX century) 524, 16) Mitrofan Kritopulos, who was the patriarchal protosyncellus in the Church of Constantinople, and then the Patriarch of Alexandria (XVII century) 525, who all speak only about the 22 canonical books of the Old Testament, and indisputably show how strictly the Eastern Church adhered to this teaching in all centuries. If in the 85th canon of the Apostles, along with the canonical books, some non-canonical books are also mentioned, namely the three books of the Maccabees and the book of the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach: then you need to know that in this canon we are talking about revered and holy books, and not about canonical books; Canonical and non-canonical books of St. could equally be called revered and saints. Scriptures, and even some others, respected by Christians. That is why, along with the biblical books, two epistles and decrees written by Clement 526 are mentioned in this very rule. Even if some teachers of the Church in the West, such as: Blessed. Augustine (5th century), Pope Innocent (5th century), Pope Gelasius (494) 527, and at the Council of Carthage itself (397) 528, non-canonical books were called directly canonical, along with 22 that were in the canon of the Jews: even this should not lead us to bewilderment. Because - a) blessed Augustine himself left us with full opportunity to understand in what sense he used the word canonical in this case. Having said in one place that although the Jews did not consider the books of the Maccabees to be canonical books, the Church, however, considers them canonical 529, he in another place explains his thought as follows: “The Jews did not honor the Scripture called Maccabees on an equal basis with the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, but the Church considered this Scripture to be useful if it is read and listened to with common sense.” 530. A clear sign that blessed. Augustine used the word “canonical” in a more extensive sense than is accepted in the strict sense. And by canonical books I generally meant books defined or approved by the canons or rules of the Church for pious reading by believers, as not only strictly canonical ones, but also non-canonical ones could rightly be called 531 . It is natural to think that in the same broad sense the name was sometimes used - canonical books and in general in the Church of Carthage, in which Augustine was then one of the most famous archpastors. And, therefore, it was also used at the Council of Carthage. The last thought is all the more likely because in rule (33) of this council we are talking specifically about canonical books or those determined by the canon for reading in the church: “it was decreed that nothing should be read in the church under the name of Divine Scriptures, except canonical writings; the canonical writings are these: Genesis...” 532. Even if - b) let us assume that the aforementioned teachers and the Council called non-canonical books canonical in the narrowest, generally accepted sense. And in this case, we will not hesitate when we take into account: First, how small the number of teachers who held this opinion is in comparison with the number of those who left us evidence of only the 22 canonical books of the Old Testament accepted by the Church. And secondly, when we see that a small number of teachers of the first kind belonged, every single one, to only two private churches, Carthaginian and Roman. While among the witnesses of the latter kind are the most famous representatives of the entire Church, both eastern and western (Jerome, Hilary, Rufinus). And the blessed one himself. Augustine gave excellent advice that, in such a disagreement about the canon of books, preference should be given to the voice of the majority of witnesses and the voice of the entire Church, and not to private churches 533. Finally, it is no longer at all important that in some ancient translations of St. Scriptures, for example, Italian, are collected together, both canonical and non-canonical books. This is how they copulate to this day in the Orthodox Church, which, however, distinguishes them. They are combined for the purpose of having in one collection all the books, both divinely inspired and those that, although not of such importance, have, however, since ancient times been respected by the Church more than all human books, and accepted by it for edifying reading by believers as good and useful books. As for the origin of the Old Testament canon: let us first note that the right to declare any books to be divinely inspired books, that is, canonical, according to the testimony of Flavius ​​534 and Eusebius Pamphilus 535 among the Jews did not belong to the entire people, but only to the shepherds and especially to a small number of those who themselves had the Holy Spirit within them. After this we can already say that the beginning of the Jewish canon is contemporary with the very beginning of the inspired books. Moses first, having written his books, published them as Divine books, then placed them in the church from the land of the ark, and read them from time to time for the Israelites. Then Joshua did the same, about whom it is said: and he wrote words in the book of the law of God (Joshua 24:26), that is, he added his Scripture to the Pentateuch: this is what Samuel did, who wrote the justification of the kingdom in a book and laid it before the Lord (1 Sam. 10:25); This is what, without a doubt, the subsequent sacred writers did, although evidence of this was not preserved in their books. The Old Testament canon received its final education (that is, the last time these sacred books were collected, examined and published as Divine) already in the days of Ezra and from Ezra himself, probably with the assistance of Nehemiah (2 Macc. 2:13) and some of the Prophets who lived then. This is confirmed by the Tradition of the Jews, preserved in the Talmud, by the testimony of Josephus, and was accepted by the most famous Fathers of the Church 536. Since then, the Prophets, who alone had the right to pronounce judgment on the canonical books, no longer appeared among the Jewish people. § 126. Canonical books of the New Testament The Orthodox Church recognizes the following 27 canonical books of the New Testament: four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, seven epistles: James, two Peters, three Johns and one Jude; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul: to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon and to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian 538. These same books are listed as canonical books of the New Testament by the ancient teachers of the Church in the east and in the west. 1) Origen in the VIIth Discourse on the Book of Joshua names the four Gospels, written by: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the two Epistles of Petrines, the Epistles (without specifying the number) of John, the fourteen Epistles of Paul and the Apocalypse of John the Theologian, although in other places of his writings regarding the second epistle of Petrov, the second and third epistles of John and the epistle to the Hebrews, agreeing to accept them as canonical, he himself notes that these messages are not yet accepted by everyone, that there is still disagreement about them 539. 2) Eusebius also lists all the books of the New Testament, and although, following the example of Origen, he divides them into two classes: those accepted by all (ὁμολογούμινκ) and those still subject to doubt (ἀντιλεγόμενα), referring to the latter the epistles: James, Jude, second Peter, second and third John. However, he says about the latter that they are recognized by the majority of church teachers (παρὰ πλείστοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶυ γιγνωσκομένας) that they are in very many churches are preached by many (ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις παρὰ πολλ ὅ ις δείημοσιευμένα) 540. 3) St. Athanasius the Great already lists all the books of the New Testament without the slightest doubt or distinction, both in the message on the holidays and in the synopsis, concluding his thought in the latter with the following words: “here are the number and names of the canonical books of the New Testament! These are, as it were, the beginnings, the anchors of the pillars of our faith: because they were written and published by the Apostles of Christ the Savior themselves, who treated Him and were taught by Him 541. 4) St. Cyril of Jerusalem also enumerates the New Testament books without the slightest remark regarding any differences between them in the Church, and equally approves of them for reading to his listeners. 5) St. Amphilochius again mentions disagreements regarding some epistles, but mentions only historically, and, having listed all the books of the New Testament, ends the account with the following words: “let this be the most unfalse canon of divinely inspired writings.” 6) Leontius of Byzantium divides the books of the New Testament into six books (ἐις ἓ ξ βιβλία), of which the first is the Gospel of Matthew and Mark, the second is the Gospel of Luke and John, the third is the Acts of the Apostles, the fourth is the seven conciliar epistles, the fifth is the 14 epistles of the Apostle Paul, the sixth is Apocalypse. 7) St. John of Damascus in his Theology lists the books of the New Testament also, every single one 542. 1) The Fathers of the Council of Carthage, which took place in 318, list all the books of the New Testament in canon 33 543; 4) Popes Innocent and Gelasius - all; 5) Cassiodorus, at the end of the 5th century - all 544. There are, however, two or three ancient catalogs in which some of the New Testament books are not mentioned, and namely: The Apocalypse is not mentioned in the catalogs of the Council of Laodicea (right 60) and St. Gregory the Theologian, and the epistles: James, both Petrov and one John - in the Muratorian catalog 545; but this, of course, is because regarding these books, as Origen and Eusebius testify, disagreements existed for a long time between the teachers of the Church. And the existence of such disagreements was natural and inevitable for some time. It must be remembered that the books of the Apostles, written to private churches, or even to the entire Church, could not suddenly spread everywhere and become known to all believers; but some spread very quickly throughout the entire Church of the Universal Church (which should especially be said about the Four Gospels), while others - on the contrary; and of the latter, some (which were all subject to disagreement) reached certain places earlier, others later, others even later 546, and in the fourth, if they reached quite early, then without sufficient evidence of their authenticity. On the other hand, the fathers and teachers of the first centuries of Christianity could not help but observe special caution when recognizing the books that appeared under the names of the Apostles. This was required by the very sanctity of the matter: the more important the thing, the more distrustful they are of its authenticity; and what could be more important for Christians than the writings of the Apostles? This was even more required by the appearance in those days of many false writings 547 that were issued under the names of the Apostles. Consequently, if some of the ancient Orthodox pastors expressed doubts regarding certain writings of the Apostles, then this, in addition to what was inevitable, serves as a monument to their prudent discernment in such an important matter. III. ABOUT NON-CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURE § 127. Calculation of these books and their importance There are not a single non-canonical book between the books of the New Testament, but there are non-canonical books only between the books of the Old Testament, and namely the following: 3) Wisdom of Solomon, 4) The wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach, 5) the second and third books of Ezra, 6) all three books of Maccabees 548. How certain it is that these books were not considered canonical by either the Jews or the Christians; Another idea that is equally reliable is that they have always enjoyed great respect among both. The Jews, as you know, in recent times before the coming of the Messiah were divided into two halves: into the Palestinian Jews (whose center was Jerusalem), who spoke their native language and used the Hebrew Bible, and into the Alexandrian Jews, who used the Greek language and read the Bible according to the translation of 70 interpreters. Both of them equally respected non-canonical books, although less than canonical ones. I Concerning the Jews of Palestine this is known: 1) From the testimony of Josephus, who was a priest in Jerusalem. Having said that the Jews had the right to publish writings about the Faith only the Prophets and that such and such most reliable persons, in the period from Moses to the Persian king Artaxerxes, described the entire history of the Jewish people in 22 inspired books, Josephus adds: “however, everything that happened from the reign of Artaxerxes to the present day is also contained in writing: but these writings are already do not enjoy such respect (πίστεως δὲ ὀυκ ὁμοίας ἠ ξίωται) as those previously mentioned: because the succession of the prophets has ceased (διὰ τό μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχὴν )" 549. From this it is clear that non-canonical books were respected by the Jews, although less than the divinely inspired canonical books. It is also clear why the former did not have of equal importance with the latter, because they were written during the remaining four hundred years before Christ, when there were no prophets in Judea. And after the canon of the sacred books of the Old Testament received its final education from Ezra and the last Prophets who lived in the days of the Persian King Artaxerxes. 2) From the respect that ancient rabbis or ancient Jewish sages showed to non-canonical books. From all these books they cited places in their writings, some books, for example, the book of Jesus, son of Sirach, were even classified as second-class hagiographers, and some were attributed directly to divinely inspired writers, namely the book of the Wisdom of Solomon - to Solomon himself 550. 3) Finally, from the testimony of Origen, at least in the discussion of the books of Tobit and Judith, Origen claims that although the Jews did not include these books in their canon, they did not classify them as apocrypha 551. II. And about the Jews of Alexandria it is enough to repeat only that they did not use the Hebrew Bible, but the translation of the 70. In this translation, even before the coming of the Savior, non-canonical books were added to the canonical ones, in the form of an addition, and usually constituted one codex. And the Jews, using it, reading non-canonical books together with canonical ones both in homes and even in synagogues, clearly expressed that they respected non-canonical books, at least as sacred, edifying, pious books, if not on an equal basis with canonical ones - they respected, therefore, more than all ordinary, human books 552. The respect that the Christian Church had and still has for non-canonical books is evident: 1) From the fact that she accepted at first, and since then has always contained and contains these books in the same codex with the canonical books; appointed the first for edifying reading to the catechumens and the faithful, not only in homes, but also in churches, which is why they were called church; sometimes even for this purpose she listed them in her rules (canons) along with the canonical books, for example, in the 85th Apostolic Rule and the 33rd Rule of the Council of Carthage. 2) From general reviews of these books by ancient teachers of the Church. St. Athanasius says that they were appointed by the Fathers to be read by newcomers and those wishing to be proclaimed in the word of piety; St. Epiphanius calls them useful and beneficial (χρήσιμοι καὶ ό ὀφέλιμοι); St. John of Damascus - edifying and kind 553. 3) Finally, from the fact that all these books were used by the famous teachers of the Church themselves, citing numerous passages from them in their writings, and often adding: Scripture says, Holy Scripture says. For example: a) from the book of Tobit the following texts are cited: Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian 554, Origen 555, Ambrose 556, Augustine 557; b) from the book of Judith: Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine and friend. 558; c) from the book of the Wisdom of Solomon: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Hilary 559. However, no matter how much the Orthodox Church respected and continues to respect non-canonical books, we must not forget that it has always distinguished them from canonical books. The difference is that the latter, as she teaches, were written by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and in the proper sense constitute divinely inspired Scripture, while the former do not have this important advantage and serve only as an addition to the divinely inspired Scripture, as good, edifying, sacred books. SECTION II. ABOUT SACRED TRADING § 128. The need for another Divine source of the Christian faith in sacred Scripture, and the concept of sacred Tradition Holy Scripture, given to us by God, as the first and most important source of revealed faith and theology, by its very nature, makes us desire another, equally Divine, aid in this important matter. For in order for us to properly assimilate the teaching contained in St. Scripture, we essentially need: 1) First make sure that the books of St. The Scriptures are indeed authentic and constitute the very canon that came out of the hands of the sacred writers, and on the other hand, that they are truly inspired by God. Ordinary human testimony, historical faith alone, where there is always room for doubt and hesitation, is not enough in the present case: because all of our Christianity must be based on this immutable truth. And, therefore, what is needed here is a testimony that we could fully rely on - the Divine testimony. 2) Following this, we need just as much so that, during the reading of St. Scripture, we could find everywhere only its true meaning, and not a false one, and moreover, we could be convinced fully and decisively, that is, by the testimony not of human, but of Divine, that we certainly do not sin and understand the Word of God properly. Otherwise, what will our faith be? The question arises: who can be our reliable leader in such an important matter? Who can satisfactorily fulfill both of these conditions for us? Wrong-thinking Christians have invented three principles for this: some point to reason, others to the Holy Spirit itself. Scripture, and others - for inner illumination from the Holy Spirit. But such a leader cannot be recognized: 1) Neither the human mind, left only to itself. Reason, firstly, is not able to determine with indisputable accuracy and decisiveness the canon of St. books, because the historical evidence about the canon, on the basis of which this determination is the only one possible for reason, is not quite satisfactory. Ancient catalogs of St. books belonging not only to private teachers of the Church, but also to entire private churches, as we have seen (§ 125), do not entirely agree with each other - and those books that are considered canonical in some catalogs are sometimes not mentioned in others, and in others are even considered non-canonical. Consequently, here it is possible to resolve the issue only with more or less thoroughness and closeness to the truth; but it is impossible to decide in such a way that there is no room left for any doubts or quarrels. All kinds of abuses are possible here, depending on the types and intentions of each scientist 560. And the example of Luther, who did not hesitate to exclude from the canon books that were not mentioned in some ancient catalogs (from the New Testament epistles: James, second Peter, second and third John, to the Jews of the Apostle Paul and the Apocalypse) 561. And especially the example of the rationalists, who finally reached such a point in their disputes about the canonical dignity of the holy books that there was no longer a single book left that was not rejected by one or another of them, and was unanimously recognized by everyone as canonical, serve as striking evidence of this truth. Reason, secondly, is not able to indisputably testify to the inspiration of the holy books: for what can it point us to? On the internal superiority of the teaching contained in them? But from here it is only with probability, and not at all with decisiveness, that one can conclude about their Divine origin, and, moreover, this very superiority of the teaching is still a subject of dispute for very many people. On the testimony of St. Scriptures about your inspiration? But even here only probability is possible: for this evidence, as we have seen (§§ 123 and 124), is a) not quite clear and definite; b) do not concern all of St. Scripture, but only one Old Testament, or some books, or even individual passages of one or another book; c) are still subject to different interpretations and disputes 562, and d) generally cannot, in the strict sense, have the power of persuasiveness for everyone, like the testimony of Scripture about itself. Or he will point to the historical evidence of the ancients about the inspiration of St. books? But it is known that the ancient evidence of this is of two kinds: the evidence of Orthodox Christians, who, precisely, called the books of St. Scriptures inspired by God, and the testimony of heretics, which are often contrary to the first. Why does the mind prefer some of these evidence to others - a mind, let us not forget, that is not guided in its research by any higher authority? Finally, reason, not subordinate to any higher authority, but left only to itself, is absolutely incapable of being for us a correct and completely reliable interpreter of St. Scripture: on the contrary, in this case the completely opposite would have to happen. Because - a) in experience, there are only individual human minds, which, in addition to the general principles inherent in them, also have their own special (subjective) principles and beliefs. They often have their own special goals that they strive for, special motives that guide their actions. Consequently, everyone would then begin to explain St. Scripture in its own way, according to its strengths and concepts, and sometimes according to its impure forms and intentions - and there would necessarily be almost as many interpretations of Scripture as there are individual minds 563; b) it is known that the beliefs of private minds very often change, and what yesterday one considered to be true, now considers to be a lie: therefore, one’s own interpretations of St. Scripture would then have to be diversified; c) finally, the mind itself can explain one way or another, without a doubt, only those truths in the Bible that are comprehensible to it: how will it explain the incomprehensible truths? And how can you guarantee that his explanation is correct? Rather, as the experience of rationalists has shown, the mind will reject these incomprehensible truths and interpret them in its own way, in a figurative sense, not allowing anything mysterious. Our words do not mean that the mind should not take any part in the interpretation of St. Scriptures as if his participation was inevitably harmful. On the contrary, the mind can and should participate in this, but only by submitting in its interpretations to another, higher authority 564. And then the participation of the mind can be not only very useful for us, but, at times, even necessary, especially in disputes with opponents. And we are actually talking about the mind, which is not subordinate to this highest authority, and is guided in its research by the mere principle of its own arbitrariness (liberi arbitrii): it cannot be taken as a reliable and only guide in the explanation of St. Scriptures. 2) Not the Holy Scripture itself, as those who claim that the Word of God must be explained with the Word of God and its dark places with the clearest want. For the Holy Scriptures are a) nowhere defines either the canon or the authenticity of the books included in its composition; b) his very testimonies about their divine inspiration, we repeat again, relate only to the Old Testament alone, or only to some books, or even to some individual places in them, and do not clearly relate to the New Testament, do not concern the entire Holy Testament. Scriptures. Moreover, as the testimony of St. Writings about oneself cannot have the proper value and all the power of persuasiveness; c) finally, we must remember that St. Scripture is precisely Scripture, and not any living creature with hearing and lips. It cannot hear our questions about how we should understand this or that place in it, and it cannot answer us or resolve our perplexities. So, to resolve these perplexities, when explaining St. Scripture, based on St. The Scriptures will be provided again to us. And it will depend on us to choose these or other passages for this, call them the clearest and then reinterpret them as we please. Then, as others will point out other, clearest, in their opinion, places, and explain them in their own way 565. It is obvious that here, too, the beginning of the explanation of St. The Scriptures will still be our same mind, and not St. Scripture that all sorts of abuses are possible here too. It’s not that we want to say that, therefore, St. The Scriptures cannot and should not be explained by St. Scripture and its dark places are the clearest. No, this is one of the essential, although separate, rules of sound biblical hermeneutics, which can have a very extensive and useful application, if only, in order to prevent abuse, it itself is subordinated to another, reliable, indisputable principle (the one we are currently looking for). We only assert that this rule of interpretation of St. The Scriptures cannot be recognized as the most important, fundamental, infallible and completely reliable rule, to which all others should be subordinated. 3) Nor, finally, internal illumination from the Holy Spirit or the inner voice heard in the heart of each believer, as many sectarians teach in the depths of Protestantism. This is the beginning of St. hermeneutics, in its essence, seems to be the best: for who can more reliably testify to us about the canon and divine inspiration of St. Scripture, who can more accurately show us its true meaning if not the Holy Spirit, the true author of St. Scriptures? But the fact is that in application this beginning is extremely inconvenient and unreliable: internal illumination or anointing from the Holy Spirit, which true believers are truly rewarded with (1 John 2:27), is a mysterious and hidden action for all outsiders. Therefore, to prevent any deception, only one remedy would be possible here: if those who pretend to be worthy of such insight would confirm their words with true miracles (which, however, they do not actually show). Otherwise, abuses are inevitable: this beginning opens the widest door to all kinds of liberties in the explanation of St. Scriptures and endless disputes. For anyone at will can pass off (as sectarians often do) their own nonsense as inspiration from the Holy Spirit, while intensifying their efforts to blatantly confirm their dreams with biblical texts. On the other hand, these people, in fact, through their own experience, completely expose the injustice of what they preach: there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of truth, cannot contradict itself; meanwhile, the sectarians, who claim that they allegedly explain the Holy Spirit, cannot contradict themselves. The Scriptures, according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, disagree among themselves to the extreme; and often what one of them passes off as truth, the other rejects as error 566. A clear sign that they are not led at all by the Holy Spirit, but again by their own mind, their own private (subjective) beliefs and goals. The last remark is that, having devoted ourselves exclusively to this principle, it is easy to reach the complete rejection of St. Scriptures: for if the Holy Spirit himself inwardly teaches us the truth necessary for salvation, then what use do we need the external aid of the Bible? This is indeed what happened with the Anabaptists and Swedenborgians 567 . We, however, do not at all deny that, both in every good deed and in the assimilation of revealed teaching, a Christian needs assistance, admonition and instruction from the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27, etc.); but we only say that inner illumination from the Holy Spirit, being accepted as the exclusive beginning of the Holy Spirit. hermeneutics, for the reasons stated above, is not sufficient for the purpose. If, therefore, none of those aids that wrong-thinking Christians use to assimilate the Divine revelation from St. Scriptures: where will we find for ourselves, as Orthodox Christians, this necessary aid? According to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, it is given to believers by God himself, in another source of the Christian faith, the Holy. Traditions 569. Under the name of St. Tradition is, of course, the Word of God, not put into writing by the divinely inspired Writers themselves, but orally given to the Church, and since then continuously preserved in it 570. In order now, indeed, to justify the thought we have expressed about this Divine source, in relation to its relation to St. Scripture, we must show - a) that St. Tradition, precisely, must be taken as the source of the Christian faith and Orthodox Theology; b) that it could and did survive intact to us; c) then indicate the signs by which the Apostolic traditions can be unmistakably recognized even today; d) finally, determine the very importance and use of this source. § 129. Sacred Tradition must be recognized as the source of the Christian faith What is more than one St. Scripture was in the beginning and now must be recognized as the source of the Christian faith, but with it St. The legend is clear: 1) From the history of the initial preaching and existence of the Christian faith. This story represents that - a) Christianity was initially spread in two ways: mainly through the spoken word and only partly through writing. The Savior Himself, the first Teacher of the heavenly faith, wrote nothing about it; many of St. The apostles also only spread it orally until their death, leaving no writings behind. Some of the first preachers of the Gospel, in addition to the spoken word, at times used writing for this purpose. b) The apostles who left behind the writings did not set everything out in them. “There is a teaching,” says one of our Russian Archpastors, “written by the Apostles in their epistles, and there is a teaching that they orally transmitted to their disciples and followers. John the Theologian writes at the end of his Gospel: the essence of the many things that Jesus did, even if they were written one by one, I do not even remember. The whole world can contain written books (21, 25). This means that there were many incidents in the earthly life of Jesus Christ, about which, because of their multitude, the Apostles could not write in detail, but which they probably talked about and narrated to their followers. The same should be said about the teachings of Jesus Christ. For forty days after his resurrection He taught the Apostles about the subjects of faith and the kingdom of God; but this teaching is not written anywhere in the sacred books, but it was faithfully handed down by the Apostles orally to their disciples. The Apostle Paul also says that for three summers, night and day, he did not cease teaching with tears the elders of Ephesus, the only one of them (Acts. 20, 31); and this teaching, without a doubt, was not all written, but could have been passed on orally from one to another until our time” 571. c) The apostles, who wrote their epistles to Christians, sometimes left something until a future oral conversation with these Christians, which had to fill in what was left unsaid in the writings. I had many things to write to you, but were not willing to write with charter and ink: but I hope to come to you and speak mouth to mouth, says St. John the Theologian in his second epistle (v. 12); I have a lot to write, he repeats in the third epistle, but I don’t want to write to you with ink and reed: I hope to see you and speak mouth to mouth (vv. 13 and 14). St. is expressed in a similar way in one place. Paul: But when I come, I will arrange for the rest (1 Cor. 11:34). d) Finally, the Apostolic Epistles, written in different places and to different private churches, or even private individuals, did not become generally known throughout the entire Church of Christ very soon, and even in the days of Irenaeus (in the 2nd half of the second century) there were entire nations converted to Christianity who did not have any saints. scriptures, but were content with one legend. “If only,” asks St. Father, - The Apostles did not leave us their writings: shouldn’t we have followed the order of the tradition that they left to those to whom they entrusted the churches? This order is followed by many barbarian peoples who, having believed in Christ, have salvation written on their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and carefully observe the ancient tradition... Such people who believed without Scripture, although, in our dialect, are considered barbarians, but as for the way of thoughts, morals and life, they are very wise by faith and please God, living their lives in all righteousness, purity and wisdom. If someone began to preach a heretical false teaching to them, they would immediately close their ears and run far, not even wanting to hear the blasphemous conversation. So they, establishing themselves on the ancient Apostolic tradition, do not even allow any heretical superstition to enter their thoughts” 572. 2) From the example and completely clear sayings and even commands of the saints themselves. writers. “If oral Tradition had been contrary to the faith of Christ,” let’s say in the words of the same Russian Archpastor, “then the Apostles, without a doubt, would not have believed it themselves, and we, Christians, would have been forbidden to believe. But, on the contrary, Luke the Evangelist was not himself a disciple of Christ, but wrote the entire Gospel according to oral tradition from Christ’s disciples. Read (Luke 1:1): now many people have begun to tell the story of the things known in us: just as the eye-witnesses and servants who were from the beginning gave to us the word: it was good for me, etc. The Apostle Jude believed the legend about Michael the Archangel, who argued with the devil about the body of Moses (v. 9); Meanwhile, this is not written anywhere in the sacred books. The Apostle Paul also believed that the Lord Jesus said: it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35); but these words are not literally written in the Gospel, and he probably heard them from the lips of some disciple of Christ” 573. On the other hand, St. Paul, who wrote more than all the Apostles, says: brothers, stand, and hold fast the traditions which you have learned, either by word or by our epistle (2 Thess. 2:15). The important thing here is - a) that the Apostle directly and decisively commands Christians to adhere, among other things, to oral traditions; b) he commands when the believers already had his writings in their hands: for he says this in his second letter to the Thessalonians; c) commands to adhere to traditions in the same way as to the scriptures, with equal respect, firmness and constancy, leaving neither one nor the other source of saving teaching, but containing them together, inseparably. “I praise you, brethren, for you remember everything I have, and keep the tradition that I gave you,” wrote the same Apostle in his first letter to the Corinthians, and, obviously, meaning not written traditions, but only oral ones (1 Cor. 11:2). O Timothy, preserve the tradition, avoiding the foul talk and contradictions of the false mind (1 Tim. 6:20); having received the image of sound words, which you heard from me, in faith and love, even in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 1, 13), - and even though you heard from me by many witnesses, this was delivered by a faithful man, who will be content to teach others (-2, 2): here are also the commandments of the same Apostle regarding oral traditions. 3) From the continuous, unanimous teaching and example of St. Fathers and teachers of the Church. So, from the men of the first century: a) St. Ignatius, according to the testimony of Eusebius, exhorted the believers to guard against the perverse opinions of heretics..., and to firmly adhere to the Apostolic Tradition 574; b) St. Polycarp conveyed to the believers the very words spoken by the Lord, which he heard directly from the Apostles, and in general betrayed to the Church what he himself received from the Apostles 575; c) and Egesippus even took care to collect the Apostolic traditions together, and set out many of them in five books (ὑπομν ή μασι), which, unfortunately, have not reached us 576. a) St. Irenaeus wrote: “everyone who wants to know the truth must turn in every church to the Apostolic tradition, known throughout the world” 577, and he himself, arguing with numerous heretics, tried to expose them not only from Scripture, but mainly from tradition 578: b) Tertullian also not only commanded to adhere to the Apostolic traditions, but also constantly cited them as evidence against heretics, as his entire work shows 579. a) Origen bequeathed: “let the church tradition be preserved, handed down through the order of succession from the Apostles, and even to this day abiding in the churches; One should believe only that truth, which does not disagree in any way with the Church and Apostolic tradition” 580; b) St. Cyprian said: “it is easy for pious and simple souls to avoid error and find the truth: for as soon as we turn to the source of Divine tradition, error will disappear” 581. In the fourth century we also hear: a) from St. Epiphany: “one must adhere to tradition, for it is impossible to find everything in the scriptures alone; The most holy Apostles left one thing in Scripture, another in tradition, which is what Paul affirms: as I delivered it to you” (1 Cor. 11:2) 582; b) from St. Basil the Great: “Of the dogmas and preachings preserved in the Church, some we have from written instruction, and some we received from the Apostolic tradition, by succession in secret, both of them have the same power for piety; and no one will object to this, although he has little knowledge of church institutions: for if we undertake to reject unwritten customs, as if they have no great power, then we will imperceptibly damage the Gospel in the main subjects, or, moreover, we will reduce the sermon to a single name, without the very thing” 583; c) from St. Chrysostom: “the Apostles did not betray everything through Scripture, but also much without Scripture; but both are equally worthy of faith; Therefore, we consider tradition worthy of faith: there is tradition, look no further.”584 To cite, after this, a number of many other paternal testimonies, without any doubt, would be unnecessary 585. 4) Finally, from the example of the entire Ecumenical Church, which gathered, in the person of its shepherds, at Ecumenical Councils. It is known that at these Councils heresies were denounced and the dogmas of Orthodoxy were affirmed on the basis not only of Scripture, but also of tradition, sometimes even predominantly of tradition. This is exactly what they did: the Council of Nicaea 586, the Council of Constantinople 587, the Council of Ephesus 588, Chalcedon 589, Trullo 590 and Nicaea II. “We preserve, say at the very beginning of their dogma, the fathers of this last ecumenical council, we preserve, not in a new way, everything, with or without scripture, established for us, church traditions... By this very fact, as if walking the royal path, following the Divine teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church... we define...” and so on. § 130. The Holy Tradition could and has indeed been preserved to us in its entirety: a) could have been preserved What St. The tradition could be completely preserved in the Church to this day, this is revealed: 1) Partly from the way the legends are disseminated, their ubiquity and nationality. The Holy Apostles did not preach the revealed teaching in just a few places, not in front of a few people, and not at all in secret. On the contrary, they carried it throughout all the countries of the world at that time, proclaimed it in all languages, with all clarity (Matthew 10:27), and, as the very purpose of their preaching required, they tried to convey Divine truths to everyone and everyone who wanted salvation. Under such circumstances, it was obviously impossible for any Apostolic, especially important, tradition to be lost or spoiled throughout the entire Church, throughout the Christian world. “Who wants to know the truth, said St. Irenaeus, he can discern in every church the Apostolic Tradition, proclaimed throughout the world" 591. 2) Much more from the zealous adherence of all Christians to the teaching handed down by the Apostles, which St. so praises in the Corinthians. Paul (1 Cor. 11:2; fn. 1 Sol. 1:8; Col. 1:4.6; Rom. 1:8). Christians were naturally disposed to such concern for the preservation of the teachings orally taught by the Apostles: a) the very dignity of this teaching, in which they saw the Word of God; b) the suggestions of St. The Apostles stand and adhere to the traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and at the same time severe reprimands against opponents: if we, or an Angel from heaven, brings you the good news, let him be anathema, wrote St. Paul to the Galatians; just as I foretold, and now I say again, if anyone preaches the gospel to you any more than he has already eaten, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9); c) the extreme necessity of traditions: for at first there were no Apostolic writings, and even then, when these writings appeared, before they were brought to general knowledge, many private churches used and could exist exclusively only by Apostolic traditions 592. 3) even more from the duty and at the same time the zeal of the heads of churches to preserve the Holy Tradition. It was them, predominantly, in accordance with the very purpose of shepherding them, that the Church of the Lord and God (Acts 20:28) tried to instruct and confirm in the truths of the Holy Faith. The Apostles (-27), just as before, they themselves, preferably before all other people, were instructed by the heavenly Teacher (John 17:6.8). The pastors of the Church were especially commanded by St. Those who bring good news are to keep their word true according to teaching (Tit. 1:9), to have sound words... and to keep a good testament by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 1:13-14). Finally, the Apostles obligated them to convey the teaching heard in the presence of many witnesses to their future successors, a faithful man who would be content to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). “If the Apostles knew the hidden secrets, writes St. Irenaeus, who revealed only to the perfect, and not to all people: they primarily communicated these secrets to persons to whom they entrusted the very churches. For the Apostles wanted those whom they left as their successors, and to whom they transferred their own ministry of teaching, to be very perfect and blameless in all respects: since the great good should depend on the infallible action of these persons, and the greatest evil on the sinful one.”593 And history testifies that the worthy successors of the Apostles were fully consistent with their calling. “What they found in the Church, says one famous teacher, they kept, what they themselves learned, they taught, what they received from their fathers, they passed on to their children” 594 . 4) Especially from the fact that the sacred traditions very early began to be concluded by many teachers of the Church in writing 595, and thus, with all reliability, were transmitted from generation to generation in subsequent centuries. 5) Finally, from the fact that the Church received many traditions from the Apostles in its very practice, which for the preservation of truths is by no means less reliable than writing. The composition of divine services, especially the liturgy, at least in the most important parts, the manner of performing all the most holy sacraments, some prayers, without any doubt, received their origin from the Apostles. Following this, the successors of the Apostles, who accepted the right and duty to arrange everything in the Church gracefully and in order (1 Cor. 14:40), also took care of many, betrayed by the Apostles, to perpetuate the truth for all subsequent generations in church practice, in the establishment of holidays and rituals. § 131. b) The Holy Tradition has indeed been preserved intact to us Now we can already determine the sources in which the Apostolic traditions have come down to us. This - 1) Ancient symbols, which, as an image of sound words, as the first need for believers, undoubtedly appeared from the time of the Apostles themselves and constantly existed in all churches from their very establishment. Quite a lot of such Symbols, used by Christians in the first three centuries before the Nicene-Constant Grad Symbol, are known, and all of them, completely similar in spirit, although often different in letter, contain the most important members of the dogmatic teaching, which were later included in the Nicene-Constant Grad Symbol 596. 2) Rules of the Holy Apostles. The respect with which these rules were used even in the first centuries of Christianity, and were used not in any local church, but throughout the entire Church of the Universal Church - respect that extended to the point that the Councils themselves, local and ecumenical, placed them at the basis of their definitions and were guided by them as a law that has a universal and indisputable force of binding - all this places the Divine importance of the Apostolic Rules above all doubt. But it is also certain that St. The Apostles handed them over to the Church not in writing (otherwise they would have been included in the canon of New Testament books from the very beginning), but orally. These rules were written and brought into a certain order either by the Apostolic men, or by their closest successors 597. There are 85 known Apostolic Canons, and they contain the traditions of the Apostles, relating primarily to church administration and deanery. 3) Definitions and rules of the Councils: a) local ones, to which, according to the 37th canon of the Holy Apostles, bishops from different places gathered twice annually to discuss matters of faith and piety, and brought with them certain traditions preserved in their churches; especially - b) Ecumenical councils, where, in the person of their primates, the entire Church of Christ, the keeper of traditions, gathered. This source is all the more precious because the Councils, as we have noted, indeed always turned in their reasoning not only to Scripture, but also to Tradition. And that in the definitions and rules of these Councils, not only dogmatic, but also moral, and ritual traditions, and in general regarding all subjects of the Christian faith and the Church, have been preserved to us. 4) Ancient liturgies. There are very many such liturgies that were used, or are still in use, in different churches of the East and West, 598 and many of them, known under the names of the Apostles and Apostolic Men, go back to time immemorial, or even to the times of the Apostles themselves, such as, for example, the liturgy of St. Apostle James. These liturgies can be considered one of the most important repositories of the Apostolic tradition and the true belief of the primal Church, judging, on the one hand, by the antiquity of their origin, and on the other, by their high purpose and use in the Church. At least in those points of teaching in which all these ancient liturgies are completely agreed with each other, their voice should have the power of indisputability. And there are a lot of similar features: thus, in all liturgies the dogmas are confessed about the Most Holy Trinity, about the Divinity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, about the true incarnation of God the Word, about the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, about the necessity of grace, about the actual change or transubstantiation of bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist, about the invocation of the Saints, etc. 599. 5) The most ancient acts concerning Christian martyrs are: acts of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna and many others, written by contemporaries of these men and even witnesses of their torment 600. Going to free death for the name of Christ, St. The martyrs clearly and openly confessed their faith before their tormentors, and often explained to them in some detail the various truths of Christianity. These confessions and explanations, without a doubt, were the most sincere and true. Therefore, being written down by direct witnesses, they now serve as a precious monument of the then belief of the Church and the Apostolic tradition used in it. This is all the more certain because, in ancient times, acts of martyrdom did not previously come into use among believers, as after their preliminary consideration and approval by the local bishop, and were read in public meetings of Christians, also under the supervision of the heads of churches, who could not allow anything inconsistent with the general belief of the Church to creep into these acts. Among other confessions found in such acts, we find the clearest confessions of the Most Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the invocation of Saints, etc. 6) Ancient church histories, among which the story of Eusebius Pamphilus, who used the most ancient and reliable documents, deserves special respect. Here are collected many traditions from the times of the Apostles, not only purely historical, ritual and the like, but also dogmatic, such as, for example, the legend about the canon of the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments. 7) In general, the creations of all the ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church. They wrote either private confessions to testify to their own faith before the Church (such as the statements of faith of St. Athanasius the Great, Pope Pelagius and many others), or explanations of the truths of faith for the detailed instruction of Orthodox Christians (such as the Catechism of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the Theology of St. John of Damascus, countless church teachings, interpretations of the books of Holy Scripture, etc.), or, finally, denunciations against pagans, heretics and schismatics, just as numerous and varied. In all these cases, the ancient shepherds, naturally, had to invariably conform to the Apostolic traditions, which were then preserved and used in the Church; and therefore can rightly be called witnesses to these traditions, and traditions of all kinds: dogmatic, ritual, and historical. In all their forms. The Scriptures of the Fathers are the richest source of Tradition 602. 8) Finally, all the ancient practice of the Church, where they belong a) sacred times: fasts, Sundays and holidays; b) sacred places: the structure of churches with its details, and c) sacred actions, rites and ceremonies. And since the image of the sacredness of times and the performance of sacred rites is set out in liturgical books, then this should also include - d) and these books, or church rites 603. But, without any doubt, not everything that is contained in the sources or repositories of the Apostolic Tradition that we have calculated is, by that same token, the Apostolic Tradition; on the contrary, they contain quite a lot of things that cannot in any way be called by this name. The true Apostolic Tradition must have its own special characteristics by which we can distinguish it from all other truths, from all errors and, in particular, from all false traditions. § 132. Signs of sacred or apostolic tradition These signs are usually divided into internal and external. I. The internal ones include: 1) that the Apostolic Tradition be consistent with itself, that is, it does not contain an internal contradiction: a sign common to all truths, but also necessary in the Apostolic Tradition, to distinguish it in general from many errors and in particular from some false traditions. 2) So that it is consistent with other, already known and undoubted, Apostolic traditions; for the Apostles could not contradict themselves: another sign necessary in tradition for the same purpose. 3) Finally, so that it is consistent with St. Scripture, for the author of both is the same – the Holy Spirit. St. herself points to this sign. The Church, when in the Orthodox Catechism teaches us: “we must observe the tradition that is in agreement with Divine revelation and the Holy Scriptures” 604. And in the Rite of Orthodoxy, by the way, he says: “To those who reject the Councils of St. The Fathers and their traditions, consonant with Divine revelation and piously preserved by the Orthodox-Catholic Church, are anathema" 605. But since St. herself The Church teaches us that “it is only fitting for her to reason about the true understanding and interpretation of the holy scriptures” 606, and that she alone is infallible in this case 607, then, obviously, in the spirit of her teaching, and to finally decide the question: is the known tradition consistent with St. Scripture or disagreement, does not belong to private individuals, but to her. That is why it was added in the Order of Orthodoxy: “to those who reject the traditions, which are in accordance with Divine revelation, and preserved by the Orthodox-Catholic Church, anathema.” However, no matter how important this sign is, it, like the two previous ones, gives us the opportunity to distinguish the true Apostolic tradition only from errors and from false traditions, nothing more: for all truths, both Divine and human origin, not only can, but also must necessarily agree with St. Scripture. Consequently, all the internal signs of the Apostolic Tradition that we have shown are only negative, and not positive: from them we always learn what cannot be called the Apostolic Tradition; but we won’t know what it should be called. This is where the external signs of the Apostolic Tradition come to our aid, which are borrowed from external evidence and positively determine the character of the truly Apostolic Traditions. II. According to these external signs: 1) Only that which can be traced back to the times of the Apostles, and from the very beginning (in the 1st and 2nd centuries) was used in the churches directly founded by the Apostles, can be recognized as a truly Apostolic tradition. This sign of legends was pointed out by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. “If a dispute were to be revived about something,” says the first, “wouldn’t it be appropriate to turn to the most ancient churches, which saw the Apostles among themselves, and receive from them what is only known and obviously clear regarding the real controversial subject” 608? “That tradition alone,” says the second, should be recognized as Apostolic, which is now contained in the churches they founded” 609. But it is clear that this sign, applicable in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian, now, due to our distance from the times of the Apostles and due to the loss of many writings of the first teachers of the Church, is alone insufficient to determine all the Apostolic traditions. And therefore, to convince us of the truth, it is enough if - 2) Something is unanimously given to us as Apostolic Tradition by all or only many teachers of the Church of the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries: for these teachers could base their testimony on the testimony of the most ancient teachers, whose writings were still intact at that time, and they themselves were close to the times of the Apostles, and expressed, according to Augustine’s remark, only what they found in the Church 610. “What many, says Tertullian, find in one thing is not invented, but betrayed” 611. “What all or many, says Vikenty Lirinsky (teacher of the 5th century), unanimously, openly and constantly, as if by some prior agreement of their teachers, accept, maintain and transmit, should be considered completely reliable and undoubted 612. 3) Finally, it is undoubtedly necessary to recognize as Apostolic Tradition that which the entire universal Church held and holds, and which, meanwhile, either completely, or at least in the exact form in which it is contained by the Holy Spirit. Church, cannot be found in St. Scripture. “One should not seek truth from others,” writes St. Irenaeus, but it must be taught to her in the Church, into which, as into a rich treasury, the Apostles deposited everything that is true... And therefore the Tradition of truth, which the Church contains, must be loved and accepted with all zeal” 613. “What the whole Church contains, the blessed one notices. Augustine, and what, without any conciliar decree, was always contained in it, then, in all fairness, we consider it to be faithful from the Apostles 614. Let us also recall the words from the Order of Orthodoxy: “to those who reject... traditions... piously preserved by the Orthodox-Catholic Church, anathema.” § 133. The importance and use of Sacred Tradition From the very concept of sacred tradition, as the oral Word of God, it necessarily follows that, in its dignity, it is completely equal to the written Word of God. This equivalence of both sources of the Christian faith, which contain the same Divine revelation, - 1) St. clearly testified. The Apostle Paul, when he commanded Christians to adhere equally to one and the other, without putting the slightest difference between them: brethren, stand, and keep the traditions which you have learned, either by word or by our epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15) 615. 2) They clearly confessed to St. Church Fathers, for example: a) St. Basil the Great: “Of the dogmas and sermons preserved in the Church, some we have from written instruction, and some we have received from Apostolic tradition, by succession in secret, both of them have the same power for piety and no one will contradict this, although he is little versed in church institutions” 616, b) St. Chrysostom: “the Apostles did not betray everything through the letter, but also much without writing: but both are equally worthy of faith; Therefore, we consider the legend to be reliable: there is a tradition, don’t look for anything else” 617. 3) Finally, the whole Church clearly testified when, not only at local, but also at Ecumenical Councils, she was guided with equal respect in defining and establishing dogmas by both Scripture and Tradition (see § 129). As for the use of Sacred Tradition: in this regard it must be said that St. Tradition fully satisfies the conditions that we indicated when speaking about the need for a Divine source of the Christian faith, under St. Scripture (§ 128). Exactly: I. Sacred Tradition is absolutely necessary for the indisputable solution of questions regarding the authenticity of the canon and the inspiration of the sacred books: all these questions, as we have seen (§ 128), cannot be solved with complete satisfaction by the mind, nor are the saints. Scripture: all of them, let us add here, from the very beginning of Christianity, indeed, were decided primarily on the basis of Holy Tradition. Yes - a) Origen, starting to count the books that make up the Old Testament canon, notes: how it was taught by the Jews..., and turning to the books of the New Testament, he begins: "about the four Gospels, unquestioningly accepted throughout the Church, I learned the following from tradition..." 618; b) The Fathers of the Council of Carthage, having listed the canonical and inspired books of St. The Scriptures conclude: “for we received from the fathers that these books are appropriate to be read in church” (right 33); c) Rufinus in a similar case says: “we considered it timely to number them (the holy books), as was handed down to us from the fathers, which we received from the monuments of our fathers”; d) Pope Innocent I expresses that he wants to show the canon of inspired writings, “following the tradition (secundum traditionem) preserved in the Roman Church since the time of the Apostles themselves” 619; d) St. Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius also based themselves solely on the sacred Tradition 620. II. Sacred Tradition is absolutely necessary for the correct and infallible understanding of the very truths contained in the Holy Scriptures. AND - 1) It is necessary for an accurate definition and explanation of those truths that are not fully expressed in St. Scriptures, but only either are in the form of hints, or are contained in other truths, as in their principles, from which they can be deduced through inferences. These are the truths: about the descent of Jesus Christ into hell, about the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, about the veneration and invocation of Angels and Saints in prayers, about the veneration of St. relics and icons, about the state of souls after death until the general judgment, about the commemoration of the dead, about the sevenfold number of sacraments, about the baptism of infants and the uniqueness of baptism, about the performance of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and other sacraments 621. Now we derive these dogmatic truths as consequences from certain passages of the Bible, and consider them important. But why? Because the Church has a reliable Tradition about these truths from the very times of the Apostles. And, not adhering to tradition, we - a) or would not have derived the said dogmas from St. Scriptures, as do the Protestants, who, although they use the same sacred code as we do, but, rejecting dogmatic traditions in general, reject these dogmas, trying together to prove the injustice of our conclusions; b) or would even reject the calculated dogmas, on the basis of other places of St. Scripture, to which we also find living evidence from the same Protestants. They do not recognize, for example, the dogma of the veneration of Angels and Saints, not only because there is supposedly no basis for this truth in St. Scripture, but more because, as it seems to them, there are places in Scripture that completely overthrow it; c) or they would have deduced, as we deduce now, but would not consider their conclusions to be dogmas, but simple opinions that one can hold or not hold; d) finally, even if we deduced all the mentioned truths from St. The Scriptures, properly speaking, themselves recognized them as dogmas: our private respect for them would not yet impart to these truths in the eyes of others the necessary force of binding... The Apostolic Tradition alone, as Divine, indisputably defines and affirms these dogmas for all believers. 2) It is necessary for an accurate definition and explanation of even those truths that are set out in St. Scriptures with completeness. Because - a) although we can explain these truths ourselves directly from St. Scripture, but in our explanation there will always be room for doubt whether we have correctly understood what we are explaining; b) these truths, being defined and explained without the guidance of Sacred Tradition, have always been subject to countless disagreements, at the will of people 622, and often there is no way to put an end to such disagreements until sacred Tradition, which has Divine authority, is called upon to help. As is natural, when explaining St. Scriptures, turn to St. According to legend, this can be understood: a) From the fact that St. The apostles set out their teaching in writing initially for people to whom this same teaching had already been previously taught by them orally in all its clarity, certainty and completeness, and to whom, therefore, they commanded to equally adhere to the Holy Spirit. Scriptures and St. Traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Consequently, if the oral tradition of the Apostles served as a necessary aid for the proper understanding of their writings for the first Christians, then, having been preserved in St. Church intact to this day, shouldn’t it serve the same for us? b) From the fact that both the Savior himself, especially after his resurrection before his disciples (Luke 24:27), and St. The Apostles (Acts 2:25-32, etc.) before all believers, indeed, explained the Old Testament scriptures, indicating the true meaning of the promises, prophecies and types found there. And some of the Apostles, for example, Peter, who read the epistles of the Apostle Paul, and found some reasonable inconvenience in them (2 Peter 3:16), and John the Theologian, who lived longer than all the Apostles, and, as tradition says, examined and approved all their writings, without any doubt, on occasion, explained the books of the New Testament to Christians. If now the oral explanations of St. The Scriptures, which originated from the Lord himself and his disciples, have been preserved and have reached us intact: what right do we have to deviate from these traditions? 3) This is how he looks at St. Tradition and St. Church: “and now, she commands us, we need Tradition to guide us to the correct understanding of Holy Scripture, for the correct performance of the sacraments and for the observance of sacred rites in the purity of their original establishment.” 623. This is how she looked at Holy Tradition and always, as can be seen: a) from the testimony of some of her individual teachers and b) from the testimony of the Councils. a) From teachers: St. Irenaeus decisively rejects the idea that “those who do not know the tradition can find the truth from the scriptures” 624. Clement of Alexandria teaches that “those who interpret the scriptures contrary to church tradition have lost the rule of truth” 625. Origen says that we “should not deviate from the original and church tradition, and believe (the scriptures) in any other way than what was handed down to us through the succession of God’s churches” 626, and that “that only truth should be recognized as the actual truth, which in no way disagrees with church tradition” 627. St. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, according to the testimony of Rufinus, when explaining the Divine Scriptures, tried to be guided not by their own considerations, but by the traditions of their ancestors 628. St. Cyprian says: “if we turn to the source of Divine tradition, then human error will cease” 629. b) From St. Council: the sixth ecumenical council (in 680) condemned the Origenists because they (as shown by the letter of Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem, read and approved in session 13) dared to interpret the scriptures contrary to the tradition of their ancestors; and the Fifth-Sixth Council or the Council of Trullo (in 691) decreed by the 19th canon: “The heads of the churches must on all days, especially on Sundays, teach the entire clergy and people the words of piety, choosing from the Divine Scripture the understanding and reasoning of the truth and without transgressing the already established limits and the tradition of the God-bearing Fathers: and if the word of Scripture is examined, then Otherwise, let them explain it, except as the luminaries and teachers of the Church set forth in their writings, and let them be more satisfied with these than with composing their own words, so that, if they lack skill in this, they do not deviate from what is proper.” III. To all this it must be added that St. Tradition, of course, is necessary to determine and confirm many historical and ritual truths, which are contained in it alone and are not mentioned at all in St. Scripture. Truths concerning various aspects of church structure, deanery and worship, such as: the establishment of certain holidays and fasts, the use of priestly vestments, the organization of churches, the behavior of clergy and laity, etc. The existence of this kind of traditions, historical and ritual, has always been accepted not only by Orthodox Christians, but also by Protestants themselves. And it is all the more necessary for us to mention these traditions here because there are entire branches of Orthodox Theology, such as Church Archeology and Canon Law, which are primarily based on them, and for which, therefore, St. Tradition, Apostolic and Church, serves as the most important source. SECTION III. ABOUT THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AS THE GUARDIAN AND INTERPRETER OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES AND THE SACRED TRADIO § 134. Relationship with the previous and parts of this section In order to be completely convinced of the authenticity, canon and inspiration of the holy books, in order to correctly understand and interpret St. Scripture, it is necessary, as we have seen, to adhere to the Holy Tradition, and in order to be convinced of the authenticity and integrity of the Holy Tradition itself, and to be able to distinguish true Apostolic traditions from false ones, it is necessary, as we have already noticed, to follow the testimony of the Orthodox Church. The conclusion from here is obvious: it means that the Orthodox Church is the true custodian of all Divine revelation, that is, not only St. Tradition, but through Tradition and St. Scriptures. Now the question is: I) is this really true - is it true that the Lord the Savior himself appointed his Orthodox Church to be the guardian and interpreter of his Divine Word? And if it's fair: II) is this guardian and interpreter so trustworthy that she herself cannot sin and mislead us? If this is beyond doubt, new inevitable questions arise: III) where is it - this Orthodox Church, to whose leadership we could boldly surrender, and IV) where exactly can we hear the voice of her teaching, which we could take as our guide in assimilating Divine revelation? I. THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IS DESIGNATED TO BE THE GUARDIAN AND INTERPRETER OF THE DIVINE REVELATION § 135. Disclosure of this truth and, first, the concept of the Church Before we begin to reveal this truth, we need to establish a concept about it. I. The Church of Christ is the society of Believers in Jesus Christ: everyone agrees on this (see § 16). But some Christians teach that the Church is a society in which there are two classes of members: firstly, the God-established hierarchy (hierarchy), or the class of shepherds, to whom the Lord himself entrusted the custody of His Divine Word, and gave the right to explain and preach it to others, and, secondly, the class of the flock, who do not have this right, are obliged to learn the faith from their shepherds and use Divine revelation under their leadership. On the contrary, others argue that there should not be such a division of members in the Church, that there is no divinely established hierarchy, that all believers are equal, all have the same right to teach, all can directly, without any outside guidance, use the Word of God, explain it according to their own utmost understanding, and thus build their faith and salvation. We, as children of the Orthodox Church, adhere to the first thought, and therefore, when we say that the Church is appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of Divine revelation, we actually mean one teaching church, or the sacred hierarchy 630. Consequently, to confirm this thought, we must show that Christ the Savior, in fact, established in his Church a special class of people, whom he authorized alone to be guardians and interpreters of his Divine Word for all those seeking salvation, and did not at all grant such a right to all believers. 1) From the history of the Savior himself. For the present case, it presents us with the following three undoubted truths: a) Having appeared on earth to accomplish the great work of our redemption, the Savior at first only to Himself acquired the right to teach people the true faith, which He received from the Father: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, He says, for the sake of the anointing of me to bring good news to the poor, sending me to heal the brokenhearted: to preach remission to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind: to let the brokenhearted go to joy: to preach The summer of the Lord is pleasant (Luke 4:18.19), and while passing through cities and towns with the preaching of the Gospel, he added: for this I was born, and for this I came into the world.... (John 18:37), I was sent for this (Luke 4:43), commanding at the same time the people and the disciples: do not be reproached teachers: for there is one teacher, Christ..., below are called teachers: for there is one teacher, Christ (Matt. 23, 1.8 and 10). b) Then He transferred His Divine right of teaching to his disciples, twelve and seventy, whom he himself deliberately chose for this great service from among all his listeners (Luke 6:13; demolished, 10:1 et seq.), first betraying them for a while back in the days of his earthly life, when he sent them to preach the Gospel of the kingdom only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5-16 and further), and then forever, after his resurrection, when, having completed all his work on earth, and departing to heaven, he said to them: As the Father sent me, and I send you (John 20:21), going and learning all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18). And, on the other hand, he very clearly and with terrible threats obliged all people and future Christians to accept the teachings of the Apostles and obey them: listen to you, he listens to me: and if you are swept away, he will be swept away from me: rejected from me, the one who sent me will be swept away (Luke 10:16. See also Matt. 10:14; 18, 15–19; Mark 16, 16). c) Finally, at the same time as the Lord transferred His Divine right of teaching to the Apostles, He expressed the desire that this right would directly pass from the Apostles to their successors, and from these latter, passing from generation to generation, would remain in the world until the very end of the world. For He said to His disciples: “When you go into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature, and when you go you teach all tongues, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all the great commandments given to you: and I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:18-20). But these disciples, without a doubt, could not live until the end of the century, and if they could preach the Gospel to all the languages ​​that were contemporary with them, they could not preach to the peoples of subsequent centuries. Consequently, in the person of his Apostles, the Savior sent to the work of worldwide preaching, as well as encouraging with his presence all their future successors: this is not a simple fortune-telling of the mind, but the positive teaching of one of the Apostles themselves, who says that Christ himself gave his Church not only Apostles, Prophets, evangelists, but also shepherds and teachers (Eph. 4:11). 2) From the history of St. Apostles. The apostles, without a doubt, knew best the will of their Lord; they were led by his Spirit, and as in everything, so here, of course, they were completely conformed to her. What did the Apostles do? They are a) constantly retained the right of teaching, which they received from the Lord (Acts 5, 42; 6, 1-5), despite any rebuke from their enemies (Acts 4, 19; 5, 28 and 29), and each testified about himself: if I preach the gospel, I have no praise; Woe is it for me if I do not preach the gospel (1 Cor. 9:16); b) they then transferred their Divine right to their successors, bishops and elders, whom they themselves elected and appointed (Acts 14:23; 20:28), commanding them to teach in time and in time, with all long-suffering and perseverance (2 Tim. 4:2-5; 1 Tim. 4:6.14); c) they also commanded these specially chosen and sanctified persons (Acts 20:28) to transfer their Divine teaching authority to other similarly chosen and prepared people (2 Tim. 2:2; Tit. 1:5 and 9), as their successors; d) and on the other hand, they forbade people who were not called to admire this power: how can they preach if there are no messages (Rom. 10:15), asks the great teacher of languages. Are you apostles, are you prophets, are you teachers? (1 Cor. 12:29) - and answers in another epistle: no one accepts honor to himself, but he who is called of God, as Aaron was (Heb. 5:4), and e) all believers in general were obliged and exhorted: obey your teachers and submit: for they watch over your souls, as if they were willing to reward the word (Heb. 13, 17, etc.). 3) From the entire subsequent history of Christianity. As the Apostles taught, so the Apostolic men later taught, without a doubt, who knew best the will of their mentors, such as: St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer 631, thus, was taught later by subsequent shepherds: Cyprian 632, Gregory the Theologian 633, Chrysostom 634, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great 635, the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council (in canon 64) and others. All of them unanimously asserted that the shepherds of the Church are the true successors of the Apostles, and that they alone accepted, through succession from the Apostles, the legal authority and duty to be guardians and interpreters of Divine revelation, and all laity must obey the voice of their shepherds, and have no right to teach. “It is not proper for a layman, says the 64th canon of the VI Ecumenical Council, to pronounce the word, or teach, and so take upon himself the dignity of a teacher, but to obey the order handed down from the Lord, to open the ear of those who have received the grace of the teacher’s word, and to learn from them the Divine. For in one Church God created different members according to the word of the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:27), which, in explaining, Gregory the Theologian clearly shows the order found in them, saying: this, brethren, we will honor this order, we will preserve this. Let this one be an ear, and that one a tongue; this one a hand, and the other something else. Let him teach, let him learn. And after a few words he further says: let the student be obedient, the one who distributes, let him distribute with joy, the one who serves, let him serve with zeal. Let us not all be tongues, and this is what is closest, neither all apostles, nor all prophets, nor all interpreters. And after some words he also says: why do you make yourself a shepherd, being a sheep; Why do you become the head when you are the foot? It’s almost as if you are attempting to command a military position, having been placed in the ranks of warriors. And in another place wisdom commands: do not be quick in words (Eccl. 5:1): do not prostrate yourself, you poor man, with the rich (Proverbs 23:4): do not seek the wise and be wiser. If anyone is found to be violating this rule: let him be excommunicated from church communion for forty days.” It is clear, after this, in what sense the word “Church” should be primarily understood when it comes to its infallibility in the matter of teaching. Infallible, without a doubt, is the entire Church of Christ, consisting of shepherds and flocks. But since it is left to the shepherd class itself to guard, preach and interpret Divine revelation to people 636; since the flock are obliged to unswervingly follow in this holy matter the voice of their divinely appointed mentors (Eph. 4:11-15; Acts 20:28; Heb. 5:4. 13 and 17): it is obvious that, when revealing the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, it is primarily necessary to keep in mind the teaching church 637, united, however, inseparably with the teaching church 638. “The Holy Spirit teaches the Church,” say the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, “through the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Catholic Church, the Church learns from the Life-Giving Spirit, but not otherwise than through the mediation of St. Fathers and teachers... The Catholic Church cannot sin or be mistaken and utter lies instead of the truth: for the Holy Spirit, always acting through the faithful Fathers and teachers of the Church, protects her from all error” 639. However, this will become clearer in what follows. II. ON THE INARRACABILITY OF THE CHURCH § 136. Proofs of the infallibility of the Church I. To him who believes in the Divinity of revelation, the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church must be certain. For in the Word of God: 1. there are passages which either necessarily presuppose or even directly express this truth, and 2. there are other places that, in addition, provide satisfactory explanations for it. 1) The sayings of the first kind can be attributed primarily to - a) The Savior’s words about the infinity and invincibility of the Church: I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). This invincibility of the Church would obviously be impossible if the Church were not excluded from any possibility of sinning in the teaching of the faith. For its deviation from the truth of the teaching would necessarily entail deviations in sacred rites, in government and in everything else; and all this would indisputably testify that the gates of hell have overcome the Church, and that it is no longer the Church of Christ, pure and holy. b) Words of St. The Apostle Paul on the purpose of the church teaching or teachers of the faith: He gave these to be the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of service, for the building up of the body of Christ... lest we be infants, tossed about and tossed about by every wind of doctrine, in the lies of men, in the deceit of deceits. flattery (Eph. 4:11–15). That is, the purpose of the teachers of faith in the Church, by the way, is that we may not be infants, blown about and tossed about by every wind of doctrine, in the lies of mankind. How could such a high purpose of the teaching church be achieved, even if all of it were not removed from the possibility of getting lost? c) The words of the same Apostle about the Church, where he directly and clearly calls it the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:14-16). Yes, teach, the teacher of languages ​​wrote to his beloved Timothy, how it is fitting to live in the house of God, since the Church of God is alive, the pillar and affirmation of the truth. And the confessed greatness is the mystery of piety: God appeared in the flesh... ἀναστρέφεσθαι, ἥ τις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ ζῶντος, στύλος καὶ Καὶ ὁμολογονμένως μέγα ἐστί τὸ τῆς ἐυσεβείας μυστύριον . aa) That the pillar and affirmation of truth in the presented speech is not called the mystery of great piety, as some think, but namely the Church: this is clear, firstly, from the Greek reading of the present place, where after the words - Θεοῦ ζῶντος there is immediately στύλος without a member, and after the words - καὶ ὁμολογονμένως μέγα ἐστί the member τὸ τῆς ἐυσεβείας is added, which, according to experts in the Greek language, means a new subject; secondly, from the expression itself - στύλος καὶ ἐδραίωμα: in parallel places in the Bible similar things are said about the Church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20); finally, from the testimony of the ancient teachers of the Church: Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine and others, who read the passage we are considering in the most ancient manuscripts exactly as we read 640. bb) That the Church about which the Apostle speaks here is not the private Church of Ephesus, but the Church of Christ in general. For it only deserves the name: the Church of God is alive, and it is only likened to St. Scripture to the house of God (Acts 20:28; 1 ​​Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16); And c) that by the word - truth, the pillar and affirmation of which the Church is called here, we must understand the entire Christian teaching, according to the use of this word in St. Scripture (John 1, 17; 14, 16; Gal. 3, 1; 5, 7, etc.), and not any private truth. 2) The last kind of sayings should include places that express the closest relationship of the Lord Jesus himself and the Holy Spirit in the Church and especially towards the teaching church. These are – a) All those places in which the Lord is called the Head of the Church. Him (i.e. Jesus Christ), says St. The Apostle, who gave (God the Father) the head above all the Church, which is his body, fulfills all things in all (Eph. 1:22-23; see also Eph. 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18). If the Savior, as the true Head of the Church, is always present in His body, constantly revives it, and Himself invisibly governs it, then it cannot be that He allowed His entire Church to deviate from the truth and sin—He who is the truth itself (John 14:6). Such an evasion could occur either without his knowledge, or with his knowledge and consent: but both are equally absurd. b) Places where the Savior is called the supreme Ruler of the Church, to whom it is fitting to reign, until he puts all enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25). And to achieve this goal, the Lord needs to protect his grace-filled kingdom, that is, the Church, from errors in the faith, as a result of which, little by little, this kingdom could inevitably collapse; and then He would have been defeated by His enemies, and not He would have defeated them. c) The promise that the Savior spoke to his disciples before ascending to heaven, sending them to preach worldwide: and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). This promise also applies to all bishops and pastors of the Church: for not only the Apostles, but also all their successors are entrusted with the duty of spreading and preserving the teaching of Christ; and for this very purpose, as the entire composition of the speech shows, the aforementioned promise was given. This is clear from the expression itself: until the end of the age, which means in St. Scripture describes the end of the Christian economy (Matthew 13, 40 and 49; 1 Cor. 15, 25). d) Another promise of Christ the Savior to his disciples: I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you forever..., he will teach you everything, and he will remember to you everything that has been said to you (John 14:16.26). The words: may it be with you forever - already show that the Savior, uttering this promise, had in mind not only the Apostles, but also their successors in the work of preaching the Holy Spirit. faith. And if we remember that the Apostles themselves attributed the special assistance of the Holy Spirit not only to themselves, but in general to the shepherds of the Church whom they appointed (2 Tim. 1:14; Acts 20:28): in this case, this truth will appear to us in full light. II. And it should be noted that this teaching about the infallibility of the Church is not some new teaching that Christians did not know before. No, it is as ancient as the ancient Church itself: this teaching was unanimously proclaimed to believers at all times by Christian pastors and teachers. Yes - St. Ignatius the God-Bearer says: “for this reason the Lord received anointing on his head, in order to impart integrity to the Church (ἀφθαρσίαν)” 641. St. Irenaeus: “one should not seek the truth from others, but should learn it from the Church, into which, as into a rich repository, the Apostles placed everything that is true. Here whoever wants can draw life-giving drink for himself. Here is the door of life; all other thieves are also robbers, and therefore one must run away from them, but must love what comes from the Church and accept from her the tradition of truth (veritatis traditionem)” 642. “Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace, for the Spirit is truth” 643 “The Church preaches the truth everywhere, and it is the seven-light lamp, shining with the light of Christ” 644. Origen. “We should not listen to those who say: here is Christ, but point him out not in the Church, which is full of splendor from east to west, full of true light, and is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and in which is the ever-present presence of the Son of Man, saying to everyone and everywhere: Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” 645. St. Cyprian: “the true, saving and holy water of the Church (as the Holy Father calls her teaching) cannot change or be damaged, just as the Church itself is intact (incorrupta), pure and chaste”; and in another place: “those who have fallen away from Christ will perish through their own fault, but the Church, which believes in Christ and contains what it once knew, will never completely fall away from Him (nunquam ab eo ommino recedere)” 646. St. Alexander of Alexandria: “(we confess) the one Catholic and Apostolic Church, always invincible, even if the whole world were armed against it, and victorious over every wicked uprising of the non-Orthodox” 647. Theophilus of Alexandria: “God at all times grants his Church the same grace, so that the whole body is preserved, and in nothing the poison of heretical dogmas prevails” 648. St. Chrysostom: “the (Prophet) calls the Church and the invincibility of its dogmas a mountain 649. In truth, the Church is a mountain in its hardness, strength and indestructibility: for just as a mountain cannot be shaken, so is the Church of God 650. The Church is not supported by the quality of the times, but is governed by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and therefore does not grow old, nor weaken, nor overcome, being oppressed by many” 651. St. Isidore Pelusiot: “the gates of hell the Word of God called the hosts of atheists and blasphemies of heresies, to which the Church of God opposes everyone, conquers them, but is not conquered by them (ὀυ κατακυριέυεται”) 652. Blazh. Augustine: “The Church will not deviate forever and ever: for she is the provided pillar and foundation of the truth” 653. St. Cyril of Alexandria: “The Church is completely irresistible (ἀκλόνητος παντελῶς), having Christ as its foundation and unshakable support” 654. The same exact reviews of the infallible teaching of the Church are found in very many other teachers: Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius and Basil the Great 655, Ambrose 656, Epiphanius 657, Jerome 658, our Metropolitan Philip 659, St. Demetrius of Rostov and others 660. § 137. Explanation of the concept of the infallibility of the Church From everything that has been said so far about the infallibility of the Church, it is revealed that - 1) The author and the only source of the infallibility of the Church is the Trinitarian God: the Heavenly Father, who sanctifies Christians in His truth (John 17:17); The Son of God is Jesus Christ, who promised to be with his followers all the days until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20), and the Holy Spirit, guiding them into all truth (John 16:13). And, therefore, it is not the people who actually make up the Church - the body of Christ, but, we repeat, the Trinitarian God himself, or more precisely, the Lord himself - the Head of the Church, by the power of the All-Holy Spirit, preserves in it, in all purity and integrity, his Divine teaching, and protects it from error. 2) The instrument through which the Holy Spirit teaches the Church and protects it from all error are the successors of the Apostles, the shepherds and teachers of the Church (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, ch. 12), and, moreover, not just one shepherd, or only some, but all together, that is, the whole church teaching. I) The essence of the shepherds of the Church. Because: a) they are, in fact, for this purpose, by the way, raised up in the Church by the Lord, to teach others the faith, so that those who believe will not be infants, blown about and tossed about by every wind of teaching (Eph. 4:14); shepherds are left to guard, preach and interpret Divine revelation, and the flock are obliged to obey the voice of their shepherds and do not have the right to teach (§ 135) - so that deviation from the truth of all shepherds would inevitably have to be followed by deviation from it of the entire flock, that is, the entire Church. Let us also remember that b) all the passages of Scripture that we have considered, in which the Savior speaks about help from above, about his assistance and about assistance from the Holy Spirit, most closely relate to St. To the apostles. And through them directly to their successors, the shepherds (see § 135 for explanations of the words: Behold, I am with you..., and He will give you another comforter...). This is exactly how all Christian antiquity looked at shepherds: “We are the successors of the Apostles, ruling the Church of God with the same authority,” greeted St. Cyprian bishops at the Council of Carthage 661. “With us, bishops take the place of Apostles,” said another famous teacher of the Church 662. “We must obey the shepherds who are in the Church,” wrote St. Irenaeus, who both have succession from the Apostles, and, by the good will of the Father, along with the succession of the episcopacy, received the undoubted gift of truth” 663. II) The essence is all shepherds together or the whole church teaching. Because: a) the pillar and foundation of truth is called in the Word of God not any particular church, but the universal Church, and the Savior said about it that the gates of hell will not prevail against it; b) in the reasoning of private pastors and teachers it is clearly stated in St. Scripture that they can be mistaken in the faith: and from yourself, noted St. Apostle to the shepherds of the Church of Ephesus, men will arise speaking of corruption, and the disciples will turn away after themselves (Acts 20:30). Likewise - c) individual churches, according to the revelation of John the Theologian (Apoc. 2:5) and according to the testimony of history, may fall away from the truth of Christ: in them the lamp may be moved from its place. Consequently, if in the matter of teaching the faith the representative of the whole Church is, in fact, the teaching Church or the primates of the Church: this means that not each individually, but only all together, they can be recognized as free from the danger of falling into error. And this truth - d) the whole Church was constantly aware when, in the most important cases concerning St. faith, addressed the Ecumenical Councils. That is why “we (let us say in the words of the most holy Eastern Patriarchs) are not only convinced, but also, undoubtedly, confess as a solid truth that the Catholic (and not any private) Church cannot sin or be mistaken and utter lies instead of the truth. For the Holy Spirit, always acting through the faithful Fathers and teachers of the Church, protects it from all error” (Message on the Orthodox Faith, part 12). 3) The subject of the infallibility of the Church consists of all the truths of the Christian faith contained in revelation, that is, as in St. Scripture, and in St. Legends. Because: a) The Savior promised to be with the preachers of the Gospel all the days until the end of the age, and, therefore, to be their constant, invisible leader, commanding them to teach the world, to keep all that He commanded (Matthew 38:20); b) also about the Holy Spirit, the new heavenly Teacher, who, according to the promise of the Savior, descended on the Apostles, from then on remains in the Church forever and protects it from all error, the Savior said to his disciples: the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and he will remember to you all the things that have been spoken to you (John 14, 26). Therefore, it would be unfair to expect from the Church infallibility in all those truths that have no basis in St. Scripture, neither in St. Traditions, and do not relate to the essence of the Christian faith. What are, for example, philosophical, historical and general truths for which only evidence or human considerations, and not Divine revelation, can serve as a basis. 4) And, therefore, the infallibility of the Church lies in the fact that the Lord Jesus, having left the class of shepherds to preserve it and preach the Divine revelation, never, by the grace of his all-holy Spirit, does not and will not allow all of them to deviate from the truth in this great matter, and through the shepherds, of course, will not allow their entire flock to deviate. Thus, the Church is not at all credited with the fact that she receives any new revelations from God, but is only said that she observes in all integrity and truth the previous revelation bequeathed to her. And, therefore, the gift of inspiration (inspiratio), which the saints possessed, is by no means attributed to her. Apostles, and only the co-presence of the Holy Spirit (assistentia) is attributed, protecting her from errors. § 138. Ways the Church expresses its infallibility If the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church and protects it from errors only through the mediation of faithful Fathers and teachers (bishops and pastors in general): then the only way to express, in case of need, the infallible witness of the Church regarding this or that revealed truth is the unanimous agreement, in the reasoning of this truth, of the entire teaching Church, which should naturally be followed by the agreement of all believers. To express such consent of the teaching church, two ways are possible: the heads of private churches can express it by deliberately gathering together for this purpose at an Ecumenical Council, but they can express it without gathering at Councils, but through mutual relations, each remaining in his place, in the ordinary position of the Church (in status quo). § 139. Infallibility of Ecumenical Councils The infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils in their determinations regarding the truths of Divine revelation - I. It is immediately revealed from the fact that these Councils represent the entire Church of Christ. For they are attended by bishops (together with other pastors), if possible, from all local churches. And it is known from the mutual relationship of bishops and their flocks that “the bishop, as St. says. Cyprian, in the church, and the church in the bishop, and whoever is not (in communion) with the bishop is not in the Church” 664. That is why Tertullian in his time called the Councils of all pastors representatives of the entire Christian world 665; bliss Augustine also argued that the opinion of the full Council is the consent of the entire Church 666; the first Ecumenical Council itself concluded its symbol with the following words: these are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church 667. And therefore, to admit the fallibility of the Ecumenical Councils means to admit the fallibility of the entire Church. II. This is explained by the fact that the Lord Jesus himself with the Holy Spirit was present at the Councils. We base this faith on: a) on the promise of the Savior to the Apostles, and through them, and to their successors: and lo, I am seven with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). How is it possible to allow Him to leave the teachers of the faith only on those days when they gathered for Councils, and when His assistance was most needed by them? b) on his other promise: where there are two or three congregations in my name, I am in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20). How could it be that He was not present at the Ecumenical Councils, where not two or three, but entire hosts of shepherds gathered, if possible, from all over the world. And they gathered precisely for the glory of His name, for the defense of His holy faith, for the explanation and definition of dogmas that primarily concerned His own Person, for the establishment and establishment of His Church and the eternal salvation of souls tempted by His priceless blood 668? We base: c) finally, on the third of his promises: I will pray the Father, and he will give you another comforter, that he may be with you forever..., he will guide you into all truth (John 14:16; 16:13). But nowhere and never have the pastors of the Church been so in need of instruction in all truth from the Spirit of truth as at the Ecumenical Councils. For here, if possible, all the supreme shepherds of the Church gathered. Consequently, if they all deviated from the truth here and sinned, then the entire Church universal would also sin. Here, in addition, such truths were considered that can be called fundamental among all other truths of Christianity, and with the fall of which all of Christianity would fall. III. And this faith in the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils, this faith in the invisible presence of the Lord himself with the Holy Spirit has always been maintained and professed by the Orthodox Church, as can be seen: 1) From the testimonies of her private teachers from different places and times, for example: a) St. Athanasius: “The Word of God through the Ecumenical (Nicene) Council remains forever” 669; b) St. Basil the Great: “confess the faith set forth by our Fathers who met in Nicaea, and do not reject any of the Nicene sayings, but know that three hundred and eighteen fathers spoke this with unquestioning consent and not without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” 670; and again: “Where spiritual men are in charge at consultations, and the people of the Lord follow them according to a unanimous verdict, will anyone doubt that the council is drawn up in communion with our Lord I. Christ, who shed his blood for the Church?” 671; c) St. Gregory the Theologian: “on St. Council in Nicaea, among this number of chosen men whom the Holy Spirit gathered together, he (St. Athanasius the Great), as much as depended on him, stopped the illness” 672; d) St. Ambrose: “I follow the definition of the Council of Nicaea, from which neither sword nor death can separate me” 673; d) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “with them (the Fathers of the 1st Council of Nicea), in truth, Jesus Christ himself sat, who once said: where there are two or three congregations in my name, there are seven among them...; how can one doubt that He invisibly presided over this holy and great Council, when here a fixed and unshakable foundation was laid for the world, the confession of a pure and unimpeachable faith? 674; e) St. Gregory the Great: “I confess that I accept and respect the four Councils in the same way as the four books of the Holy Gospel” 675; g) Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (806–815): “I reverently honor and accept the seven holy and ecumenical Councils, and all the supernatural dogmas and definitions established and approved on them by our holy and Divine Fathers 676. 2) From the testimony of the ecumenical councils themselves, which claimed that they were gathering with the Holy Spirit (Eph. Sob. 7); · that among them the Lord Jesus himself was invisibly present as the Head of the Council 677, as a sign of which in the middle of the Council the Gospel was usually placed on a special elevation 678; that their pious verbs are uttered by the Spirit (6th Ecumenical Coll. Rights 1), that the Councils legitimized everything at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (7th Ecumenical Coll. Rights 1), and their decrees, beginning them, following the example of the Apostolic Council, with the words: it willed the Holy Spirit and us, they called it sacred and Divine rules (6th Ecumenical Coll. Rules 2 and 7 All. Council, right. 1), then immutable laws. Thus, regarding the Symbol of the first Ecumenical Council, the Fathers present at the second determined: “let not the Creed of the 318 Fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea, in Bithynia, be abolished, but let it remain immutable” (right 1). The Third Ecumenical Council decided the same thing regarding the definitions of the Nicene Council in its seventh canon; then he repeated in his first rule the Council of Trulla regarding all the Councils that preceded it. Finally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council says “the rules and regulations outlined (by previous Ecumenical Councils) remain indestructible and unshakable...; We accept the Divine rules with delight, and we fully and unshakably support the decree of these rules, set forth from the all-praised Apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, and from the six holy ecumenical Councils, and those gathered locally to issue such commandments, and from our holy Fathers. For all of them, having been enlightened by one and the same Spirit, have legitimized what is useful" (pr. 1). 3) From the practice of the Orthodox Church. She: a) the memory of all seven Ecumenical Councils was honored with special spiritual celebrations 679; b) in her hymns she calls them seven pillars, on which the truth of her Orthodoxy is unshakably established against all heresies 680, and moreover confesses: “there are seven spirits who rested on Christ, Isaiah said this: in seven Councils Christ rests, with the Father and the Divine Spirit” 681; c) it requires faith in all decisions of the Councils, both ecumenical and local, adopted by it, from everyone who joins its members 682; and d) decided that the confession of this faith should be read in the Episcopal Oath, as one of the most important members of Orthodoxy 683. The definitions of private or local Councils, although they cannot be considered infallible, are of great importance for local churches, whose bishops were present at those Councils. And if these definitions are considered and approved by the Ecumenical Council and accepted by the entire Church, then they acquire for us equal importance with the own definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. That is why our Orthodox Church believes that “everything that the St. The Fathers at all the ecumenical (seven) and local (nine) Orthodox Councils, wherever they were compiled, comes from the Holy Spirit, as the Apostles at their Council said: “It willed the Holy Spirit and us” 684. § 140. The infallibility of the Church in its ordinary position (in statu, quo...) It must also be assumed that the agreed teaching of all the archpastors and the shepherds of the Church in general, even if they were not convened to the Council, each being in his own place, and, therefore, the agreed belief of the entire Church regarding the truths of Divine revelation, is equally infallible, like the definitions of the ecumenical Councils. Because this situation is 1) There is a necessary consequence of our faith in the infallibility of the Church. And the Savior promised His invisible co-presence and the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the teaching church not only at the Councils, but in the form in which He established it. And by establishing this church, He intended its members to be scattered throughout the whole earth: go into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature; Go and teach all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, He said to the Holy Spirit. The apostles, and through them, and all their successors. 2) Supported by the constant beliefs and practices of the Church. The ancient teachers looked at the unanimous testimony of all private churches as a decisive proof of the truth of any teaching, and argued that it is impossible to better and more successfully disgrace heretics than by contrasting them with the authority of the universal Church in its ordinary position: “The Church,” says St. Irenaeus, ever since she accepted the teaching of Christ, although scattered throughout the entire universe, jealously guards it, as if inhabiting a single house. He believes in accordance with the Apostles, as if he had one soul and one heart, and invariably preaches, explains and teaches his faith, as if he has one mouth” 685. “It is known, Tertullian also says, that any teaching that only agrees with the beliefs of the original (matricibus et originalibus) Apostolic churches should be considered true, in full confidence that the Church received this teaching from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God” 686. That is why, on the basis of such a universal consent of private churches, even in the first three centuries, before the Ecumenical Councils began, the heresies of the Ebionites, Marcionites, Paul of Samosata and others were already condemned and unanimously rejected, and the Universal Church remained infallible. “Is it really still necessary to assemble the Council,” says the blessed one. Augustine, discussing the Pelagian heresy, to expose such obvious destruction? It is as if no heresy had ever been condemned without the convening of a Council, whereas, on the contrary, very few heresies are known for the denunciation of which such a need was revealed, but many, and an incomparably greater number, where they appeared, in those very places were subjected to fair denunciation and condemnation, and from there this was given notice to all other churches as a warning.”687 How can one find out the agreement or disagreement of all private churches regarding certain truths of revelation? You can find out: a) from the symbolic books accepted in those churches, established beliefs and constant practice; Can - b) request for this, if there is a need, written answers to the proposed questions from all heads of private churches. § 141. The importance of the teachings of St. Fathers and teachers of the Church I. Now it is not difficult to determine the importance of the teachings of St. Fathers and teachers of the Church regarding the truths of the Christian faith. This importance can be expressed in the following statement: “the unanimous agreement of all the Fathers and teachers of the Church in the teaching about the subjects of Divine revelation or the Christian faith is an undoubted sign of truth.” Because - 1) St. Fathers and teachers who lived in different places and at different times are representatives of their private churches. And, therefore, the unanimous consent of all the Fathers and teachers expresses the unanimous consent of all the private churches in which they were primates, that is, the universal Church, and moreover, not at one time only, but at different times. 2) The concordant testimony of all the Fathers and teachers, as we have seen (§ 132), is an indisputable proof of the tradition of the Apostles, or that the teaching thus affirmed by them undoubtedly originates from the Apostles themselves. 3) To this must be added the special antiquity of some of the Fathers, the zeal of all of them for Orthodoxy and the abundance of spiritual gifts that they possessed. Some of St. The Fathers were direct disciples of the Apostles. St. Paul instructed Hermas and Dionysius the Areopagite in the Faith; St. John the Theologian - Ignatius and Polycarp; Barnabas and Clement were, moreover, collaborators of the Apostles. “And the Apostles, as Irenaeus testifies, if they had certain secret secrets, which they often revealed only to the perfect, they especially taught these secrets to those to whom they entrusted the very churches. For they wanted to make their future successors perfect and blameless in everything, placing them in the teaching position” 688. The Apostolic men, following the example and testament of their Divine teachers, passed on all the Apostolic teaching to their disciples and successors, such as: Panten, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and others; these - to theirs, and so on 689. Zeal for Orthodoxy St. The Fathers is known from their private biographies, from the history of the Councils, and in general from the history of the entire Church. Countless experiences testify that these famous shepherds considered it their most essential duty to uphold the Orthodox Faith and sacrifice everything for it: “I decided not to give myself rest and accept everything as the Faith of Christ,” wrote St. Cyril of Alexandria, at the emergence of the Nestorian heresy 690. “I willingly forget lies and slander,” he says in another letter, “God will judge them!” If only faith would be saved. But if someone betrays the faith, then we must not betray our conscience, even if our lives are threatened with danger” 691. “Neither persecution, nor torment, nor repression of the Emperors, wrote the Fathers of the first Council of Constantinople to the Western bishops, nor the cruelty of rulers and no other disaster and oppression from heretics, can deviate us from the Orthodox faith, defined at the Council of Nicaea. Which we advise you and all believers to follow” 692. And we really know that some of St. Fathers were exiled to prison for their zeal for Orthodoxy (for example, St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom), others were deprived of their bishopric (for example, St. Gregory of Nyssa - for 8 years before the death of Valens). Still others endured persecution throughout their lives (St. Athanasius), while others even tasted martyrdom (St. Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Cyprian, Irenaeus). The abundance of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:3–14; fn. 1John 2:20) that the saints possessed. The Fathers of the Church, also known from the history of their lives and attested to by St. The Church, which adorned them with the names Divine, God-Bearing, God-Wise, God-Speaking 693, and, in addition, we call some great, others miracle workers, others Chrysostoms, etc. 4) The whole Church clearly attributed exactly this importance to the teaching of the Fathers, when at the Ecumenical Councils, in its discussions on subjects of controversy, it always had the custom, after St. Scripture, appeal to the unanimous consent of these ancient famous teachers, and followed it in their definitions. The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon begins its dogma this way: we all unanimously teach the following by the Divine Father 694. The Fifth Ecumenical Council expresses its confession this way: “let us follow St. To the fathers and teachers of the Church of God: Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and accept everything that they wrote about the Orthodox faith and the condemnation of heretics. We also accept other saints. and Orthodox fathers, who until the end of their lives immaculately preached the right faith in the holy Church of God" 695. The Sixth Ecumenical Council approved the dogma of two wills and actions in Jesus Christ, also according to the teaching of our holy Fathers 696. Finally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council approved its dogma, following the Divine teaching of the holy Fathers 697. 5) The exact same importance was attributed to private famous pastors of the Church, in accordance with the teaching of the Fathers, for example: a) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “everyone who has common sense tries to follow the teaching of the Fathers: for they themselves were admonished by the Apostolic and Gospel tradition, and the doctrine of faith was explained from the St. scriptures absolutely correctly without error or inaccuracy, becoming luminaries in the world” 698; b) Vincent of Lirinsky, a respected writer of the 5th century (about 460), who establishes the following rule regarding the use of paternal testimonies: “whatever all or many unanimously, openly and constantly, as if by some prior agreement of their teachers, accept, contain and transmit, should be considered completely reliable and undoubted” 699. Let us also remember that many St. The Fathers had the custom of proving Christian truths with a series of testimonies from the writings of former saints. Fathers, for example: St. Athanasius the Great, when he wrote against the Arians about the consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father 700; St. Basil the Great in the book on the Holy Spirit against Macedonius 701; St. Cyril of Alexandria in his work against Nestorius 702; bliss Theodoret in many of his writings 703 ; St. John of Damascus also in many ways, especially in the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith and in the words about St. icons II. But, thus ascribing full authority to all the Fathers and teachers together, when they agree to affirm anything in the teaching of the subjects of Divine revelation, we must remember: 1) That it is absolutely impossible to attribute the same authority to each Father separately. With all his holiness, with all the abundance of spiritual gifts, St. The Fathers were not divinely inspired, like St. Prophets and Apostles, and therefore the writings of the fathers should never be compared with the canonical books of the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Fathers were not individually infallible; on the contrary, they could sin and some actually did sin, while St. The Prophets and Apostles were individually infallible, and they presented to us in their Divinely inspired writings only one pure truth. “We should not at all,” says Blessed Augustine on this occasion, “respect the reasonings of some, although Orthodox and praised men, on an equal basis with the canonical writings. And to think that it was not permissible for us, with due respect for these persons, not to accept and even reject something in their writings, if we learn beyond doubt that they thought differently than as the truth dictates, understood either by others or by us with the help of God. This is how I look at the writings of others; I want them to look at mine too” 704 . 2) That the same authority cannot be attributed to the Fathers and Teachers in cases where they disagree with each other; on the contrary, the voice of the Fathers themselves must then be verified by the voice of the universal Church. This is well known to everyone from the practice of the Councils. 3) What cannot be attributed to St. Fathers and teachers have the same authority when they talk about things other than Divine revelation. It is known that many famous teachers of the Church, for example, Blessed. Augustine, St. John of Damascus, often wrote about truths that do not at all relate to the essence of the Christian faith and are not contained in revelation. Such are their works on philosophy, history, grammar, astronomy and other natural sciences, music, poetry, etc. In all such works or even individual thoughts of St. The Fathers appear not as teachers of the Church, but as ordinary scientists, and they could also sin, just as all people sin. These objects, as we noted even earlier (§ 137), do not belong to the circle of those in relation to which the infallibility of the universal Church itself is attributed. III. One should not be tempted by the sometimes encountered disagreement of one or another ancient respected teacher of the Church regarding some revealed truths with the unanimous teaching of all other shepherds, but one must look at this disagreement as the private opinion of the teacher: “everything,” notes Vincent of Lyrinsky, who discussed this subject in detail, everything about which only a Saint and a scientist, a bishop, a confessor or a martyr, thought in disagreement with everyone, or even contradicting to everyone - all this should be classified as personal, private, secret opinions, and distinguished from the authority of the general, open and popular Belief" 705. Those from among the Christians themselves who deliberately collect various unintentional errors of the ancient famous shepherds and Fathers of the Church are worthy of sincere regret, and thus become like Ham, who, having seen the innocent nakedness of his father, not only did not cover it, but, for ridicule, even told his brothers about it. The same reasonable writer (Vinkenty Lirinsky) notes that in order to recognize the consistent teaching of the Fathers, there is no need to collect the evidence of all of them, but it is enough to just cite the evidence of many of them. And in support of his thought, he points to the example of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which recognized, as the unanimous consent of all the Fathers, the testimonies of only the ten most famous among them, as representatives of the entire Church 706. And one cannot but agree with such a remark. For not all the Fathers had the opportunity to write about every revealed truth, and many of their writings have not reached us. Finally, it must be remembered that the rules of St. Father, recognized and approved by the ecumenical Councils, have for us an importance equal to the rules of these last 707. III. ABOUT THE ORTHODOX CHURCH § 142. Connection with the previous one and parts of the study After we revealed the truth that St. was appointed to be the keeper and interpreter of the Word of God for all people. Church, that this teacher of faith is infallible, and, therefore, completely trustworthy, we would only have to say: so, it is the duty of every believer to completely surrender to this infallible leader... But the question is: where is she, this true Church of Christ, to which we could completely surrender? Nowadays there is not one, but several Christian Churches or societies on earth, of which, moreover, each calls only one itself the true Church, and all the others are false. It is, without a doubt, impossible to say that all of them are true: for there is one truth, and these churches and societies differ from each other in many ways, and mutually exclude themselves. It is also impossible to say that all of them are false: for the Church of Christ, as we have seen (§ 136), is infallible, inexhaustible. Therefore, it must be assumed that one of the currently existing churches, and only one, must certainly be true, Orthodox. Which one exactly? In order to maintain impartiality in resolving such an important issue, we will not directly and intentionally prove the Orthodoxy of our Church, but will first consider the different principles that are used by theologians of the main Christian faiths to judge this subject, and we will show which is the best principle among them. Then we will apply, or show a way to apply, this principle not only to our own Church, but also to everyone else. Following this, consequences regarding the True Orthodox Church of Christ will become apparent. § 143. Beginning for judging the Orthodox Church. The main and most commonly used principles, on the basis of which they usually try to prove the truth or Orthodoxy of any church, are the following: First: “the true Church is one to which the properties indicated in the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol are fully appropriate: I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” This principle is used mainly by theologians of the Roman Church 708, and sometimes by ours 709. Second: “the true Church is that in which the pure preaching of the Word of God and the correct administration of the sacraments are preserved.” Protestants 710 adhere to this principle. Third: “the true Church is the one that is right, invariably preserves the infallible teaching of the ancient universal Church, and remains faithful to it in everything.” This principle has been expressed and revealed by some of our theologians 711, and is clearly indicated by the very name of our Church, by which it is accustomed to distinguish itself from others - the Orthodox Church, that is, the right-believing one. I. From the first time it is impossible not to recognize the merits of starting the first. It seems fair: the properties of the Church indicated in the Symbol, indeed, can be attributed to only one true Church of all existing churches. But when? Only when it is proven in advance, in a different way, that the known church is undoubtedly the true one, and not the other way around. That is, it is by no means possible to prove directly on the basis of the properties of the Church indicated in the Symbol the Orthodoxy of any church currently existing. Why? Because: a) the indicated properties do not represent a completely clear and definite beginning for this: the Symbol says that the true Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic; but how to understand each of these properties is not defined. Why do the Roman writers explain these properties in their own way, in order to prove by them the truth of their church. We explain 712 a little differently in order to prove the truth of our Church. Followers of other confessions can explain it even differently, each in accordance with the intended purpose. This is the beginning: b) is not the last, fundamental beginning, but presupposes something else, further and, moreover, unknown. The papists, for example, say: the Roman Church is holy, conciliar (catholic) and apostolic because, among other things, it supposedly contains holy, catholic and apostolic teaching. We say the same thing about our Church, and point to the same reason... But the question is: how is it known that their or our Church contains such a teaching? Where is the beginning for judging this? And without this further, not named here, is it possible to say anything decisive about the controversial subject? In the application of the principle borrowed from the properties of the Church indicated in the Symbol, it is in no way possible - c) maintain complete impartiality, because here it is left to the will of each researcher, who already belongs to a known church or Christian society, and, therefore, more or less predisposed in their favor, to determine the meaning of the principle and apply it to the matter. And therefore - d) with this beginning, it is impossible to put an end to the disputes about the Orthodoxy of churches: for everyone, of course, will stand for the fidelity of his explanation of the properties of the true Church, in order to more conveniently apply them only to his own church, as experience testifies. II. The Protestant beginning also seems fair from the first time: it would be impossible not to call that church true if it had been proven that in it the pure, true preaching of the Word of God and the legal celebration of the holy sacraments are preserved. But how do the Protestants themselves explain this beginning? And, firstly, what do they mean by the Word of God and by the pure preaching of this Word? The Word of God, according to their teaching, is one holy. Scripture, and the pure preaching of God's Word is the interpretation of St. Scriptures. According to the guidance of St. Scripture, or, more precisely, according to the free understanding of each interpreter. Secondly, who is it to judge whether the pure preaching of the Word of God and the lawful administration of the sacraments are preserved in this or that church? It is left to the arbitrariness of everyone, on the basis of St. Scriptures. If so: then - a) this principle is not true in itself: for the Word of God is contained not only in Holy Scripture, but also in Holy Tradition (§ 129); and the true interpretation of St. The Scriptures are not what each one can compose according to his own understanding of Scripture (§ 128), but that which is in accordance with the Holy Tradition preserved in the Church (§ 133), destined to be the guardian and interpreter of both (§ 135); b) it is completely inconvenient in application: for this principle does not at all prevent the possibility of bias, when the issue will be decided by everyone in their own way; it is not at all possible to resolve the dispute somehow finally, for the same reason. III. The last beginning is not like that at all: it is not only alien to the shortcomings that turned out to be in the two considered beginnings, on the contrary, it has all the properties of the true beginning. Firstly, it is completely clear and definite. When it is said that the Orthodox Church is the one that is right, it invariably preserves the infallible teaching of the ancient universal Church; then there is no room left for questions: what does this infallible teaching mean and where will we find it? It exists in the well-known definitions of faith of the Ecumenical Councils and in the unanimous teaching of all the saints. Fathers of the Church. There is no room left for arbitrariness to somehow deliberately reinterpret this teaching; all the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils are so precise and strict even in words, and the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers on any subject can never have more than one meaning. Secondly, there is a beginning that is most basic and of greatest importance to everyone. Determine the true meaning of St. Scriptures and St. Tradition is unmistakable, indisputable; to finally resolve questions concerning objects of faith, there is no other means, as we have seen, except the voice of the universal Church, which the Lord himself appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of his Word (§§ 128, 135–138). Consequently, she alone has the right to appear as the supreme judge when deciding the issue of Orthodoxy of one or another private church; and if we reject the voice of such a judge, then we will not find the highest and best court on earth. And we recognize this importance, this infallibility of the universal Church, the Roman Catholics recognize it. The Protestants should also recognize it, as some of them recognized in the beginning, at least when applying their thought to the ancient universal Church. For the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church is very clearly based on the Holy Scripture itself (see § 136), which Protestants accept, and must necessarily be admitted by every Christian who only believes in the Divinity of Christ the Savior and in the Divine origin of his faith. This beginning is finally the most reliable in the application. Here there can be no partiality towards any of the private churches, for the judges will not be representatives of these very churches, but the ancient universal Church with its unchanging, strictly defined teaching will judge. Here the full opportunity opens up to hear the final verdict, to which all Believers must submit, for it is pronounced by a judge authorized to do so by God himself, and an infallible judge. Let us now express this beginning separately. Its essence is as follows: “The only one that can be called an Orthodox Church is the one that is right, invariably preserves the infallible teaching of the Universal Church, and, therefore, remains faithful to it in everything.” But - 1) It is known that the Ecumenical Church expressed its infallible voice regarding all the main members of the faith at the Ecumenical Councils, mainly in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and other definitions of faith regarding dogmas that were subject to conciliar consideration in the event of heresies, and that she then bequeathed this Symbol and these definitions of faith for all future generations, as an inviolable and unchangeable rule of faith 713. Hence the first particular principle: “the name of the Orthodox Church should belong only to that of the existing churches that has completely preserved, without the slightest addition or subtraction, this most sacred rule; and all those churches and Christian societies that have retreated in at least one, much less in many of the main members of the faith set forth in it, have already seriously sinned and are not Orthodox.” 2) It is known that regarding all other dogmas, which there was no opportunity to discuss, or even hint at, at the Ecumenical Councils, the universal Church expressed its infallible voice in the concordant teaching of all its famous Fathers and teachers. And she also bequeathed this Faith of the Fathers for all future generations, as inviolable and unchangeable 714. Hence the second partial principle: “that only one of the currently existing churches, which can and rightly affirms all the dogmas it preaches in accordance with the Fatherly Belief or the whole of ancient Christianity, is truly the Orthodox Church. And churches and Christian societies that profess some new dogmas, which sacred Christian antiquity had never heard of, dogmas that disagree with the teachings of ancient teachers, and even contradict them, of course, do not deserve the name of Orthodox churches.” One could also indicate a third means for resolving the question of which of the current churches is the Orthodox Church: a new ecumenical council would have every right to decide this, if it were deliberately convened, and would, without a doubt, decide infallibly. But there is no need at all to resort to such a means: a new ecumenical council, truly legal, cannot resolve the matter in disagreement with the ancient ecumenical councils and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers: for here and there there is only one author of infallibility, the Holy Spirit. And, consequently, which of the currently existing churches will be right before the court of the ancient ecumenical Councils and St. Fathers, she, undoubtedly, would have been right before the court of the New Ecumenical Council. But the Church is wrong before the court of the ancient ecumenical Councils and St. The Fathers will never be justified and the new Ecumenical Council will never call them true, Orthodox. § 144. Application of selected principles to the Eastern Orthodox Church Already the application of one first principle clearly shows the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the non-Orthodoxy of all others. For of all the currently existing churches, it is the only one, according to the will of the Ecumenical Church, wholly, without the slightest change, has preserved the additions and subtractions, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol and all the creeds of the ancient seven Ecumenical Councils. Whereas among other churches there is not a single one that would not change this Sacred Rule of Faith. As proof of the constant, most perfect respect of the Eastern Orthodox Church for the seven ecumenical Councils and their definitions of faith, it is enough to point out (starting from the time when, after the separation of the Roman Patriarchate from it, it alone remained the guardian of ancient Orthodoxy): 1) On the Creed, taught to us by the Greeks at the beginning, at the baptism of Grand Duke Vladimir, where this respect is clearly bequeathed 715. 2) For a number of Confessions that were read by the pastors of the Eastern Church at Councils, such as, for example, the Confession of St. Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessalonites, read at the Council of Constantinople in 1350, where the same respect is expressed 716. Or - Confession of St. Mark of Ephesus, compiled by him in Florence, on the occasion of the Council that was held there, and containing, among other things, the following memorable words: “Following in everything the seven holy ecumenical Councils and the God-wise Fathers who shone at them, I believe in one God the Father, Almighty, etc.. This sacred science, this Creed, compiled at the first and second Councils, sealed and approved by others, accepting and preserving with all my soul, I accept and maintain, in addition to the said seven Councils, and the last one, convened by the pious Basil, Emperor of Rome and His Holiness Patriarch Photius, and called the eighth ecumenical, at which, in the presence of the locum tenens of John, blessed the popes of ancient Rome: Paul and Eugene bishops, Peter the presbyter and the cardinal, the 7th Ecumenical Council was confirmed and approved, it was determined to agree with the Councils that preceded it, His Holiness Photius was restored to his throne, condemned and cursed, just like at the Ecumenical Councils that preceded him, those who dare to make any addition, or subtraction, or complete change in the above Symbol. If anyone, it is said there, dares to write another (Symbol), or add anything to it, or take away from it, and call it a definition of faith (ὅ ρος), let him be condemned and excommunicated from all Christian society! Pope John says the same thing in his letter to Saint Photius, and, moreover, with greater detail and clarity regarding the addition to this Symbol. This council laid down the rules that can be found in all canonical books. So, according to the definition of this Council, as well as those that preceded it, the sacred Creed must be kept inviolable in the form in which it was published. And I, accepting those whom the said Councils accept, and rejecting those whom they reject, will never accept into fellowship those who dare to add to the Symbol a new teaching regarding the origin of the Holy Spirit, as long as they adhere to this teaching” 717. 3) On a series of Confessions, which our Archpastors usually read before being ordained to the episcopate: “I accept, they said, and the seven ecumenical Councils exposition (of the faith), I confess, even established by them, the canons, and the statutes to love and observe, as sacred as our Fathers, depicted at different times and in the summer, and all of them, they accepted, and I accept, and they I turn away, and I turn away. I also profess to observe the peace of the Church and not to philosophize with a single disposition in my entire being, following and obeying the Holy Apostle and the Seven Ecumenical Council in everything” 718. 4) To the response letters of some Eastern High Hierarchs to the unjust-minded, on the occasion of their questions, such as: to the letter of His Holiness Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Lutherans, where the seven Ecumenical Councils 719 are relied upon as the basis of all Orthodox teaching; and to the message of all the Eastern Patriarchs and clergy in 1723 to the Church of Great Britain, which begins: “Our dogmas and the teaching of our Eastern Church have been studied since ancient times, correctly and piously defined, and approved by holy and ecumenical councils; adding to or subtracting anything from them is impermissible. Therefore, those who wish to agree with us in the Divine dogmas of the Orthodox faith must, with simplicity, obedience, without any research and curiosity, follow and submit to everything that is determined and decreed by the ancient tradition of the Fathers, and approved by the holy and ecumenical Councils, since the time of the Apostles and their successors, the God-bearing Fathers of our Church" 720. 5) On the Rite of Confession, which everyone who enters the bowels of the Orthodox Church is obliged to pronounce: “the rest is the same, says the newcomer, everything from the holy Fathers at the holy seven ecumenical and local Councils was handed down, legitimized and explained, except for any doubt I accept and confess” 721. 6) Finally, on the Orthodox Confession of the canonical and apostolic Church of the East, where in one place we read: “there are twelve members of the Catholic and Orthodox faith, according to the Symbol of the first Nicene and second Councils of Constantinople. Everything belonging to our Faith is so clearly set out in them that we should believe no more, no less, and no differently than in accordance with the understanding of these Fathers” 722; and in another: “one must believe that everything that the Holy Fathers decreed at all ecumenical and local Councils, wherever they were compiled, comes from the Holy Spirit” 723. And it should be noted that all this is observed not only in confession, but also in practice: no one will in any way denounce the Eastern Orthodox Church for allowing even the slightest change in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol and other Creed definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. On the contrary, Christians themselves, who disagree with us, involuntarily give her this honor, and consider this to be her distinctive character, although sometimes, in their opinion, as a reproach to her 724. § 145. Application of the same principles to other churches As for other faiths, the same cannot be said about them: because all these confessions, more or less, betrayed the definitions of faith and the rules of the Ecumenical Councils and deviated from the truth of Orthodoxy. To confirm this idea, we do not need to go through the various Christian churches or societies that exist in the east separately from the Orthodox Church, and that to this day adhere to some ancient heresies, condemned by the Ecumenical Councils. We mean, firstly, the Nestorians, condemned by the third Ecumenical Council, who now live in Mesopotamia, mainly along the Tigris River, in India, Persia and Kurdistan; and secondly, the Monophysites, condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, who now form two churches in Africa: Coptic and Abyssinian, and two in Asia: Syrian-Jacobite along the Euphrates River and Armenian. Therefore, let us turn directly to the Western churches. I. Of these, first of all others, the Church of Rome deviated from the creeds of the ancient ecumenical Councils. Because - A) Contrary to the clear prohibition of these Councils to change, in any way, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, she changed it by adding to the clause about the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father: “and from the Son (Filioque).” All the excuses that its defenders could come up with for this case in defense of the Roman Church are the following two. First: as if the 7th rule of the Third Ecumenical Council, later confirmed by the subsequent Councils IV, V and VI, prohibits actually composing Creeds that are contrary to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, or different from it. And, therefore, he forbids adding false additions to this Symbol that disagree with it, and not true additions at all, which could only serve as an explanation of it, which, in fact, is the addition: Filioque. Second: even if we assume that the said rule strictly prohibits making any kind of changes and additions to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, then this prohibition, of course, falls only on private individuals, but not on the entire Church and not on the Ecumenical Councils; and the addition: Filioque was approved at the Ecumenical Councils. Justifications are those that would be quite sufficient for their purpose if they turned out to be fair. But the fact of the matter is that both of them are unfair. 1) The first thing is unfair: as if the Council of Ephesus prohibited making only false, and not all kinds of additions to the Nicene Symbol. Who could better interpret the rule of the Council of Ephesus that we are considering, if not St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was its chairman? And here is how he interprets this rule in his letter to the Antioch Patriarch John: “we under no circumstances allow anyone to distort the faith, or what is the same, the Symbol of Faith, once composed by St. Fathers in Nicaea; We do not allow ourselves, nor others, to change even one word contained in it, or even omit one letter - remembering the words of the one who said: do not transgress the limit of the ancients, which your fathers laid down.” And it must be added that this is the message of St. Cyril was read and approved later at the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Who could more accurately understand the meaning of the rule of the Council of Ephesus that we are considering, if not the subsequent Ecumenical Councils, which confirmed it. Meanwhile, the Ecumenical Councils themselves so strictly understood and respected the prohibition set out in this rule that even their own dogmatic definitions, completely true and really serving only to explain the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, did not allow themselves to be included in this Symbol, but were published separately. Although they could have contributed if they wanted, as equal in authority to the Council of Ephesus. We also point out the confession of the Orthodox faith of Emperor Justinian, written against the three chapters, where he says: “St. The fathers who gathered in Ephesus against the wicked Nestorius, and St. The fathers, who later gathered in Chalcedon against the wicked Eutyches, anathematized those who, to those approaching baptism, or converting from any heresy, teach a different definition of faith, or a different Symbol, and not the one that was betrayed by the 318th St. The Fathers (of the Council of Nicaea) and explained the 150th St. Fathers (of the Council of Constantinople)." We call, on the other hand, respected Western writers or pastors as witnesses to our opinion, such as: a) Pope Agathon (679), who in his letter to the Emperor Constantine, later read at the sixth ecumenical council, says: “with simplicity of heart and with the firmness taught by the Fathers of the faith, we observe everything that was correctly determined by our saints and venerable predecessors and the five ecumenical councils. Always desiring one main good and caring about one thing, so that nothing is changed, nor subtracted, nor multiplied from what is correctly determined, but that it is kept inviolable in the same words and in the same sense.” b) The famous Alcuin, who, when a dispute arose in the West about adding to the Symbol: Filioque, which already existed in the Spanish Church, wrote to the Lyons brothers: “Dearest brethren, with all your effort beware of the New Spanish teaching; in your faith follow in the footsteps of St. Fathers, and remain in the most holy unity with the Church: for it is written: do not transgress the limits set by the Fathers, and do not add anything new to the Symbol of the Catholic Church; do not follow traditions hitherto unheard of.” c) Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, who at the Italian Council (in 791) decisively rejected this addition, saying: “due to various errors of heretics and various guesses of the ignorant, I agree to profess and teach only the faith that has been taught to all centuries from St. Fathers. I know that in some conciliar scrolls it is determined (meaning the rule of the Council of Ephesus), in order to prevent new and diverse heresies, that no one is allowed to compose or teach a different Creed. Therefore, let it be removed from us, let the intention of composing and teaching the Symbol or faith be removed from the heart of every believer other than as they (the Holy Fathers) established. But we determine only to explain, in accordance with their meaning, that which, due to brevity, simple and unlearned people do not properly understand - retaining, however, the same text of the Symbol... For to add anything to what was piously bequeathed to the St. Fathers, or to reduce it – this is no longer consistent with faith.” We call as witnesses: d) Pope Leo III, who, when the ambassadors of the Council of Aachen (809) proposed to him to add to the Symbol: and from the Son, not only did not agree to this, but also ordered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol to be carved on two silver tablets, without any addition, with the inscription: haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae religionis. And to the ambassadors’ remark that in this way a true, and not a false, addition to the Symbol would have been made, he answered: “The Fathers did not so define that a right-thinking person can make an addition, but a non-right-thinking person cannot; but they said no one could do it.” Finally we indicate: e) For the whole Council of Shepherds, which was held in Constantinople under the Emperor Basil and Patriarch Photius (867) and was long considered in the east to be the 5th Ecumenical Council, which, indeed, represented the entire universal Church, since at it, in addition to a great many bishops, all the ecumenical Patriarchs and the Pope himself were present, in the person of their locums. And here once again, in the face of the whole world, as if deliberately against the Latins, who were already admitting then: Filioque, the Ecumenical Church repeated, with all certainty, the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus regarding the immutability of the Symbol: “We confess with our minds and hearts,” said the Fathers of this Council, having mentioned the immutability of the definitions of all the previous seven Ecumenical Councils, “and we loudly proclaim to everyone and everywhere an example of the purest Christian faith, which has come down to us from our ancestors, without taking anything away, without adding anything, without changing or distorting anything. For such subtraction and addition, even if no heresy was erected by the machinations of the evil one, causes an unintentional and unforgivable offense to the Fathers, who are blameless in everything. It is even more harmful than this if we replace the definition of the Fathers with counterfeit words. Therefore this St. The Ecumenical Council, accepting, by the inspiration of God and in right thought, the original definition of faith, and laying in it the firm foundation of salvation, proclaims that everyone should think and confess in the same way: I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, visible to all and invisible, etc. (the entire Symbol to the end). We all think this way, we are baptized in this confession, through it the word of truth makes every heresy weak and invalid. We place those who think this way among the brothers, fathers and joint heirs of the higher fatherland. If anyone dares to draw another example of faith, besides this St. A symbol that originated from the blessed and St. Fathers has come down to us, he dares to call (anything of his own) a definition of faith and to humiliate the dignity of the confession of these God-enlightened men, to include in it his own inventions and present it to the faithful, or to those who have recently converted from some heresy, for the general teaching of the faith, or will boldly attempt to damage with counterfeit words, additions and subtractions, the antiquity of this Holy and venerable example of faith; then by definition, now, as well as before us from St. of the Ecumenical Councils, proclaimed, if he has a holy rank, we subject him to absolute overthrow, and if he is a layman - anathema.” At this Council, we repeat, the locum tenens of Pope John VIII were also present; even John himself mentions them, they are also named: and they, for their part, also cast, on this occasion, the following vote: “It is righteous, so that no other creed will be formed again (ὅ ρος).” In particular, the idea that the addition: Filioque is a true and not false addition is unfair: here it is enough to note that the ancient universal Church did not know or recognize such a truth, as our famous theologians, Adam Zernikav and Feofan Prokopovich, undeniably showed. While Western writers, with all their efforts, are barely able to collect a dozen or two paternal passages, rather unclear and indefinite, in defense of their addition, and of which, moreover, most, if not all, are deliberately damaged, our mentioned writers presented from the ancient Fathers whole hundreds of passages that are completely contrary to this addition. And of Augustine alone, whom the Latins consider the main defender of their teaching, more than fifty were presented. And what places? Some of them clearly express the idea that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, without mentioning the Son at all. Others say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and deny the procession from the Son as well). Still others, finally, remain silent about this procession - and from the Son, under such circumstances in which they could not have remained silent at all if the writers of these places believed that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father alone. It is also unfair that this supposedly true addition serves only as an explanation of the member of the Creed about the procession of the Holy Spirit. To say: the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, that is, from the Father and the Son, is contrary to all the rules of sanity, when it is known that the Father and the Son are two Persons in God, different from each other. 2) Just as false is the second justification of Western writers, supposedly adding to the Symbol: the Filioque was unanimously approved by the Latins and Greeks at two ecumenical Councils, Lyon II in 1274 and Florence in 1437. Both of these Councils are not at all ecumenical: for they took place completely illegally and were not accepted either at their time or after by the entire Greek Orthodox Church, but were accepted at the beginning, on the part of the Greeks, only by a very few traitors to Orthodoxy, and, moreover, mostly under coercion. At the Council of Lyons, the main actor on the Greek side was Emperor Michael Palaiologos, who, having stolen the throne from the rightful heir, John Lascar, was forced, given the cramped circumstances of himself and his empire, to swear to the pope to subordinate the Eastern Church to him. To achieve his goal, he took care in advance by force and deception to dethrone the Orthodox Patriarchs, Ambrose, Herman and John, who did not agree to betray Orthodoxy. And, going to the Council, he took with him only his accomplices, of whom, moreover, the most learned, Vecca, could hardly win over to his side and force him to unity with the Romans - by imprisonment and the promise of the patriarchal throne. And this imaginary unity ended with the fact that the Emperor, who soon died, was not honored by the Orthodox Church with burial, Patriarch Beccus was again imprisoned, and the Council of Constantinople in 1285 pronounced an anathema on the pope and on all Latin decrees. At the Council of Florence, some of the Greeks present (12 in number, and 17 according to others) agreed to the union of the churches and to the adoption of the Roman addition to the Symbol. But why did you agree? On the one hand, they were forced to do so by the will and power of the Emperor, who, wanting to help the fatherland that was in extreme danger, tried by all means to convince his shepherds to submit to the pope, who promised only under this condition to give a helping hand. And on the other hand, it was even more forced by the treachery of Pope Eugene IV, who, having undertaken from the very beginning to provide the Greeks with maintenance from himself, when he noticed their inflexibility, ordered to give them such a meager allowance that they reached extreme poverty and did not have any means to return to their fatherland if they had not agreed to the required submission to the Roman ruler. But some, and moreover, the most important, Greek shepherds, despite all these oppressions, did not subscribe to the definitions of the Florence Council, namely: Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, who did not live to see the end of the matter; the famous Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus, who, in addition to occupying a place among the locum tenens of the Patriarchs, representing the person of the Patriarch of Antioch, was elected by the Greeks as exarch of the Council, and therefore was considered, as Balsamon says, the mouth of all the Greeks; the locum tenens of the throne of Jerusalem, Dionysius, Bishop of Sardia, who died in Ferrara; Georgian Metropolitan Gregory and Bishop of Stavropol, who fled from the Council; Sophrony of Ankhial, two more bishops - Isaac and Sophrony, and our Bishop of Suzdal Abraham. In conclusion, the Patriarchs of the East, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, as soon as they heard about this end of the Florence Council, hastened to convene their own Council in 1443, at which they rejected the Florence Council and excommunicated all its adherents from the Church. The definitions of this Council in Constantinople, Russia, Georgia, Moldova and other Orthodox countries were also rejected at that time. B) The Roman Church invented a new dogma about the primacy of the pope, about his supreme power, as the Vicar of Christ, over the entire Church and all its Hierarchs - a dogma that is obviously contrary to many of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils, and namely: a) the sixth rule of the First Ecumenical Council, which confirms the ancient equality of all bishops of the main cities of the Roman Empire, such as Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and their complete independence from each other in the districts under their jurisdiction: “let the ancient customs accepted in Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis be preserved, so that the bishop of Alexandria has power over all of them. This is also common for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and in others, let the advantages of the churches be preserved. In general, let this be known: if anyone, without the permission of the Metropolitan, is appointed a bishop, the great Council has determined that he should not be a bishop.” b) The third rule of the Second Ecumenical Council, which reads: “Let the Bishop of Constantinople have the advantage of honor over the Bishop of Rome, because that city is the new Rome,” and, therefore, clearly expresses that the Bishop of Rome had in the Church the advantage of only honor, and not power, and had it strictly for the sake of the place of his see, i.e. for the sake of ancient Rome. c) The twenty-eighth rule of the IV Ecumenical Council, which even more precisely defines the same idea that the Roman throne had advantages only for the sake of the reigning city. Moreover, it testifies that these advantages were already given to the Bishop of Rome by the Fathers, but were not at all passed on to St. Apostle Peter; and, finally, it provides equal advantages to the throne of Constantinople, like New Rome. “Following in everything the definitions of the holy Fathers, and recognizing the now read rule of one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops who were at the Council in the days of the pious memory of Theodosius, in the reigning city of Constantinople, the new Rome, we also determine and decree the same about the advantages of the most holy Church of the same Constantinople, the New Rome. For the Fathers gave decent advantages to the throne of Old Rome; because it was the reigning city. Following the same impulse, one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops granted equal advantages to the most holy see of New Rome, righteously judging that the city that has received the honor of being the city of the King and the Synclite, and having equal advantages with the old royal Rome, will be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs likewise, and will be second to it.” d) The thirty-sixth rule of the V Ι-th Ecumenical Council, which repeats the same decrees on the equal advantages of the throne of Constantinople with the throne of ancient Rome: “renewing the law by one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers gathered in this God-protected and reigning city, and by six hundred and thirty who gathered in Chalcedon, we determine that he has a throne Constantinople has equal advantages with the throne of ancient Rome, and like this one, let him be exalted in church affairs, being second to it. After this, let the throne of the great city of Alexandria be numbered, then the throne of Antioch, and after this the throne of the city of Jerusalem.” e) The eighth rule of the Third Ecumenical Council, which, while confirming the rights of independence of bishops and metropolitans in their areas, directly arms itself against such power and dominion in the Church as the Romans now attribute to their bishop: “let not the rules of the Father be transgressed: let not the arrogance of worldly power creep in under the guise of sacred rites. And may we not lose, little by little, imperceptibly, the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all men, gave us with his blood. So, the Holy and Ecumenical Council desires that every diocese preserve, in purity and without restraint, the rights that initially belong to it, according to the custom established from ancient times.” There is no need to talk about other deviations of the Roman Church from ancient ecumenical Orthodoxy: the two indicated as the most important are enough, of which one clearly violates the ancient Creed, and the other - the ancient structure of the Church, as both were approved at the Ecumenical Councils. II. Following the Roman Church, the Protestants (Lutherans and Reformed) who separated from it also retreated from the immutable teachings of the ancient ecumenical Councils; only they have retreated much more. Because: a) besides the fact that they also contain an illegal addition in the Symbol: Filioque, they - b) they completely rejected, contrary to the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils, sacred tradition as one of the sources of the Christian faith; c) they rejected the divine approval of the church hierarchy and, after that, the authority of the Church itself, as an infallible teacher of the faith, the authority of St. Fathers and most ecumenical councils; and having rejected one of the sources of Christian teaching and the leadership of the divinely established guardian and interpreter of Divine revelation, it is inevitable that d) they rejected or distorted many other dogmas, mainly based on Tradition, such as: about the veneration of icons, contrary to the creed of the VIIth Ecumenical Council, about the veneration and invocation of Saints and Angels, about prayers for the dead, also about some sacraments: confirmation, repentance, marriage, the Eucharist itself, etc. It is not at all unfair to judge the teaching of Protestant societies on the basis of the principle we have chosen. For the infallibility of the universal Church in the matter of teaching, and, consequently, the infallibility of the ecumenical Councils can be clearly demonstrated (§§ 136 and 139) and from St. Scripture, which Protestants themselves accept as the source of faith. It can be proven even from simple considerations of reason itself, if only he believes in the following two truths: in the Divinity of the Founder of the Church, the Lord Jesus, and in the divinity of his faith. III. Moreover, finally, many societies that were subsequently formed in the depths of Protestantism itself (Quakers, Anabaptists, Swedenborgians, Socinians and others) deviated from the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, which distorted and perverted almost all the dogmas of the ancient Church. And of which, moreover, some reject not only the sacred Tradition, but also the importance of the Holy Scripture itself, recognizing as the source of the Christian faith one internal illumination from the Holy Spirit, or their own reason, while others do not even accept the dogma of the Divinity of the Redeemer of the world, therefore, they are not worthy to be called Christian. When, therefore, from the application of the first principle alone, it is obvious that of all the existing churches, only the Eastern Orthodox one remains on the ancient unshakable foundation, and all the others have more or less moved from it: then there is no longer any special need to apply the second principle here in its entirety. That is, go through in detail all the individual dogmas of various current Christian confessions and check whether these dogmas agree with the unanimous teaching of the ancient Fathers. For even if it turned out (which, however, cannot be) that in the churches that have betrayed the already infallible teaching of the Ecumenical Councils, all individual dogmas exactly agree with the ancient Faith of the Fathers, this alone would not return to those churches the right to be called Orthodox. But to assume, on the other hand, that there could be dogmas that do not agree with the ancient teaching of the Fathers in the Orthodox Church is even impossible, when it is known that it is the only one that now remains faithful to the ancient ecumenical councils, and, therefore, remains the only representative of the true universal Church of Christ, which is infallible. That is, to allow such an assumption means to reject the infallibility of the Church. However, we only here consider it unnecessary to show a detailed application of this second principle; and in its place it will and must be done. Two special theological sciences should serve as such an application: a) from the positive side, all Dogmatic Theology, which has as its object - to show the agreement of all dogmas contained by the Orthodox Church with the ancient teaching of St. Fathers or the Universal Church, b) on the negative side, all the Theology is Accusatory, the essential task of which is to show that those imaginary dogmas by which other Confessions differ from us do not agree with the teaching of the Universal Church. § 146. Consequences from the proposed teaching about the Orthodox Church: a) regarding the Orthodox Church itself From the teaching about the real Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church it follows, regarding this very Church, that it rightly acquires for itself the names: one, holy, conciliar (catholic) and apostolic Church 725. For the Ecumenical Council, of course, defined by these names the properties of the Church of Christ, in contrast to all false and heretical ones. And the only representative of this Church at present is the Eastern Orthodox Church. § 147. b) – regarding the attitude of believers towards her If, according to the will of the Lord, His true, that is, the Orthodox Church, to which alone He entrusted His Divine teaching, contained both in Scripture and in Tradition, should be our mentor in the matter of faith; if, moreover, this teacher of faith is an infallible teacher: then, it means that all Christians are equally obliged to learn their faith from the Orthodox Church, and with filial obedience to follow its leadership 726. In particular, we are obliged to - 1) Undoubtedly recognize precisely those Divine sources of Christian teaching that it recognizes: and, firstly, those very books of St. Scriptures which she accepts 727, speaking like the blessed one. Augustine: “I would not have believed the Gospel if the voice of the Catholic Church had not convinced me of it” 728; and secondly, precisely those Apostolic traditions that it contains, remembering the words of confession about this subject, which are uttered, at its request, by everyone turning to Orthodoxy: “all the Apostolic and Father of Saints traditions, which the Holy, Catholic, Catholic Church contains, holy and soul-saving, I believe, confess and accept” 729. 2) Undoubtedly understand Divine revelation, i.e. and St. Scripture and St. Tradition, exactly as she understands it: “We must believe in the Divine and the Holy. Scripture, say the Eastern Patriarchs, unquestioningly, and, moreover, not in some way of their own, but exactly as the Catholic Church explained and handed it down” 730. “The same is the Holy Scripture,” the Gentiles confess, moving into the depths of Orthodoxy, “according to the understanding that the Holy, Eastern Church contained and contains, it is proper for her to talk about the true understanding and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, I accept” 731. We must unquestioningly believe in Tradition no other way than according to the reason and explanation of the same saint. teachers of the faith: for it is known that not only scriptures, but also traditions can be interpreted incorrectly, at will, for example, traditions about the veneration of St. icons and relics, about invoking Angels and others. To avoid this, as St. herself commands. Church, “it is not appropriate to add or leave out anything from the Holy Tradition of our Orthodox faith” 732, but must contain the traditions in the exact form and sense in which they are contained by the Church 733. The following remark is necessary here: in the article on the importance and use of St. Tradition (§ 133), by the way, it was proven that St. Scripture must explain according to St. Tradition... But since Tradition does not, so to speak, have an independent existence (as Holy Scripture has), but everything is contained in the writings and practice of the Orthodox Church, and, as it were, merged with its teaching; since, therefore, the importance of Tradition is based solely on the authority of the Church; and since, finally, Tradition itself, like Scripture, we must understand according to the mind of the Orthodox Church: it follows that the position: must be explained by St. Scripture agrees with St. Tradition, and more: St. must understand. The Scriptures, as explained by the Orthodox Church, are identical. This is confirmed by the testimonies of the teachers of the Church presented in the mentioned article, who call the tradition of the Church, as well as the rule of the Trullo Council, which determines that Scripture should not be interpreted in any other way, except as stated by the luminaries and teachers of the Church. And finally, the dogma of 367 St. Father of the V ΙΙ-th Ecumenical Council on the veneration of icons, which begins like this: “we keep everything, whether written or without scripture, established for us, church traditions,” and ends with the following words: “This is how the teaching of St. Our Fathers, this is the tradition of the Catholic Church, from the end of the earth they received the Gospel.” § 148. c) – regarding the use of St. Scriptures and St. Legends 1) It does not at all follow that the believers themselves, who do not belong to members of the teaching church, do not have the right to use Divine revelation, to read St. Scripture and St. Traditions contained in the fathers and other church books. The Church of Christ has always been alien to the idea of ​​prohibiting its children from reading St. Scriptures. This is visible: a) already from the fact that from the first centuries she herself has always offered and offers them in churches many, sometimes very extensive, readings both from the Old and mainly from the New Testament, and - b) from the fact that from the very first centuries, through her shepherds, she constantly instilled and instills in her flock, so that they themselves, in their homes, practice reading the Scriptures as much and as often as possible. “I always inspire and will not cease to instill,” said the Golden Master to his listeners, “so that you not only (in the church) listen to what is said, but also at home constantly read the Divine Scripture... We, who are worried as if in the middle of the sea and have the opportunity to count countless sins, at all times need constant and continuous consolation from the Scriptures... Even though you do not understand what is contained there; but from the reading itself there is great sanctification. However, it is impossible for you not to understand everything equally” 734. “Inheriting the Divine Scriptures is the most kind and spiritually beneficial thing,” says another saint. Father..., let us knock on this most perfect paradise of scriptures...; Let us knock not lightly, but zealously and constantly, and let us not lose patience by knocking for a long time: for only then will it be opened to us...; Let us draw from this heavenly source of inexhaustible and pure water flowing into eternal life” 735. Moreover, this should be repeated regarding St. legends contained mainly in the writings of St. Fathers and teachers of the Church. Everyone knows that these works, highly respected by all true Christians, have always been and remain for the Orthodox, at the direction of the Church itself, the most important and favorite reading for spiritual benefit. 2) It only follows that all believers (and the shepherds themselves), especially if they are unable or have little ability to test the scriptures, should not read Divine revelation without the guidance of the Church. This thought was expressed by the most holy Eastern Patriarchs in their message on the Orthodox Faith: “We know that all Scripture is divinely inspired and useful, and is so necessary that without it it is completely impossible to be pious: however, not everyone is able to read it, but only those who know how Scripture should be tested, studied and correctly understood. Thus, every pious person is allowed to listen to Scripture in order to believe in the truth with his heart and confess with his mouth for salvation, but not everyone is allowed, without guidance, to read some parts of Scripture, especially the Old Testament. Indiscriminately allowing the unskilled to read the Holy Scriptures is the same as offering strong food to infants” (answer to question 1). The ancient saints of the Church taught the same thing: St. Irenaeus 736, St. John Chrysostom 737 and others 738. 3) It also should not be that believers themselves do not have the right to deliberately study Divine revelation and, in particular, St. Scripture in all possible respects, historical, archaeological, philological, hermeneutical and others, and then did not have the right to interpret the Word of God, according to the rules of sound Orthodox hermeneutics. And the Church has never forbidden this to her children, as can be seen from the example of the saints themselves. Fathers and generally ancient Christian writers. Many of them, undeniably, studied Scripture in all the relationships shown, studied its philology, archeology, hermeneutics (Blessed Augustine even compiled the sacred hermeneutics himself to guide others), and with the help of all these means they wrote numerous interpretations of various books of St. Scriptures. This is in some way even necessary: ​​for the Church itself has nowhere indicated how to understand each of the countless passages of St. Scripture did not provide a deliberate interpretation of the entire Bible, where the true meaning of each text would be determined with complete accuracy. 4) It only follows that we must always study the Word of God under the guidance of the Church, in whatever respect: historical, archaeological, philological, exegetical and others. The positive teaching of the Church, firm, unchangeable, must be the beginning, the rule, and the goal of all our studies of this kind and all our interpretations of St. Scripture. A beginning to which we would constantly turn in order to confide our thoughts to them. A rule that would indicate to us the legal limits for our research and remind us: this far you will come and you will not pass. The goal to which all our studies would be devoted. Under these conditions, biblical archaeology, philology, criticism, hermeneutics and exegesis not only cannot be harmful (as they inevitably are when, having illegally rejected in the matter of Divine revelation any guidance of a divinely appointed leader, they are based on only the arbitrary beginning of an arbitrary opinion, liberi arbitrii). On the contrary, they can be very useful both to believers and the Church itself: To believers - in that they will understand many dogmas and truths contained in the Orthodox confession; and the Church itself - by delivering important, necessary weapons to protect its teachings from enemies who act with the same weapons and cannot be defeated by anything else. IV. ABOUT STATEMENTS OF FAITH IN WHICH YOU CAN FIND THE SYMBOLIC TEACHING OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH If the Orthodox Church is Orthodox only because it remains entirely faithful to the ancient Church universal, then it follows that the statements of faith it contains, brief and extensive, can most justly be divided into two types: a) on the expositions received by it from the ancient Church, universal, infallible, having an irrespective dignity, and b) her own expositions, which appeared in subsequent times, and have their dignity already from agreement with the first, just as she herself has her importance from agreement with the ancient Universal Church. § 150. Statements of the first kind Statements of the first kind include: 1) On the one hand, the definitions of faith drawn up at the Ecumenical Councils are something like: a) samples of faith: Creed 318 St. Father of the first ecumenical council; Creed 150 St. Father of the Second Ecumenical Council; dogma 630 St. Father of the Fourth Ecumenical Council on the two natures in the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ; dogma 170 St. Father of the Sixth Ecumenical Council on the two wills and actions in our Lord Jesus Christ; dogma 367 St. Father of the Seventh Ecumenical Council on Icon Veneration; and b) in general, definitions regarding faith contained in the rules of St. Apostles, St. Ecumenical and local councils and St. Father, named by the Council of Trullo 739. 2) And on the other hand, statements of faith, which, although they were not deliberately considered and approved at the Ecumenical Councils, were accepted by the entire Church of the Ecumenical. These are: a) The symbol of St. Gregory, Neocaesarea Wonderworker and b) The symbol known as St. Athanasius of Alexandria 740. § 151. Statements of the second kind Among the statements of faith that have appeared in the Eastern Orthodox Church, some are common to this entire Church, while others belong to the Russian Church itself. 1) Two, deliberately composed, confessions of the Orthodox faith, for the guidance of all Orthodox: a) One - about half of the 5th century (1640) in Kyiv, to protect the purity of Orthodoxy both from the opinions of Lutherans and Calvinists, and even more from the opinions of Roman Catholics and former Uniates. This is the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East 741. First, it was considered at the Kiev Council, and soon (in 1643) at the Yassy Council; then examined and approved by all four eastern Patriarchs 742, and unanimously accepted by the entire Greek Church 743. Finally, for the entire Russian Church it was approved and approved by Patriarchs Joachim (in 1685) and Adrian (in 1696), who even called this book divinely inspired, of course, not in the strict sense, and by the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod, which, in addition to repeatedly publishing it for the general guidance of the Orthodox 744, confirmed in 1840 a special order of the former Commissions of Theological Schools on the teaching of this book 745 in all Seminaries (in the lower departments). And in 1845 he decided that another class a week should be devoted to a thorough study of it, and that students, upon moving to the higher department, should deliberately repeat it before the very beginning of the course, as a necessary guide in the study of Theology 746. b) Another - in the last half of the same century (in 1672), at the Council of Jerusalem, to protect the purity of Orthodoxy from Calvinist errors, under the title: Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church. The truth and purity of this Exposition was again witnessed by all the Most Holy Patriarchs and other Archpastors of the Eastern Church, when they sent it from themselves (1723) in response to the Christians of Great Britain, as a true exposition and wisdom of the Orthodox faith, and then they communicated it for the same purpose to our St. Synod; accepted and witnessed and St. The All-Russian Synod, in 1838, published this confession in Russian, under the title: Message of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox-Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith, for the guidance of all Orthodox 747, and in 1845, decided to distribute this book free of charge to all Spiritual pupils for constant use not only in Seminaries, but also upon leaving Seminaries 748. 2) Some special Confessions compiled and contained by the Church in liturgical books for special cases, such as: a) Episcopal oath. It is also important as an oath of faith. But also because it is pronounced by a person appointed to be the chief shepherd and teacher of the entire local church; pronounces solemnly in the church, in the presence of numerous Christians, before the council of Hierarchs, from whom this person has the right to receive Divine grace to rule the word of truth and shepherd the spiritual flock entrusted to him. b) Dogmatic questions proposed to those who come to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from the Jews and from the Saracens, where the difference between the Christian faith and the New Jewish and Mohammedan faith is clearly indicated. c) Confession of faith, pronounced by those turning to the Orthodox Church from other Christian confessions, which outlines the distinctive features of Orthodoxy from the beliefs of non-Orthodox people. d) the formula for excommunication from the Church of 12 members, pronounced on the week of Orthodoxy. To the models of confession compiled in the Russian Church itself - 1) include positive expositions of the Orthodox Christian teaching, published and published on behalf of St. Synod for the instruction in faith and piety of every Christian, i.e. Catechisms. The first place between them is occupied by the Long Orthodox Christian Catechism of the Catholic Eastern Church, reviewed and approved by St. by the Governing Synod, and published for teaching in schools and for the use of all Orthodox Christians, according to His Highest Imperial Majesty's command. 2) We can also include some accusatory (polemical) works published, by determination or blessing of St. Synod, against Gentiles, to warn the Orthodox from their errors, which are: a) against the papists: Conversations between the searching and the confident about the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Catholic Church; b) against the Reformed: The Stone of Faith of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church; c) against schismatics: Rod of government, spiritual advice, etc. 749. However, it should be noted that not all of these expositions of the second kind are of equal importance: in all of them, as published on behalf of the Orthodox Church, one can undoubtedly hear its teaching; but as a deliberate guide to a detailed presentation of this teaching, as a touchstone for testing one’s Belief, one should recognize only three of them: a) Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, b) Message of the Eastern Patriarchs about the Orthodox Faith and c) Long Christian Catechism, published by the definition of St. Synod, - in accordance with the intention of the Church itself, which issues them precisely for such guidance to its children. A detailed teaching about the Church, about its foundation, structure, hierarchy, composition, properties, purpose, means to an end, etc., by its nature, must take a place in Dogmatic Theology. See our Orthodox Dogmatic Theology vol. II, §§ 167–182. The rite of joining the Gentiles sheet. 71 on the back, Moscow, 1757. We will see many other similar testimonies later. In the 1st part, when they showed the historical authenticity of: a) miracles and prophecies that took place during the patriarchal period, b) miracles and prophecies of Moses, c) miracles and prophecies of subsequent Prophets, d) miracles and prophecies of Christ the Savior and e) the Apostles (see §§ 61, 71, 74, 98, 102 and 104). These include: 1) Meyer, Apologie der geschichtlichen Auffassung der histor. Bücher des A. T., besonders, des Pentateuchs, im Gegensatze... Sullzb. 1811; 2) Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Pentateuches, Berlin, 1836; 3) Du Yoisin, L'autorité des livres de Moïse, établie et défendue contre les incrédules, Paris, 1778, and friend. Λέγετο δ ’ δτι τὴν πολιτέιαν καὶ τούς νὸμους ἀυτοῖς καταβαλόμενος ίερεύς , τὸ γένος Ηλιουπολίτης , ὅ νομα Ὀσαρσὶφ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν Ή λίου πὸλει Θεοῦ Όσίρεως , ὡ ς μετέβη ἐις τοῦτο τὸ γένος, μετετέφη τοῦνομα καὶ προσηγορέυθη Μω ῡ σῆς. See Josephus – contra Apionem. lib. 1, § 16. And for Josephus’s own comments on this Manetonian legend about Moses, see the following §§ from 27 to 32. He calls Moses - ἱερογραμματέα. See also Josephus contra Apion lib. I, §§ 32–33. ἧ ? προσευχὰς ... Clement. Alex. Strom. 1, p. 21; Evsev. Praeparat. Evang. lib. X, p. 10. Evsev. Praeparat. Evang. lib. X, cap. 10. ’E υπόλεμος δέ φησι τὸν Μωσῆν πρώτον Σοφὸν γενέσθαι , καὶ ?? Φοίνικας παραλαβεῖν, Ἒ λληνας δὲ παρὰ Φοινίκων, νόμους τὲ πρ ὦ τον γράώαι Μωσῆν τοῖς Ἰουδάιοις. at Evsev. Praepar. Evang. lib. IX, cap. 26. Παρά μὲν τοῖς ’A ριμασποῖς Ζαθραύστην ίστοροῦσι τὸν ἀγαθὸν δαίμονα προσποιήσασθαι τούς νόμους ἀυτῷ διδόναι , παρὰ δὲ τοῖς ὀνομαζομένοις Γέταις Ζάμολξιν ωσαύτως ὴν κοινὴν Ἐστίαν , παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἰουδάιοις Μοσῆν τὸν Ἰαῶ ὲπικαλόυμενον Θεόν . Diodor. Sicul. Biblioth. hist. lib. 1, pag. 59, edit. 1559. In Photius Biblioth. cod. 244. Strab .– Rerum geograph, lib. XVI. Evsev. Praepar. Evang. lib. IX, cap., 26 and 27; lib. X, cap. 9–13; Kiril. Alex. Contra Julian, lib. 1. Histor. lib. XXXVI, c. 2. Juvenal. Satir. XIV, 95–100. These testimonies, as well as all the numerous testimonies about Moses from pagan writers, are analyzed in all their breadth by Petrus Dan. Huetius in Demonstrat. Evangelica, propos. IV, c. 2, edit. Lips. 1703, pag. 83–114. This evidence was used against the pagans in their time by Josephus Flavius, the martyr Justin, Tatian, Julius Africanus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Lactantius. See also Evsev. Praeparat. Evang. lib. X, cap. 9–14; Augustine de civitate Dei lib. XVIII, cap. 37 and 39, and blessed. Theodoret in the essay: on the beginning, Chr. Thurs. 1845, P, 196. Flavii contra Apion. lib. I, §§ 25–35. See Demonstr. Evangel. Guetia pp. 96 and 100. Diodor. Sicul. Bibl. lib. I. We have not cited all the passages from the books of the Old Testament indicating the content of the Pentateuch: there are an extremely large number of such passages, as can be seen from the parallel tables in the Bible. Here are some more places from the Pentateuch of Moses mentioned in the New Testament: 1) From the book of Genesis: Matt. 19, 4–5; Rome. 9, 8; 1 Cor. S, 16; Heb. 4, 4. 2) From the book of Exodus: Matt. 5, 38 sn. Ref. 21, 23 and 24; Matt. 15, 4 dn. Ref. 20, 12; Onion. 2, 23. 3) From the book of Leviticus: John. 2, 8 dn. 19, 18; 1 Peter 1, 16 n. 19, 2; 2 Cor. 6, 16, n. 26, 11–12. 4) From the book of Numbers: John. 3, 14 n. 21, 8–9; 2 Peter 2, 16 n. 22, 28; 1 Cor. 10, 9 dn. 21, 5–6. 5) From the book of Deuteronomy: Matt. 4, 7 sn. 6, 16; John 8, 17 n. 19, 15; Acts 3, 22, n. 18, 15, etc. At first these were pagans resettled by Shalmaneser from different countries of Babylon to the cities of Samaria, to the place of the children of Israel, who were taken captive by them to Assyria (2 Kings 17:24). Then they asked the Assyrian king for one captive Israeli priest so that he could teach them faith in the true God, which they, indeed, accepted, without however falling behind their former pagan superstitions (-26–31). As a result, when creating the second temple in Jerusalem, the Samaritans already presented themselves to the Jews as their co-religionists. Finally, from the time of the construction of the temple of Samaria on Mount Gerizin, when, following Manasseh, the first high priest at this temple, many Jews moved to Samarth, the Samaritans, mixing with them, completely abandoned their ancient idolatry, forgot their pagan origin and began to constantly present themselves as true Israelites, guardians of the law of Moses in all its purity. Until now, living in ancient Shechem, they strictly adhere to the prescriptions of this law, think of offering true service to God only on Mount Garizin and expect the Messiah. Nowadays this alphabet is called the Samaritan alphabet, while the Pentateuch of the actual Jews, although it contains a Hebrew text, is written in Chaldean letters. See Coguel, Origine des lois, des sciences et des arts; also Fleury Moeurs des Israelites. In Wiseman's essay - Discours sur les rapports entre la science et la religion révélée, edit. Paris, 1813, presents several private legends about Egypt from the Pentateuch, completely confirmed and explained by these discoveries. See Introduction. analytique, pag. XXXII et Discours IX. pag. 342–344. And incomparably more such confirmation can be found in the book: Commentaire géographique sur l’Exode et les Nombres, par Léon de Laborde Paris et Leipzig, 1811. Famous three places from St. The Scriptures (2 Kings 22 and 23: 1 Mac 1, 56–57 and 3 Esdras 14, 21 et seq.), usually cited by opponents, cannot at all be evidence of the loss of the Pentateuch. Sn. with first place Paral. 34, 14; with the second - 1Mac 3.48; 12.9; with the third -· 1 Ezra. 7, 6 and Dan. 9, 2 and 11. For more details, see the Church Bible. East. Enlightenment Philaret on pp. 562–563. We saw some of them when considering the authenticity of the Pentateuch (in § 110) Philo apud Evseb. Praeparat. Evang. lib. VIII. This is, in particular, Benjamin Kennicott, who, after ten years of work devoted to the collection of manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible in all countries of Europe (numbering up to 501) and to their strict comparison, between 1776 and 1780 published his amazing discoveries before the learned world, and even more so - Professor John Bernard De Rossi of Parma, who with rare constancy collected and compared up to 680 Hebrew manuscripts, and published his research between 1784 and 1808. Here we cannot fail to mention a recent amazing discovery that confirms the truth we are considering. Dr. Buchanan brought to Europe an ancient scroll containing most of the Pentateuch, which was used by the Jews of the black tribe, who had lived in India since time immemorial, and for many centuries had not had any relations with the Jews of other countries of the world. Upon comparison of this list with the printed Hebrew Pentateuch of the best edition, there were no more than forty differences, most of which relate to letters alone, and not one is of the slightest importance. Discours sur les rapp. Entre la science et la religion. révélée, par Nic. Wiseman, Paris. 1843, pag. 365. What the canon of sacred books is, this will be discussed in detail in its place (see § 122). The Law (Thôrâth) consists precisely of the five books of Moses: 1) Genesis, 2) Exodus, 3) Leviticus, 4) Numbers and 5) Deuteronomy. The section called: Prophets (Nebîîm) includes the following books: 6) Joshua, 7) Judges, 8) 1 and 2 Kings, 9) 3 and 4 Kings, 10) Isaiah. 11) Jeremiah, 12) Ezekiel, 13) Twelve Minor Prophets. Hagiographs (Kethubîm) are the books: 14) Job, 15) Ruth, 10) Psalms, 17) Proverbs, 18) Song of Songs, 19) Ecclesiastes, 20) Daniel, 21) Lamentations of Jeremiah, 22) Ezra and Nehemiah, 23) 1 and 2 Chronicles, 24) Esther. Philo, tom. II, pag. 475; Joseph, contra Apion. lib. I, § 8. Namely; 1) From the book of Joshua: 1, 5, n. Heb. 13, 5. 2) Judges; 2, 16, n. Matt. 2, 23 and Acts. 13, 20. 3) 1st and 2nd books of Kings: 1 Sam. 8, 5; 13, 14, n. Acts 13, 21. 22; 2 Sam. 7, 12, n. Acts 2, 30. 4) 3rd and 4th Kings: 1 Kings. 17, 1 and 7, n. John 5, 17; 2 Kings 5, n. Onion. 4, 27. 5) 1st and 9th Chronicles 2 Chron. 24, 21. 22, n. Matt 23, 35. 6) Job: 5, 13, n. 1 Cor. 3, 19; 22, 29, n. Jacob 4, 6. 7) Psalms: 91, 11. 12, n. Matt. 4, b; 69, 10, n. John 2, 17; 61, 10, n. Acts 1, 16; 116, 11, n. Rome. 3, 4, etc. 8) Proverbs: 1, 16, n. Rome. 3, 15; 25, 21. 23, n. Rome, 12, 20; 9) Song of Songs: 8, 6, sn. Jacob 4, 5. 10) Prophet Isaiah: 7.14, n. Matt. 1, 22; 4, 9, n. Mark. 1, 3; 42, 10, n. Onion. 3, 6 and many more. etc. 11) Jeremiah: 31, 15, n. Matt. 2, 17; 9, 28, n. 1 Cor. 1, 31; 31, 31, n, Heb. 8, 8, etc. 12) Ezekiel: 34, 31, n. 1 Peter 2, 25; 34, 17, n. Matt. 25, 32; 37, 26–27, n. 2 Cor. 6, 16, etc. 13) Daniel: Matt. 24, 15; Mark. 12; Onion. 21. 14) Hosea: Matt. 2, 16; 9, 13; 12, 1; 1 Cor. 2, 9. 10 ; Rome. 9, 25 and 27; 1 Cor. 15, 54. 55 15) Joel: Acts. 2, 16–22; Rome. 10, 16. 16) Amos: Acts. 7, 42; 15, 15–18. 17) Jonah: Matt. 12, 39–42. 18) Micah: 5, 2, n. Matt. 2, 6. 19) Nahum: Rom. 10, 15. 20) Habakkuk: 2, 9, n. Acts 13, 41; Rome. 1, 17; Heb. 10, 38. 21) Haggai: 2, 11, n. Heb. 12, 26. 22) Zechariah: 13, 7, n. Matt. 16, 31; Matthew 27:9–10; Mark. 14, 27; John 16, 14–15; 19, 37. 23) Malachi: Mark. 1, 2; Onion. 7, 27; Rome. 9, 13, etc. Only four Old Testament books - Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah - are not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. But this, without a doubt, is only because the New Testament writers did not have the opportunity to mention them, and not at all because these books were either not then in the Old Testament canon, or were not recognized as canonical by the Savior and Apostles: this could be concluded only if we knew that the New Testament writers, citing passages from the Old Testament books, or pointing to them, had the goal of confirming their canonical importance; but they, as is obvious from their writings, had no such goal. Jahn, Introduction. in lib. Veter. Testament, pag. 463, 464, edit. 2. Irin. adversus haeres. lib. III, p. 21; Klim. Alex. Strom, lib. 1; Tertullus. de habit, mul., c. 3; Chrysostom, conversation on chapter 8. to Roman; F eodorite. preface to the Psalms. Contra Apion. lib. I, §§ 7 et 8. View Talm. Babylon. Baba Bathra, fol. 13, col. 2; fol. 15, col. 2. Hengstenberg gives numerous examples of this amazing precision in his essay: Die Authentie des Daniels, where he examines this important subject in all its breadth, subverting the cunning objections of the rationalists. Justice requires noting that regarding the authenticity of some books of the Old Testament, for example, the prophecies of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, not only do they no longer argue, but even the most rationalists readily agree, disagreeing among themselves only in determining the time in which one or another Prophet lived. Coment. in Esaiam cap. 6. Philo, apud Evsebium – Praepar. Evang. lib. VIII; Joseph contr. Apion. lib. I, § 8. And ycmun. Conversation with Tryphon ch. 73; Augustine. de civitate Dei lib. XVIII, cap. 46; in Psalm. 66. Absit, says the blessed one. Augustine, ut prudens quispiam, vel Judaeos cujuslibet perversitatis atque malitiae tantum potuisse credat in codicibus, tam multis et tam longe lateque dispersis (De civitate Dei lib. XV, cap. 13). Regarding the differences now noticed between the Hebrew text and the translation of the Seventy (no matter where they came from), we must remember: a) that these differences are not at all significant, that is, they do not in the least violate the Old Testament prophecies, nor sacred history, nor the rules of morality, nor in general the entire Old Testament teaching, which both in the Hebrew text and in the Greek translation remain alone and the same; b) that the majority of these differences, when prudently removed, are easily reconciled with each other, as many of the newest well-intentioned scientists testify, and as the blessed one noted even earlier. Augustine, saying: in qnibus ab hebraica veritate putantur septuaginta interpretes discrepare, et bene intellecti inveniuntur esse concordes (De civit. Dei lib. XVIII, p. 44); and c) that, therefore, it is unfair to present these differences as too important a matter and to be somehow tempted by them in the matter of faith. The debate about these differences between scientists, as is known, was quite lengthy and very heated, and therefore, perhaps, not alien to extremes and exaggerations. Some proved the integrity and integrity of the Hebrew text, such as Fabricius (Des titres primitifs de la révélation..., in 2 volumes), Martinay (Défense du texte hébreu et de la chronologie...), Le Quiep (Défense du texte bébreu et de la version Vulgate...), Karptsovius (Critica Sacra), Bellarmine (De Verbo Dei...), Walton (Prolegom. ad Bibl. polyglott.); others, on the contrary, suspected, or even directly asserted, that the current Hebrew text was damaged, and that it needed to be restored according to the translation of the Seventy: these are: Morin (Exercit. Biblicae...), Cappel (Critica Sacra...), Vossius (De septuaginta interpret...) and Pezron (Antiquité des temps, rétablie et défendue contre les Juifs...). Among the best works on this subject are the following: 1) I. B. Duvoisin – L’autorité des livres du Nouveau Testament, défendue contre les incrédules, Paris, 1775; 2) W. Paley – Tableau des preuves évidentes du Christianisme, trad, de l’anglais par D. Lewad Lausan, 1806; 3) I. L. Hug – Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Stuttg. und Tübing. 1821; 4) H. Olshausen – Die Echtheit der vier kanonischen Evangelien...; 5) Tholuck – Die Glaubwürdigkeit der Evangelischen Geschichte, zugleich eine Kritik des Lebens Jesu von Strauss, Hamburg, 1638. See the summary of these passages at the end of his works. For example: “and that this is true, this is clearly stated in the Gospel of Luke: in the fifth and tenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar... the word of God came to John Zacharias’ son” (Strom, lib. I, pag. 407, edit. Potter): or: “and in the Gospel of Matthew the genealogy begins from Mary, the Mother of the Lord” (ibid. p. 490). Origen. in Math. lib. 1, at Evsev. church history book VI, 25. Athenag. legat. pro Christ, n. 32 – Math. 5; n. 11–12 – Luke. 5 ; n. 33 – Matt. 19 and Luke. 16. Jerome. Catalog, virus. illustr., under the word: Theophilus; also Jerome. Commentar. in Math, in proem, oper. tom. IV, p. 1 et 3, edit. Martinay. Ad Autolic. lib. III, 11. 13 and 14- Matt. 5, 32. 44. 46; 6, 3. Ibid. lib. II, n. 13 – Luke. 18, 27. Ibid. lib. II, n. 22 – John. 1, 1–13. Constituimus inprimis, evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum, sic apostolicos viros, non tamen solos, sed cum Apostolis et post Apostolos. Quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, qui magistros apostolos fecit. Denique nobis fidem ex Apostolis Johannes et Matheus insinuant, ex Apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instavrant (Adversus Marcion. lib. IV, p. 2). In summa, si constat, id verius, quod prius, id prius, quod et ab initio, id ab initio, quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum... Dico itaque apud illas, nec solas jam apostolicas, sed apud universas, quae illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur, id evangelium Lucae ab inilio editionis suae stare, quod cum maxime tuemur... Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum caeteris quoque evnngeliis patrocinabitur, quae proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, Johannis dico et Mathaei; Licet et Marcus, quod edidit, Petri adfirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus: nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere solent (Ibid. p. 5). Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus, quam per eos. per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tunc pracconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nosirae futurum... Ita Mathaeus in Hebraeis ipsorum lingua scripturam edidit evangelii, cum Petrus et. Paulus evangelizarent et fundarent ecclesiam. Post vero horum excessum Marcus, discipulus et interpres Petri, et ipse, quae a Petro annunciata erant, per scripta nobis tradidit. Et Lucas autem, sectator Pauli, quod ab illo praedicabatur evangelium, in libro condidit. Postea et Johannes, discipulus Domini, qui et supra pectus Ejus recumbebat, et ipse edidit evangelium, Ephesi Asiae com·morans (Contr. haeres. lib. III, cap. 1). Nec autem plura numero, quam haec sunt, neque rursus pauciora capit esse evangeliä quoniam enim quatuor regiones mundi sunt, in quo sumus, et quatuor principales spiritus, et disseminata est ecclesia super omnem terram; columna autem et tirmamentum ecclesiae est evangelium et spiritus vitae. Consequens est, quatuor habere eam columnas, undique flantes incorruptibilitatem, et vivificantes homines (Ibid. cap. II, n. 8). Tanta est circa haec evangelia firmitas, ut et ipsi haeretici tectimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam... Cum ergo hi, qui contradicunt nobis, testimonium perhibeant, et utantur his, firma et vera est nostra de illis ostensio (Ibid. cap. IV, n. 7). See an excerpt from his letter to Florinus, preserved by Eusebius, in the church history of the book. V, ch. 20. A ssemani Bibliothec. Orient, vol. II, pag. 282. Muratorii Antiqu. italic, med. aevi, tom. III, pag. 851–854; Olshausen Die Echtheit der vier kanonischen Evangelien. s. 280–281. Origen. contr. Cels. lib. VI, no. 40, ed. d e la Rue. There's also lib. II, n. 74 et lib. II, n. 13. There's also lib. II, n. 27. This word is used in the same sense by Tertullian and Irenaeus in the above passages. Irenaeus expresses himself precisely: Ἐυαγγέλιον τετράμορφον. Origen. contr. Cels. lib. II, n. 28, 34, 59, 61, 66 and 74. There's also lib. VI, no. 16; VII, n. 18, 61; VIII, no. 7–8; 1, n. 65; 11, no. 9, 12, 18, 20, 24, 37, 18, 49, 53, 55 and 72. -lib. II, n. 31 and 36; lib. I, n. 67; n. John 1, 1; 19, 34; 2, 18; lib. 1, n. 50; lib. II, n. 13 and 49, n. John 3, 31; 8, 23. Irin, advers. haeres. lib. I, praef. With. 1, 3, 8; lib. III, c. 11. Klim. Alex. Strom, p. 9. Ex scriptis prophetarum Eclogae c. 25; Grabe – Spicileg. Patrum tom. II, p. 83–117; Neander – Entwicklung der vornehm. gnost. System., s. 156, Berlin, 1818. See other in Einleitung in die Schriften des n. T. von Hug. th. 1, s. 63. Aufl. 2. Irin, advers. haeres, lib. I, c. 18, Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομιένοις ὑπ ’ ἀυτῶν ἀπομνημονέυμασιν , ἃ καλεῖται ἐυαγγέλια , ὅ υτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι ἀυτοῖς τὸν 'I ησοῦν , λαβόντα ἄρτον , ἐυχαριστήσαντα ἐιπεῖν ’ τοῦτο ποιεῖτε ἐις τὴν ἀνάμνησίν μου. καὶ τὸ ποτήριον δμόιως λαβόντα καὶ ἐυχαριστήσαντα ἐιπεῖν ' τοῦτο εστι ἆ ιμά μου, καὶ μόνοις ἀυτοῖς μεταδοῦνα:. Justin. apolog. 1, n. 66. It is enough to indicate some places: for example, in his first apology, under n. 15, he points to the text from chapter 5. Evangelist Matthew about temptation, also from chapter 19. Evangelist Matthew, 10 ch. Ev. Mark and 16 ch. Ev. Luke about the adultery of a man who marries a prostitute; under n. 16 points to the text from chapter 9. Ev. Matthew that I. Christ came to call not the righteous, but sinners, and from chapter 5. Ev. Luke - about love for everyone, about acquiring treasures in heaven, etc.; under n. 17 – from 19 chapters. Ev. Matthew, from chapter 10. Ev. Mark and 18 ch. Ev. Luke - that no one is good except one God; under n. 18 – from 22 chapters. Ev. Matthew's words of the Savior: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto the Gods the things that are God's. And in a conversation with Tryphon, for example, on page 316, he quotes the words of John the Baptist: I am not Christ, but the voice of one crying, found only in Ev. John (1, 20). On page 342 he uses the expression: living water, found only in the same Evangelist in the conversation of Christ with the Samaritan woman (chap. 4, 10) and so on. One should not be tempted by the fact that St. The martyr cites texts from our four Gospels word for word, and sometimes he even cites the same saying of the Savior in his different writings not word for word. This is, of course, because St. father, composed his works in different places, during travels, and could not always have the Gospels with him, cited texts from his memory, and not directly from the sacred books, and at the same time paid attention only to maintaining the Gospel thought, without worrying about the exact words. This happens very often among us when composing sermons, etc., either from haste or for lack of a Bible at hand. And from here it does not at all follow that St. the father cited these passages not from the books of the Gospels, and as if they did not yet exist at that time: for in exactly the same way he cites many passages from the books of V. 3., which, Undoubtedly, existed then. Here are the words of the passage: Rationabiliter Evangelistae principiis diversis utuntur, quamvis una eademque evangelizandi eorum probetur intentio. Mathaeus, ut Hebraeis scribens, genealogiae Christi ordinem texuit, ut ostenderet, ab ea Christum deseendisse progenie, de qua eum nasciturum universi prophetae cecinerant. Johannes autem ad Ephesum constitutus, qui legem tanquam ex gentibus ignorabant, a causa nostrae redemptionis Evangelii sumpsit exordium: quae causa ex eo apparet, quod Filium suum Deus pro nostra salute voluit incarnari. Lucas vero a Zachariae sacerdotio incipit, ut ejus filii miraculo nativitatis, et tanti praedicatoris officio, divinitatem Christi gentibus declararet. Unde et Marcus antiqua prophetici mysterii eompetentia adventus Christi declarat: ut non nova, sed antiquius prolata ejus praedicatio probaretur. Aut per hoc Evangelistis curae fuit, eo uti prooemio quod unusquisque judicabat auditoribus expetere. Nihil ergo contrarium reperitur, ubi licet diversis scriptis, ad eandem tamen patriam pervenitur. Vid. Gott. Lumperi. Histor. Theologico-Critic. de vita, scriptis atque doctrina S. Patrum... trium primorum saeculorum, edit. Augustae Vindelicorum, 1783, p. 347–352; also S. Clementis Rom., S. Ignatii, S. Polycarpi... quae supersunt, ed. a Guielm. Jacobson. Oxonii 1838, vol. II, p. 492–495. Eusebius Church history book III, ch. 39. Precisely the following: 1) all that was, and without it there was nothing, the hedgehog was, and 2) the darkness of it (the light) is not embraced (Orat. ad Graecos n. 19 et n. 13). Evsev. church history book IV, g. 19; Chronic. Paschal. ad Olympiad. 238; Epifan. Haeres. XLVI; Theodorite. lib. 1, haeret. fabul. cap. 20. Biblioth. Orient. Assemani tom. 1, 1, pag. 568. Evsev. church history book IV, ch. 29. Et super haec id, quod est secundum Lucam, evangelium circumcidens, et omnia, quae sunt de generatione Domini conscripta auferens, et de doctrina sermonem Domini multa auferens..., semetipsum veraciorem, quam sunt hi, qui Evangelium tradiderunt, Apostoli, suasit discipulis suis, non Evangelium, sed particulam Evangelii tradens eis... Apostolos enim admiscuisse ea, quae sunt legalia, Salvatoris verbis... (Contra haeres. lib. I, cap. 27; lib. III, cap. 2). Qui (Christianus) cum fuisses, excidisti rescidendo quod retro credidisti, sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola, et tui non negant, et nostri probant (De carne Christi cap. 2). Si scripturas opinioni tuao resistentes, non de industria alias rejecisses, alias corrupisses, confudisset te in hac specie Johannis Evangelium (ibid. cap. 3). Ego meum dico verum, Marcion suum; ego Marcionis adfirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos determinabit, nisi temporis ratio, ei praescribens auctoritatem, quod antiquius reperietur, et ei praejudicans viliationem, quod posterius revincetur... and so on. (Adversus Marcion. lib. IV, cap. 4 et 5). Irin. Adver. haeres. lib. I, cap. 25; Tertullus. de praescr. haeret. cap. 38; Epifan. haeres. XXVII, cap. 5 Tertullian, for example, says: Si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur, non callidiore ingenio, quam Marcion, manus intulit veritati. Marcion exerte et palam machaera, non stylo usus est: quoniam ad materiam suam caedem scripturarum confecit. Valentinus autem pepercit: quoniam non ad materiam scripturas, sed materiam ad scripturas excogitavit; et tamen plus abstulit, et plus adjecit, auferens proprietates singulorum quoque verborum, et adjicens dispositiones non comparentium rerum. Irin. Adver. haeres. lib. I, cap. 25; Epifan. haeres. XXVII, cap. 5. At Evsev. church history book IV. Ch. 7. He says about himself, he says about himself, Ἀποστόλοις ὡ ς πρεσβυτερί ῳ ἐκκλησίας , and directly continues, addressing the believers: καὶ τούς προφήτας δὲ ἀγαπῶμεν διὰ τὸ καὶ αὐτὸυς ἐις τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον κατηγγελκέναι ... Epist. ad Philadelphia. cap. 5. ἀλλὰ κατὰ χριστομαθίἀν. ἐπεὶ ἥ κουσά τινων λεγόντων , ὅ τι ἔαν μὴ ἐν τοῖς αρχάιοις , ὅ τι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησαν μοι, ὅ τι πρόκειται. Right there, cap. 8. ’E ξάιρετον δέ τι ἔχει τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον , τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ Κυρίου ὑμῶν 'I ησδυ Χρίστοῦ, τὸ πάθος ἀυτδυ καὶ τὴν ἀνἀστασιν. Οἱ γὰρ ἀγαπητοὶ προφήται κατ ἤ γγειλαν ἐις ἀυτήν ’ τὸ δε ἐυαγγέλιον ἀπάρτισμά ἐστιν ἀφθαρσίας . Right there, cap. 9. For example, in one place he says that Christ was baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness (Epist. ad Smyrn. n. 14–Matthew 3); in another it recalls the words of the Savior that a tree is known by its fruit (Epist. ad Ephes. n. 13; Luke 6, 44; Matt. ch. 12); in the third he repeats the advice of the Savior: be wise like a serpent, and your goals like doves (Epist. ad Polyc. n. 3; Matt. 10. 16, etc.). Ότε δἐ τὀυς Ἀποστόλους , τὀυς μέλλοντας κηρύσσειν τὸ ἐυαγγέλλιον ἀυτοῦ ἐξελέξατο , ὅ ντας ὑπὲρ πάσαν ἀμαρτὶαν , ἀλλὰ ἀμαρτωλούς ἐις μετάνοιαν. Epist. With. 5. Παντὶ ἀιτδυντι σε δίδου. Ibid. With. 19. Attendamus ergo, ne forte, sicut scriptum est: multi vocati, parvi electi, inveniamur. Ibid. cap. 4. We quote the words according to the ancient translation, because the first 4 chapters of this message in the original have not reached us. It must be remembered that St. Barnabas was a descendant of Jews, and the Jews used the expression: as it is written - only in relation to some of the sacred books of Scripture. For example: διδάσκων ὲπιείκειαν καὶ μακροθυμίαν. ὅ υτως γὰρ ε ἷ πεν ' ἑλεεῖτε, ἵ να ελεηθῆτε, ἀφίετε, ΐνα ἀπεθῆ ὑμῖν ... ᾧ μέτρ ῳ μετρεῖτε, ἐν ἀυτῷ μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν. Epist. 1, cap. 13. – Luke. 6, 35–36. Or: μνήσθητε τῶν λόγων ’I ησδυ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν , ε ἷ πε γὰρ ’ οὐαὶ ?? ? μύλον, καὶ καταποντισθήναι ἐις την θάλασσαν, ἣ ἕ να τῶν μικρῶν μου σκανδαλίσαι. Ibid. cap. 46. ​​sn. Matt. 26, 24; 18, 6; Mark. 9, 42; Onion. 17, 2. Sn., e.g., Epist. II, cap. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 with Matt. 9, 21; 10, 32; 7, 21 and 23; Onion. 13, 37; Matt. 6, 24; 16, 26; Onion. 16, 12; Matt. 12, 50. Καὶ ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει ’ ὅ τι ὀυκ ἧ λθον καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁ μαρτολὸυς. Epist. II, cap. 2. Λέγει γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ἐν ἐυαγγελί ῳ’ ἐι τὸ μικρὸνὀυκ ἐτηρήσατε , τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσι ; λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν , ὅ τι ὁ πιστός ἐν ἐλαχίστω , καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστιν. cap. 8, – Luke 16, 10; Matt. 25, 21. Lumperi Hist. Theologico-Critic. de vita, scriptis et doctrina S. Patrum... trium primorum saeculorum. Aug. Vindelic. 1783, pag. 1–3. Jacobson. S. Clementis, S. Ignatii, S. Polycarpi, quae supersunt. Oxon. 1838, vol. I, p. 244–253 et vol. II, pag. 454–461. Exactly - up to 30 places. See the above-mentioned edition of Jacobson vol. II, pag. 597: Index S. Scripturarum, toto opere citatarum, and with this take away the passages we have counted from other Apostolic men, whose works are not in Jacobson’s edition. Up to eleven seats. See also there. Two places: one at St. Polycarp, another from St. Clement. At St. Clement and Barnabas. Papias speaks of Matthew and Mark; St. Polycarp - about all the Evangelists and Gospels. The main objections to the authenticity of the Gospels and the refutations of these objections can be read in a small book: Certitude des preuves du Christianisme ou réfutation de l'examen critique des Apologistes de la religion Chrétienne par Bergier, Paris, 1838, chap. 1 et 11. The Gospel of Matthew, although written in Hebrew, has survived to us only in the Greek translation. The best works in which this evidence is collected and reviewed are: 1) Pezron - Histoire Evangélique, confirmée par la Judaïque et la Romaine, placed in the 27th volume of the Cursus completi Sacrae Scripturae... Paris, 1843, and 2) William Paley - in a German translation under the title: Übersicht und Prüfung die Beweise und Zeugnisse für das Christentum, mit Caner Vorrede von Nässelt, Leipzig. 1792 th. II, cap. 6. Antiqu. lib. XVIII, cap. II, sect. 2, cap. V, sect. 3. Also De bello Judaico lib. II, cap. 20. Antiqu. lib. XVII, cap. 8, sect. I, et cap. 13, sect. I; lib. XVIII, cap. 5, sect. 6, et cap. 6, sect. 1 et 4. Heineccii Antiqu. jur. Rom. illustr. lib. IV, tit. 4, n. 1; compare tit. 6, 14 and 16. Productique onmes, virgisque caesi ac securi percussi... Tit. Liv. lib. XI, cap. 15; Joseph, de bello Jud. pag. 1247, edit. Huds. Plutarch, de iis, qui sero puniuntur, pag. 554, Paris, 1624. Svet. Domit. cap. 10; Cass. lib. IV; Joseph, de bello Jud. ibidem. Eo pius, ut etiam vetus veterrimumque supplicium patibulum, et cruribus suffringendis, primus removerit. Aur. Vict. Ces. cap. 42. De bell. Jud. lib. II, cap. 6 et 7, pag. 868–869. edit. Basil. Philo, de legat. ad Cajum. Justin, Epitome Trogi lib. XXXV, c. 3: Opes gentis ex lectigalibus opobalsami crevere... Strabo lib. XVI, pag. 519, Cassab. 1587. ’ Ἐθος ἠ ν τ o ῖς Γαλιλάιοις ἐν τ ᾶ ις ἐωρταῖς ἐις τ ἠ ν ἱερὰν ?? ὀδὸν ἀυτδις κώμης τῆς Ναιλεγομένης. Antiqu. lib. XX, cap. 6. Harduin. Numm. antique popul. et urb. illustr. pag. 340. Vita Josephi Flav. p. 630, edit. Basil; de bello Jud. lib. VII, cap. 2. Pellerin, Recueil des médailles tom. I-II. As is known, even Quintus Curtius and Titus Livy are reproached for this. Titus, for example, forgetting the difference of times and circumstances, confuses ancient geography with the new, and speaks of Sinuessa, Praeneste and Arpia, calling them new names used in his time, whereas they should have been called Sinope, Argos-Hippium and Stefania. In exactly the same way, the deception of Philostratus was discovered when he described the life of the notorious Apollonius of Tyana. This biography, Philostratus assures, was compiled from the memoirs of Damis, Apollonius’ constant companion during his travels, while at almost every step in his narrative he contradicts the then state of the places where Apollonius and Damis traveled. So, he brings his hero to Babylon, and describes this city as great and flourishing, while at that time Babylon was only a vast ruin and desert, he also depicts Sparta as a free city while it was under the yoke of the Romans (Vit. Apollon. Thyan. per Philostrat. Lemm. Sen. lib. I, c. 18 et lib. IV, c. 2). Dio Xiphil. in vita Hadrian, jag. 266; H. Steph., edit. Wechel. p. 974. See especially the above testimony of this St. Irenea – Contra haeres. lib. III, p. XI, no. 7. Quod poteris proferre scriptum, quod non ille, qui non vult credere, dicat esse confictum, si tanta Evangelii notitia venit in dubium? (Augustine. Contra Faustum. lib. XXII, cap. 79). Contra haeres. lib. III, cap. 13, no. 3; cap. 14, no. 1. Adversus Marcion. lib. V, cap. 2 and 3. Fragment. Adumbrat. in prior. Petri epist., pag. 1007, edit. Potter. For example, Origen (Epist. ad Africanum. n. 9), Eusebius (Histor. Eccles. lib. II, cap. 22), Jerome (Epist. 103 Paulin.), Chrysostom (Homil. in Acta). Epist. I, ad Corinth, cap. 38, 30, 10. “...credit Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est” (Adversus haeres. lib. IV, cap. 16). Opp. Graec. tom. III, pag. 51. Epist. II, 2; n. 1 Peter 1, 5. 7 . 1 Epist. II, 1; n. 1 Peter 5, 5; 1 Epist. XVI, 7; n. 1 Peter 2, 21. Ignat. ad Magnes. XIII, 2; n. 1 Peter 5, 5. At Evsev. church history book Ι II, ch. 39. Polycarp. Epist. I, 3: n. 1 Peter 1, 8; II, 1: n. 1 Peter 1, 21; Polycarp. V, 5: sn. 1 Peter 2, 11. Adversus haeres. lib. IV, cap. 9, no. 2 et cap. 16, no. 5; n. Evsev. church history book V, ch. 8. Clement of Alexandria quotes almost all of this epistle under the name Ap. Peter, in his various works, especially in the Stromata. Tertullus. Scorpiac. cap. XII. At Evsev. church history book VI, ch. 25. At Evsev. church history book III, ch. 3, 25. Justin. Conversation with Tryphon. Irin. Adversus haeres. lib. V, cap. 18 et 23. All this evidence can be seen in Calmet, De Vance and other interpreters of St. Scriptures. Evsev. church history book III, ch. 24. See Calmet or De-Vance. Klim. Alex. Strom, lib. III, cap. 2 et Paedag. lib. III, cap. 8; Origen. Commentar. in Math. ΧΙ II; Tertul. de cult. foem. cap. 4; Epiph. adversus haeres. lib. I, T. II, haer. 26 et caet. In due detail, see Hugues - Einleitung in die Scbriften des neuen Test. Theil II, seit. 201–450, Stuttg. 1821. Seit there. 521–568. in the same work, also by Kalmet. De Vance and others can find a satisfactory explanation for why some of the New Testament books, namely the epistle of James, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the epistle of Jude, the epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse were not accepted by some, or were recognized as doubtful until a certain time. Antiqu. lib. XXV, cap. 7, § 8. Antiqu. lib. XII, cap. 10, § 6 and 7. Antiqu. lib. XX, cap. 4, § 2. Diogen. Laert. in Epimedit. lib. I, § 110. Pausan. Attic, lib. I et V. Ph ilostr. vita Apollon. Thyan. lib. VI, cap. 3. Judaeos, impulsore Christo, assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit (Claudius). Sveton, in Claudio cap. 25. This is mainly Millius, who, after thirty years of work, published the Greek text of the New Testament with variants in Oxford in 1707, also Wetstein (1751, 1752), Küster and others. All these different readings, no matter how numerous they seem, according to the agreement of all critics, concern only spelling, the order and placement of words, their pronunciation, grammatical errors, etc., without changing the very meaning of Scripture. Autograph of St. Matthew existed even in the times of Origen and Jerome, according to their testimony, and the autograph of St. John was kept in the Church of Ephesus during the time of Peter of Alexandria (IV century). See Petra Alex. Tract, de Paschat. Age, says Tertullian, qui voles curiositatem exercere in negotio salutis tuae, percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quae ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident; apud quas ipsae authenticae litterae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque (De praecaript. cap. 36). The bishop who delivered the teaching was called Triphyllus; he changed the word of the Savior in the following text: take up your bed and go (Mark 2:11), using another synonymous word instead of bed, which seemed more elegant to him; and his accuser was St. Spyridon, Bishop of Tremifont (Sozom. church history book. 1, chapter 2). He even tells an incident similar to that reported by Sozomen, which happened in the African Church - how the people, having heard in Jerome’s translation a change in one word that was in the ancient Italian translation, were indignant and forced the bishop to stick to the previous translation. Epistol. 71 and 82. Jerome himself clearly foresaw this when he began his work, as can be seen from his letter to Pope Damaz. See St. Athanasius the Great 39 message on holidays and in space. Chr. Catechism, ed. St. Synod, article: about St. Scripture. ’ ?? φημὶ, γραφὰς κατοπτεύσωμεν. Epist. CXIV, lib. IV. See his 39th message on holidays, in the Book of Rules of St. Apostle, St. Ecumenical and local councils and St. Father ed. St. Synod. The Greek word καν ὼ ν means: a) register, catalog of persons or things (see Switzer καν ὼ ν, num. V, and κανονικὸς, num. Ш); b) a definition, a decree of the Church, which is why all the rules of the Councils were usually called canons (ibid. καν ὼ ν, num. III), and most often - c) a firm, unchangeable rule, allowing neither addition nor subtraction (ibid. num. I). The sacred books are called canonical in all these three senses, and not in just one: that is, they are called because, on the one hand, they are included in the register (καν ὼ ν) of inspired books and included in the rules (καν ὼ ν) of the Church; and because, on the other hand, they are accepted and offered by the Church to believers as a rule of truth. The first is evident from the very name of these books in Greek - κανονιζόμενα, κεκανονιασμένα, from κανονίζω - I add to the register, canonize..., and from the words about these books of Rufinus: haec sunt, quae patres intra canonem concluserunt et ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt (in exposit. Symboli); the last one is from the words of St. Isidore Pelusiot, who, speaking generally about Holy Scripture, calls it κανόνα τῆς αληθε ί ας (epist. CXIV, lib. IV), and partly St. Irenaeus, who also calls the Gospel (adv. haeres. lib. III, cap. II). But to reject the first meaning of this word and limit ourselves to the last one, as the Protestants want, i.e. to say that canonical books are called canonical only because they contain the rule of faith and activity for Christians, is completely unfair: besides the fact that this is contrary to the ancient church use of the word - canonical, the question arises: who will show us in this case these books, which we must recognize as the rule of our activity? See the same message 39 about the holidays. An accurate presentation of the Orthodox Church. faith, book IV, ch. 17, p. 272. Moscow, 1844. – Non-canonical books, or not included in the canon, as St. calls them. Athanasius, otherwise called church books in ancient times. Because they were read in churches for the edification of the catechumens and the faithful (Rufin. in exposit. Symboli pag. 555). Some of the Christian teachers in the West (Jerome. in prolog. Galeat.) even called them apocryphal (ἀπόκρυφος - hidden). But this name was not accepted in the Church, and under the name of apocryphal books, especially in the East, they actually meant only forged books, presented as sacred, or truly sacred, but damaged by heretics, such as: the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Hebrews and the like, also the Gospels of Basilides, Tatian, etc. This is how this word is used by Pope Gelasius (in Decreto apud Gratianum distinct. XV), in Rufinus (in exposit. Symboli), but, most importantly for us, in St. Athanasius in his message on holidays, accepted by the Orthodox Church as a canonical message. Here, having calculated in detail which books of St. Canonical and non-canonical scriptures, St. the father concludes: “however, beloved, in addition to these readable (i.e., non-canonical) and these canonical ones, there is no mention of apocryphal ones anywhere, but this is the intention of heretics who write them when they want, assign them and add time to them, so that, by presenting them as ancient akibs, they have ways to seduce the simple-minded with them (Book of Rules...). Consequently, there should be no mention of apocryphal books between the books included in the St. Scriptures. See the article in the first part: internal signs of the divinity of the Old Testament revelation (§§ 53–57). Lib. 1 contra Apion., cap. 8. De special. Iegibus tom. II, pag. 343; n. de praemiis et poenis tom. II, pag. 417, also de monarchia lib. I, vol. II, pag. 222, edit. Th. Mangey. D πνεύματος i.e. that Mark, at the request of the Romans, wrote the Gospel), ἠ σθῆναι τῆ τὸν ἀνδρῶν προθυμία, κυρῶσαι τε τὴν γραφὴν ἐις ἔντευξιν ταῖς κκλησίαις . › ? Παπιας. Evsev. Histor. Eccles. lib. II, cap. 15. ? μενον ἐυαγγέλιον, ἐν βιβλίφ κατέθετο. Evsev. Hist. Eccl. lib. V, cap. 8. ’Ή γη δἐ Μάσκου καὶ Λουκ ᾶ τῶν κατ ’ αὐτῶν ἐυαγγελίων τὴν ἔκδοσιν πεποιημμένων , ’I ωάννην φασι τὸν πάντα χρ ό νον ’ αγράφ ῳ κεχρημμένον κηρύγματι τέλος καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν γραφὴν ἐλθεῖν τοι ᾶ σδε χάριν ἀιτίας. τῶν προαναγραφέντων τριῶν ἐις πάντας ἤ δη καὶ ἐις αὐτὸν διαδεδομμένων, ἀποδέζασθαι μὲν φασὶν, ἀληθέιαν αὐτοῖς ἐπιμαρτυρήσαντα. Evsev. Histor. Eccl. lib. III, cap. 24. Clement. I ad Corinth, cap. 45; Ignat. ad Magnes.; Athenagoras. Legat. pro Christ., Justin. Conversation with Tryphon, chapter 29. 33. Theophilus. ad Autolic. lib. II, cap. 9; Irin, adver. haeres. lib. II, cap. 47; Origen. de principle. lib. IV, cap. 1; Grigor. Miracles. Serm. 2 de Annunt.; Tertullian, adv. Hermog. cap. 22; Cyprian. lib. de oper. et eleemosin.; Ilar. Psalm. 37. Evsev, Church. History book I, ch. 38; You. Vel. on Ps. 59, no. 2; Kir. Jeryc. Publicity Pouch. IV; Grieg. Nissk. against Eunom. book I, in Orr. t. II, p. 346, ed. Morel.; Chrysostom, on Genesis Discourses. 21. See the article in the first part: internal signs of the divinity of the New Testament revelation (§§ 91–94). See Space Chr. The Catechism is right, kathol. Eastern Church article: about St. Scripture in particular. Contra Apion. lib. I, § 8. We will see evidence of them later in this section. Mischna, edit, de Surenhusius, vol. IV, pag. 409. In a letter to Onesimus, where Melito lists these books, he preliminarily says the following: , ... , καὶ ἕ ως τοῦ τόπου γενόμενος ἔνθα ἐκηρύχθη , καὶ ἀκριβῶς μαθ ὼ ν τὰ τῆς παλαι ᾶ ς διαθήκης βιβλία, ὑποτάξας ἔπεμψά σοι. Evsev. Hist. Eccles. lib. IV, cap. 26. At Evsev. lib. IV, cap. 25. Church Histor. book IV, ch. 26. See in the book of rules - the message about the holidays and in Chr. Reading. 1841, IV, pp. 216–218. See the book of rules of St. Apostle, St. Ecumenical Councils and... Vid. De ponder. et mensuris cap. 4, cap. 23 et contra haeres. lib. I, cap. 8. Hic prologus, scripturarum quasi galeatum principium, omnibus libris, quos de Haebreo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest, ut scrire valeas, quidquid extra hos est, inter apocrypha esse ponendum. Sapientia, quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu Sirach liber et Judith, et Tobias... non sunt in canone. Vid. Prolog. Galeat. T. V. libri XXII... Quibusdam autem visum est, additis Tobia et Judith, XXIV libros, secundum numerum Graecarum litterarum, connumerare (Vid. Prolog, in librum Psalmorum pag. 241, in tom. IX. Patrolog. curs, complet. Paris, 1844). In Exposit. Symboli pag. 557. De sectis liber in X Actiones distributus, una cum aliis opusc. edit. Basil. 1578.Vid. Act. II, pag. 402. See his Theology chapter on Scripture. Chronologia tripartita, edit. ad calcem Chron. Evsebiani, Paris, 1652, pag. 312. Confess. Eecles. Orient, cap. VII de Ecclesia. See the book of rules of St. Apostles, St. Cathedrals and St. Father. Augustine, de doctrina Christ, lib·2, cap. 8; Innok. Epist. ad Exuperium, episcopum Toletanum; Gelas. in concil. Romano an. 494. See the book of rules of St. Apostle... Karf. Council rights. 33. De civit. Dei lib. XVIII, cap. 36: scripsit, etsi Maccabaeorum libri inter scripturas, quae canonicae appelantur, non sint, et Judaei eos pro canonicis non habeant, attamen Ecclesia eos pro canonicis habere... Lib. II contra Gaudentium, cap. 21 explain, scripturam, quae apellatur Maccabaeorum, non habere Judaeos, sicut legem et prophetas et psalmos..., sed receptam ab Ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur, vel audiatur. This remark must be remembered even if also in subsequent Orthodox writers, or even in entire local Councils, all the books of St. The Scriptures, both canonical and non-canonical, without distinction, will be called canonical. Thus, the teaching of private teachers and councils will be easily reconciled with the teaching of the entire Orthodox Church, which clearly distinguishes between those and other books. It should be noted, however, that the rule of the Council of Carthage does not mention all non-canonical books; there is no, for example, the Wisdom of Sirach and all the books of the Maccabees, at least according to the Greek lists of this council, although in the Latin lists it seems to be there (Thesaur. Sviceri - Μαχχαβ ᾶ ιος de lib. II Maccabaeorum). In canonicis scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurium auctoritatem sequatur Chrietianus. Tenebit itaque hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas, quae ab omnibus ecclesiis accipiantur, praeponat iis, quas quaedam non accipiunt; in iis vero, quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat cas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, iis, quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiae tenent (Lib. II, de doctrin. Christ., cap. 8). Praeparat. Evangel, lib. XII, cap. 22, pag. 597. Paris, 1628. See more about this above in the section on the authenticity of other (after the Pentateuch) books of the Old Testament. In the evidence we have calculated about the 22 books of the canonical Testament, there is a slight difference regarding - a) the book of Baruch, b) the epistle of Jeremiah and c) the book of Esther. The first two are considered canonical in the lists of Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius, Hilary, the council of Laodicea and Constantinople Patriarch Nicephorus, and not mentioned in others. But they were not mentioned, no doubt, because they were usually considered along with the book of prophecy of Jeremiah, with which they were united under one number, as shown by all the lists in which they are mentioned, and it is known that the teachers of the Church very often cited passages from the book of Baruch under the name of Jeremiah (for example, St. Chrysostom, Chron. Ch. 1832, XLVII - in reasoning that Jesus Christ is God, leads слова Варуха 3, 36–38, под именем Иеремии; также блаж. Августин – de civit. Dei lib. XVIII, cap. 33; св. Амвросий lib. I, de poenit. cap. 8; lib. III haexem., c. 14 et lib. 1 de fide, cap. 2; св. Василий Великий lib. IV contra Evnomium и др.). The book of Esther is in the list of St. Athanasius, set out in the message about the holidays, it is unknown why, classified as non-canonical books, and in the list of St. Gregory the Theologian is omitted, while in all other lists it is considered canonical: the voice of all, without a doubt, should decide the matter here. However, St. himself Athanasius, if he truly is the author of the synopsis attributed to him, notes here: “some of the ancients argued that the Jews also counted Esther among the canonical books and the book of Ruth, combining with the history of the Judges, considered it to be one book, and the book of Esther to be another - a special one; thus, in this case, the number of canonical books was limited to 22.” Brief overview of St. Scriptures, in Chr. Thurs. 1841, IV, pp. 218–219. See in Space. Chr. Catechism. article about St. Scripture in particular. Evsev. Church Histor. book VI. Ch. 25. See in Chron. Read 1841, IV, 219–220. Kiril. Jeryc. Ogl. instructive IV, 36; St. Amphilochia see in the book of rules...; Leontes. Byzantium. lib. de sectis, act. II; St. Joanna Damascus, book. IV Theology, ch. 17. See the Book of Rules of St. Apostle, St. Soborov... Rufinus, in exposit. Symboli; Augustine, de doctrina Christ, lib. II, cap. 8; Innocent. epist. ad Exuperium, episcopum Toletanum; Gelas. in concil. Rom. an. 464; Cassiodorus. de institution. Divin. Script, lib. II, cap. 13. Muratorii Antiquit. Ital. maedii aevi tom. III. For example, even at the end of the 4th century Blessed. Jerome wrote about the book of Hebrews: sed apud Romanos usque hodie Pauli non habetur (Vid. in Catal. scriptorum illustr. under the word: Cains). And precisely - many Gospels, for example, the Gospel of the Infancy of Christ, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Peter, etc.; many Acts of the Apostles, many Epistles and many Apocalypses. See Fabricii codex apocryphus Nov. Testam. These non-canonical books include some more places found in the canonical books, such as: 1) the prayer of Manasseh at the end of the 2nd book of Chronicles, 2) Places not indicated by the count of verses in the Greek codes and in the Slavic translation, in the book of Esther, 3) The Song of the Three Youths in the 3rd chapter of the book of the Prophet Daniel, the story of Susanna in the 13th, also about Vila and the serpent in the 14th chapter of the same book. Joseph de Voisin provides evidence for all this in his Observat. in prooemium Pugionis fidei – Raymundi Martini, edit. Lipsiae 1687, pag. 125–129. Hagiographs of the 2nd category were called by the Jews books that did not have the importance of hagiographs included in the canon and written under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, however, written, according to them, with the assistance of this Spirit, only to a lesser extent. Origen. Epist. ad Africanum n. 13, pag. 26, edit. Benedictine. Bertholdt, Einleitung in die Schrift..., I, § 33, s. 97, 98. Klim. Alex. Strom, lib. VI; Cyprian. de orat. Dominica. In cap. II ad Roman, et homil. 27 in Number. Lib. de Tobia et lib. VI in Hexaemer. Lib. II, de doctrine. Christ. Klymen. Rome. in Epist. I ad Corinth.; Tertullus. de monogam. cap. 17; Jerome. in praef. ad libr. Judith, where he remarks: “Synodus Nicaena in numero S. Scripturarum Judith legitur computasse”; Augustine, lib. II de doctrine. Christ., cap. 8. Irenaeus - in Evsev. Church Histor. book V, ch. 8; Klymen. Alex. Strom. IV. V.VI; Origen. in Levit. homil. V. XII; Cyprian. de exhort. Martyr. I; Epifan. haeres. 76; Ilar. Enarrat. in Psalm. 127. Just as the ancient heretics did, according to the testimony of the teachers of the Church: Tertullus. de praescript. haeret. cap. XVIII Irin, contra haeres. lib. I, cap. 20, no. 1; Basil the Great on Genesis conversation V, paragraph 5; Augustine, contra Adimant. cap. 13, no. 4. Symbolique par Moehler tom. II, chap. 5, § 41, pages 40–42. Bruxel. 1838. It is known that even the clearest passage of this kind (2 Tim. 3:16) is interpreted differently by the unjust. View Bosenmül. on 2 Tim. 3, 16. “And the superstition of heretics, as noted in the message of the Eastern Patriarchs about the Orthodox faith, accepts the Divine Scripture, only misinterprets it, using allegorical and figurative expressions and tricks of human wisdom, leaking what cannot be leaked, and childishly playing with such objects that are not subject to jokes. If everyone began to explain Scripture every day in his own way, then the Catholic Church would not, by the grace of Christ, remain such a Church to this day. Which, being of one mind in the faith, always believes equally and unshakably, but would be divided into countless parts, subject to heresies, and at the same time would cease to be the holy Church, the pillar and affirmation of the truth, but would become the church of the wicked, that is, the church of heretics” (See part 2). And, indeed, from this very beginning, mainly all ancient and modern heresies were born, each of which, as we know, certainly tries to base its errors on some texts of St. Scriptures, interpreting them in your own way. Omnes enim haeretici, noted even more anciently. Augustine, qui eas (scripturas) in auctoritate recipiunt, ipsas sibi videntur sectari, cum potius suos sectentur errores; ac per hoc, non quod eas contemnant, sed quod eas non intelligant, haeratici sunt (Epist. CXX ad Consentium, n. 13). And in another place: neque enim non omnes haeretici scripturas catholicas legunt, nec ob alind haeretici, nisi quod eas non recte intelligentes, suas falsas opiniones contra earum reritatem, pertinaciter asserunt (De Genee. ad litter, lib. VII, cap. 9, n. 13). That is why all heretics always usually turned to Scripture and said that their teaching was clearly set out in it. Memento, writes Hilary, neminem haereticorum esse, qui se nunc non secundum Scripturas praedicare ea, quae blasphemat, mentiatur (Ad Constant, lib. II, n. 9). The same thing was written in their time by St. Irenaeus (adversus haeres. lib. V, cap. 21, n. 2), Tertullian (De praescript. cap. 17 et 38), Origen (De principiis lib. IV, n. 8), blessed. Jerome (adversus Luciferianos), Vikenty Lirinsky (Commonit. n. 2), etc. Sn. approx. 563. In this case, it is enough to recall the teaching of the Lutherans, Calvinists and Anabaptists on baptism. See Moehler, Symbolique tom. II, §§ 59 and 84 Τοῖς ἐρευνῶσι τὰς χραφὰς, says St. Zlatoust καί φυλάξωσι τὸ θηρώμενον (In Psalm. 119). They say the same thing: St. Martyr Justin (Dialog, cum Tryphon. n. 29. 30), St. Irenaeus (adv. haer. 11, 28, n. 3), blessed. Theodorite on chapter 14. Hosea, blessed Augustine on Psalm. 126 and others. See in Space. Chr. Catechism Pr. Kafol. East Church article: about St. Scripture and St. Tradition, and precisely the answer to the question: why is tradition needed today? Many other, well-known, preliminary concepts about St. Traditions about the division of traditions into Apostolic, ecclesiastical and patristic, divisions into dogmatic, historical and ritual, etc., can be found: 1) in the Stone of Faith, in the article: about St. Tradition, also 2) in Chr. Thurs. 1829, XXXIV, 314, in the article: about traditions as a source of religion. A priest's conversation with milk about the worship of St. icons, in Chr. Thurs. 1841, part III, pp. 113–114. Adv. haer. III, 4, n. 1. 2, in Chr. Thurs. 1838, II 7–9. Conversation between a priest and milk, in Chr. Thurs. 1841, part III, pp. 114–115. ? ὑ ύπὲρ ’ ασφαλέίας καὶ ἐγγράφως ἤ δη μαρτυρόμενος διατυποῖσθαι ἀναγκ ᾶ ιον ἡγεῖτο. Evcev. Histor. Eccles. III, cap. 36, edit. Vales. Ταῦτα διδάξας ἀεἰ (Πολυκαρπος), says St. Irenaeus, ἃ καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἕ μαθεν, ἅ καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησία παραδίδωσιν, ἅ καὶ μόνα ἐντὶν ἀληθῆ. See Evsev. Η. Ε. lib. IV, p. 14, etc. Irin. contra haeres. lib. III, cap. 3. Evsev. Church East. book IV, ch. 22. Contra haeres. lib. II Ι, cap. 3. Ibid. cap. 2. “When we send them (heretics), he says, to the Apostolic tradition, which is preserved in the churches through the succession of elders, they resist the tradition”... and so on. De praescript. haereticorum. See especially cap. 19. 21. 27. De principles lib. I, n. 2. See in the newly published book of the Helmsman - St. Basil from chapter 27 of the book about St. Spirit to the blessed Amphilochia. Ἐυτεῦθεν (2 Sol. 3, 15) δῆλον, ὅ τι ὀυ πάντα δἰ ’ επιστολῆς ? ? αξιόπιστον ἡγ ώ μεθα. παράδοσις ’ εστι, μηδὲν πλέον ζητεῖ. In 2 Thess, homil. IV, no. 2. You can see them in large numbers in the Stone of Faith, part III, from page 19, ed. St. Petersburg 1840. Theodorite. Church East. book I, ch. 8; Athanas. Epist. de decret. Nicen. Synod, n. 27. Theodorite. Church East. book V, ch. 8. 9. Acta concilior. Harduini tom. II, col. 1354 et seqq. Ibid. tom. III, col. 450 et seqq.; Evagr. Hist. Eccl. lib. II, cop. 18. Chr. Thurs. 1838, II, pp. 4–5. Cfr. Irin. III, 3, n. 1–4; IV, 25, n. 2.6; Tertullus. de praescr. haeret. With. 23; Cyprian. Epist. XXVII. Augustine, adversus Julian, lib. II, p. 10. This is known about Papias (Evsev. ecclesiastical historical book III, ch. 39), Hegesippus (ibid. IV, 22), Panten (VI, 13). Clement of Alexandria (V, 11, fn. Clement. Alex, – Strom. 1, n. 1), Origen, Eusebius, etc. Many of these Symbols are collected from Bingham, Origin. Ecclesiastes. vol. IV, lib. X, cap. 4, also by Vetrinsky - in Memory. Christian antiquities, frequent. IV, book. 9, ch. 4. See article: about the rules of St. Apostle in Chr. Thurs. 1841, III, p. 456. You can find their collections: apud Asseman. Codex liturgicus Ecclesiae universae, Romae, 1749; Card. Bonat – De rebus liturgicis..., Renaudot .– Liturgiarum orientalium collectio, Paris, 1716, The latter numbers up to 50 Eastern liturgies alone. Zaccaria, Dissertatio de liturgiarum in rebus Theologicis usu..., also Muratorius, de rebus liturgicis and friend. Many of these acts are collected and transmitted under the title Acta martyrum sincera a Ruinartio. See apud Rumart.– in Praefat, generali in Acta martyrum sincera § 1. n. 3. 4, 5 More about St. The fathers and their authority will be said later (§ 141). Rightly, even the ancient heretics themselves are looked upon as incorruptible witnesses of the true Apostolic tradition that existed in the Church. All these heretics usually had two kinds of teaching: a) teaching condemned by the Church, for which it excommunicated them, and b) teaching not condemned by the Church, which they borrowed from it when they were still its members and took it with them. The first, obviously, points to the true teaching that was then in the Church, in contrast; the last one is straight forward. If, for example, the ancient Church condemned the Anti-Trinitarians who rejected the trinity of Persons in God: isn’t this a clear sign that she herself believed in this trinity? Long Catechism article: about St. Tradition and St. Scripture. Orthodox rite, sheet. 7 and 8 on the back, in Moscow 1820. Order of joining of Gentiles, sheet. 7 on the back, M. 1757. Message of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith. 2. Irin. adv. haer. III, 4, n. 1, in Chr. Thurs. 1838, II, p. 7; cfr. III, 3, n. 1. Non alia agnoscenda erit traditio Anostolorum, quam quae hodie apud ipsorum ecclesias editor (Contra Marcion. 1, cap. 12). And here are other similar words of Tertullian: constat, omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, vevitati deputandam, sine dubio tenentem, quod ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo accepit (De praescript. haer. cap. 21. Look, also Klim. Strom. lib., cap. Advers. Julian, lib. II, cap. 10. Quod apud multos, unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum (De praescript. cap. 82). Vid. Commonitor. circa finem. Chr. Thurs. 1838, II, p. 7. De Baptismo, Contra donatistas IV, cap. 24. See the remarkable words on this place by the Most Reverend Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, in the word on the consecration of the Church of the Life-Giving Trinity in the Moscow Danilov Monastery, delivered on September 13, 1838. This word sets forth the general doctrine of tradition. See in the Book of Rules... Basil the Great to Amphilochius about St. Spirit. At Evsev. church history book VI, ch. 26. These places are indicated above in the notes. 513 and 544. Kirill Jerusalem. ogl. instructive IV, 35; Evsev. church history book III, ch. 25. Vasil. Vel. Chapter 27 last about the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius. Let us remember the number of interpretations on the words of the Savior: this is my body... See in the Stone of Faith, part III, page 96, St. Petersburg. 1840. See Space. Christ. Catech. Orthodox Churches – article: about St. Tradition and St. Scripture. Contra haeres. III, p. 2; IV. With. 63. Hist.or. Eccles. lib. II, p. 9. What is sometimes called a church in St. In Scripture there is only one class of shepherds, this is clear from the speech of the Savior: if your brother sins against you, go and convict him between you and that one: if he listens to you, you have gained your brother - if he does not listen to you, take with you one or two more: so that with two or three witnesses you will become every word: if he does not listen to them, command the church: if the church will not listen, make you like a pagan and a tax collector. Amen, for I say to you: the tree that you bind on earth will be bound in heaven: and the tree that you loose on earth will be loose in heaven (Matthew 18:15-19). The last words: Amen, I say to you: if you bind anyone on earth, they will be bound in heaven, directly testify that the Lord by the church meant precisely the persons invested by Him with the power to bind and decide, just like among the Jews in a similar case, when it came to correcting or punishing someone, the church (Kahal ἐκκλησία) was the name of the supreme council itself or The Sanhedrin, consisting primarily of priests and Levites. That's why St. Chrysostom, in explanation of this place, after the words: command of the church, adds: i.e. to its primates, and then the words: elika even ... takes as a continuation of the same thought, and equally refers to the primates of the Church (Conversations, on Ev. Matt. in Russian translation, part III, p. 32). This place is also explained by St. Cyprian, Augustine, Theophylact and others. Klim. Rimsk. Epist. 1 ad Corinth. n. 1, 34, 47, 57; Ignat. epist. ad Smyrnens. n. 8; epist. ad Magnes, n. 3, 6, 7. Epist. 52 ad Antonianum et epist. Ad Tapsos. Words 32 in Creation St. Fathers, pp. 142–145. Tom XI. 75 et vol. X, 548, Venet 1741 Ambros. de officiis ministr, lib. II, cap" 24, n. 123; Jerome. dialog. contra Luciferianos cap 4; Augustine. Contra epist. Parmeniari lib. I, cap. 3, n. 5; Grieg. Vel. Epist. 62 adversus im, Antioch. Episc.; n. Epist. 63 ad ?hcodorei Valde enim et perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant (apostoli), suum ipsorum locum magisterii tenentes. Irin. adv. haer. III, 3, n. 1. For more details, see our Orthodox Dogma. Theologian Vol. II, § 172. “We must obey the shepherds who are in the church, who have their succession from the Apostles, and, by the good will of the Father, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the undoubted gift of truth (charisma veritatis certum)... Where the gifts of the Lord are contained, there we must learn the truth, that is, from those who have been placed over the Church by succession from the Apostles, and with whom remains sound, impeccable conversation and undistorted, undamaged speech (inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis). It is they who guard our faith in one God, who created everything, and increase our love for the Son, who has performed such good deeds for us, and correctly explain the scriptures to us (et scripturas sine periculo nobis exponunt)” (Irin. adv. haeres. IV, p. 26). And again: “the leaders of the Church, going around the entire universe, firmly observe the Apostolic tradition and show us that everyone has the same faith..., they are guided by the same rules and the same law in the administration and orders of the church... And thus the teaching of the Church is true and constant, because in it one path to salvation is shown for the whole world. For she has been entrusted with the light of God and God’s wisdom, through which she saves everyone” (Ibid. V, cap. 20, n. 1, in Chr. Thu. 1838, 1, 143). “Just as in the body some are in charge and, as it were, presiding, and others are under command and control: so in the churches God decreed that some for whom this is more useful, guided by word and deed to their duty, remain flocks and subordinates; and others, standing above others in virtue and closeness to God, were shepherds and teachers for the perfection of the Church, and had the same relationship to others as the soul to the body and the mind to the soul, so that both, insufficient and abundant, being, like bodily members, united and conjugated into one composition, combined and bound by the union of the Spirit, represented one body, perfect and truly worthy of Christ himself - our Head” (Gregory. Theologian. Words 3, Tv. Fathers 1, 17–18. Words 32, ibid., 142–145). Sent. Patriarchs of the Eastern Cafe. Churches about Orthodoxy faith member 12. Evsev. in Ps. LXIV, 5; Ambros. de Jacob, et vita beata II, 5, n. 20; 7, n. 34. For other testimonies of the said teachers, see their interpretations of the words of this text, and we will see some further in this paragraph. Epist. ad Ephes. cap. 17. Contra haeres. lib. III, cap. 4, n. 1. Ibid. V, 20, n. 1. Also worthy of note, due to their expressiveness, are the words of another writer of the second century, Tertullian: age nunc, he says, omnes ecclesiae erraverint; nullam respexerit Spiritus sanctus, uti eam in veritatem deduceret; ad hoc missus a Christo, ad hoc postulatus de Patre, ut esset doctor veritatis, neglexerit officium Dei villicus, Christi vicarius, sinens ecclesias aliter interim intelligere, aliter credere, quod ipse per Apostolos praedicabat. Et quid verisi mile est, ut tot et tantae in una fide erraverint? (De praescript, p. 28). In Math, comment, ser. n. 47. Cyprian Epist. LXXIII ad Jubajanum et Epist. LV. Epist. De Ariana haer. ad Alex. Constantinople. n. 12. Epistol. 77 al. 55, ad S. Epiphanium, in Biblioth. Patrum. tom. V, pag. 858. Ὅ ρος δὲ τὴν ’ εκκλησίαν καὶ τὸ τῶν δογμάτων ἀκαταγώνιστον καλεῖ. In Jes. homil. II, n. 2. Serm. de Pentec. cfr. homil. de captiv. Eutrop. 6. Lib. 1, Epist. 238, p. 67. Paris, 1638. In verba 1 ad Timoth. 3, 14. And in another place: Ipsa est ecclesia sancta, ecclesia una, ecclesia vera, ecclesia catholica, contra omnes haereses pugnans; pugnare potest, expugnari tamen non potest (Serm. 1 de symb. ad Cathec. p. VI, n. 15). In Jes. lib. IV, Or. 2. Conf. in Sophon. n. XX; contra Nestor. Ι II, 1. Klim. Alex. Strom, lib. VII, c. 17; Evsev. praepar. Evang. lib. 1, p. 3; Athanasius vs. Arian. IV, no. 35; You . on Ps. LIX, no. 4. Spectat (ecclesia) aliorum naufragia, ipsa immobilis et exors periculi. Lib. 11 de Abrahamo cap. 3. Epifan. haeres. LXXV, no. 141. Ex quo intelligimus, ecclesiam usque ad finem mundi concuti quidem persecutionibus, sed nequaquam posse subverti; tentari, non superari; et hoc fict, quia Dominus Deus omnipotens, sive Dominus Deus eius, id est, ecclesiae, se facturum esse pollicitus est, cuius promissio lex naturae est (Comment, in Amos. lib. II, p. 9; cfr. in Isai. lib. XVII, p. 60). Acts of Archaeographic Comm. vol. 1, pp. 131–132. Search, page 531 and Stone of Faith, part III, pages 32 and 88. St. Petersburg. 1840. Jerome. Epist. XXVII ad Marcellum. Adversus haeres. lib. IV, cap. 43. See note above. 637. Epist. 69, vol. 1, pag. 172. Aguntur praeterea per Graecias illa certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quae altiora quaeque in commune tractantur et ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur. Lib. de jejun. cap. 13. Illis temporibus, antequam plenarii concilii sententia, quid in hac re sequendum esset, totius ecclesiae consensu confirmasset, visum est ei (Cypriano) cum ferme octoginta cöepiscopis suis... et caet. De baptism. 1, p. 18, no. 28. See the Rule Book... on the first page. Spiritus sancti testatur praesentiam congregatio sacerdotum. Certum est enim, quod legimus, quia non potest veritas mentiri, cuius in Evangelio ista sententia est: ubi duo vel tres congregati... Quod cum ita sit, si nec huic tam brevi numero Spiritus sanctus deest, quanto magis Eum nunc interesse credimus, quando in unum convenit tanta turba sanctorum? (P. Coelestin. Epist. ad patres Concil. Ephes.). Necesse est, quotes in nomine Domini eius famuli ad tractanda, quae sunt Ipsi placita, colliguntur, Sancti Spiritus non deesse praesentiam; ita enim Christi Dei et Salvatoris nostri mandata nos instruunt, quibus ait: ubi fuerint... (P. Vigil. Epist. ad Episcopos Galliae). Epist. ad episcop. Afric., in Opp. t. 1, p. 891 et sq. ed. Maur. Letter 110 to Cyriaco, in TV. St. Father X, 257. Letter 221 to Nikopol. clergy, ibid. XI, 149. A word of praise from Athanasius the Great, ibid. 11, 187. Epist. ad Anast. Alex, et epist. ad monach. Aegipt. contr. Nestorium. And he continues: Nicaenum scilicet, Constantinopolitanum, Ephesinum, Chalcedonensë quia in his velut in quadrato lapide, sanctae fidei structura consurgit... quintum quoque concilium pariter veneror (Epist. 25, lib. 1, in Opp. T. II, p. 515, ed. Maur.). Alb. Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. XI, pag. 166. Concil. Chalcedon. Epist. ad papam Leonem. Vid. in Actis post finem III actionis; also Concil. II Constantinople. coll. octav., in tom. V concil., pag. 563. Theodorite. church history book V, ch. 3. The memory of the first Ecumenical Council is celebrated on the 7th week of Easter; commemoration of the first six ecumenical councils - July 16; Commemoration of the Seventh Ecumenical Council - October 11. Song 6 of the canon of St. Fathers. The rite of receiving Gentiles sheet. 73, ed. 1757. The rite of election and ordination of Bishops, l. 12, ed. 1825. The questions usually proposed regarding ecumenical councils are the following: 1) Who has the right to convene them? 2) Who has the determining authority and power over them? 3) What are the essential conditions for a correctly or legally constituted ecumenical council? 4) How many ecumenical councils should be recognized? 5) What exactly are they infallible about? And 6) What importance do their infallible definitions have, whether they are equal to St. Scripture or inferior? Some of these questions (and even all, more or less) can be resolved on the basis of what we have said; others belong to the science of canon law; To solve some, you can point to the detailed answers of Stefan Yavorsky in the Stone of Faith, part III, page 59. Orthodox Confession, part. 1, question 72. Contra haeres. lib. I, cap. 10; n. lib. III, cap. 2 et 4. Lib. de praescr. haeres. cap. 21; n. cap. 36. Lib. IV ad Bonifac. contra duas Epistol. Pelagian, cap. 12. Advers. haeres. lib. III, cap. 3. “Polycarp, let us cite the words of St. Irenaeus, was not only an Apostolic disciple and a man who treated many of those who saw our Lord, but was also appointed Bishop of the Church of Smyrna by the Apostles. And I knew him in my youth: for he lived a long time, and in extreme old age he ended his life with a glorious martyrdom. He taught what he himself learned from the Apostles, which he betrayed to the Church, and all that is true. All the Asian churches and all those who have succeeded Polycarp even to this day testify to this.” Contra haeres. lib. III, cap. 3. Theodorite. church history book V, ch. 9. See the service on St. Sunday. Father. Book of rules... St. Petersburg. 1838, p. 3. Collat. III, apud Gennad. pag. 317. Defens anathem. 8, vol. II concil. Binii, pag. 457. Commonit. cap. 1, § 2 et cap. 4. “Here we have shown,” he says, how this teaching was passed on from Fathers to Fathers, as if from hand to hand.” De Synod. Nicen. decret. n. 27. See chapter. 29, in the works of St. Fathers, VII, 341–350. “We wrote,” he says, a book against Nestorius, everywhere following the definitions of St. Fathers." Epist. ad successum. See, for example, his conversations between the Yeranist and the Orthodox, in Chr. Thurs. 1846, I. 62–75, 388–396. Epist. CXLII ad Fortanat., n. 15. He repeats the same thought in Epist. LXXX, ad Hyeronim, n. 3; in lib. XI, cap. 5 contra Ezustum; in lib. VII, cap. 20 contra Donatist. This is how St. argues. Ambrose in Epist. 47, vol. III, pag. 152. Basil. 1527. Vicent. Lerinens. Commonitoriam 1. In general, when it comes to the Fathers of the Church and the use of their testimonies, one cannot help but recommend the wonderful work of this ancient writer, entitled: Commonitoriam... It was last published in Theolog. Cursu completo, volume, 1, pag. 911–961. Paris, 1842. See Trullo Council rule 2. See the system of any of them: Feyer, Lieberman, Perrone, etc. See, for example, Dogma. Theology of Archpriest Ternovsky, between preliminary concepts about the properties of the true Church and the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Catholic Church. See also, whatever system you like, Protestant theologians. See systems of Orthodox Theology: Archimandrite Iakinthos of Karpinsky (pag. 168, Lipsiae, 1786), Eminence. Irenaeus of Falkovsky (vol. II, pag. 150–151, Mosquae, 1802), Hieromonk Juvenal (part 3, p. 47. Moscow, 1806), Eminence. Theophylact (par. I, pag. 333–334, Petrop. 1818), especially the Orthodox teaching or Christian Theology of His Eminence Plato (p. 54, St. Petersburg 1701), and Conversations between experienced. and confidence on the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church of His Grace Philaret (page 59 ff. Moscow 1833). For example, among Roman Catholics, when explaining the doctrine of the unity of the Church, the most necessary thing is the concept of the pope as the head of the Church, as well as when explaining other properties. And we completely exclude this concept. “The Holy Fathers, gathered in Constantinople, determined: let not the Creed of the three hundred and eighty Fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea, in Bithynia, be abrogated, but let it remain immutable.” of the Second Ecumenical Council, rule 1. “We determine by the grace of God: keep the faith, untouchable by innovations and changes, handed down to us from the self-seers and servants of the Word, God’s chosen Apostles: also from three hundred and eighty saints and blessed Fathers, under Constantine our king, against the wicked Arius... gathered in Nicaea... Likewise under the great Theodosius, king ours, one hundred and fifty holy Fathers, gathered in this reigning city, we hold the proclaimed confession of faith, the sayings of theology about the Holy Spirit are acceptable, and we reject the wicked Macedonius, together with the former enemies of the truth... Likewise, under Theodosius, the son of Arcadius, our king, who gathered for the first time in the city of Ephesus with two hundred God-bearing Fathers We seal the stated teaching, like an indestructible power of piety, with agreement... We Orthodoxy affirm in the same way in the regional city of Chalcedon, under Marcian, our king, the inscribed confession of religion by six hundred and thirty God-chosen Fathers. We also know one hundred and sixty-five God-bearing Fathers who gathered in this reigning city, under Justinian, our king of blessed memory, his pious words spoken from the Spirit, and we teach them to our descendants... And recently, under our king, Constantine of blessed memory, in this reigning city of the sixth Council that met, the confession of religion... we again undertake to preserve inviolable... Briefly speaking, we decree that the faith of all the famous men in the Church of God, who were luminaries in the world, containing the word of life, is kept firm, and remains unshakable until the end of time, together with their God-given scriptures and dogmas... If any of them does not contain and does not accept the above-mentioned dogmas of piety, and does not think like that and preaches, but attempts to go against them: let him be anathema.” V Ι Ecumenical Council rule 1. “After reading this (the Nicene Symbol), the Holy Council determined: let no one be allowed to pronounce, or write, or formulate a faith other than that determined by the holy Fathers, in the city of Nicaea, gathered with the Holy Spirit. And those who dare to form a different faith, or imagine, or propose to those who want to turn to the knowledge of the truth, either from paganism, or from Judaism, or from any heresy: such, if they are Bishops, or belong to the clergy, let them be alien, the Bishops of the episcopate, and the clergy of the clergy: if they are laymen, let them be anathema.” of the Third Ecumenical Council, rule 7. “Let no one be allowed to change or cancel the above-mentioned rules (of the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Father), or, in addition to the proposed rules, to accept others with false inscriptions drawn up by certain people who dared to tamper with the truth. If anyone is convicted because he attempted to change or transform one of the above-mentioned rules, he will be guilty of violating that rule by incurring penance, which it determines, and through this we will be healed of the thing in which he stumbled.” VI Ecumenical Council rule 2. See also VII Ecumenical Council rights. 1 and the Council of Carthage rule 2. See in the previous note the 1st rule of the VIth Ecumenical Council. See in the Chronicle of Lawrence pp. 77–81, Moscow, 1824, and in Sunday Readings year IV, p. 231. Sunday Readings, V, 17–21. Sunday Readings, V, pp. 414–415. See Collection of state charters - Rumyants. vol. III, p. 196. Other similar confessions can be seen in Act. Archaeographic Expedition, for example, vol. 1, p. 161, and in Act. Archaeographical Commission. Acta et scripta Theolog. Wirtemberg. et Patriarch. Jerem.. p. 57, Wirtemb, 1584, in Chr. Thurs. 1844, IV. Tsarsk and Patriar. certificates of establishment St. Synod, with exposition. Orthodox Confession, pp. 18–19. St. Petersburg 1838. Chin join. Gentile, leaf. 78, Moscow, 1757. Frequently 1, answer to question. 5. There is also an answer to the question. 72. For example, Walters – Kirchenrecht... seit,. 332, Auslag. 7. Our Church adopts the name catholic and apostolic for itself, for example, in the very table of contents of its Orthodox Confession..., and calls itself one, holy, catholic and apostolic in the table of contents of the Orders, how to take the age of those who have from the Jews and from the Saracens and so on. Faith, both in teaching and in confession, try to have and maintain only that which is now taught to you by the Church, commanded by St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Public lecture V, paragraph 12, p. 94, according to the Russian translation). Sn. note 642. 645, etc. See Orthodox Confession, Part 1, rep. to question 96. Contra Epist. Manichae s. V; cfr. Contra Faust. X, 5. Or here are the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Truly test from the Church which books are of the Old Testament and which of the New... Engage in those alone, which we safely read in the Church. The Apostles and ancient bishops, the primates of the Church, were much more intelligent than you; they betrayed these books. And you, being a son of the Church, do not change its laws” (Catechetical Teaching IV, paragraph 53. 35, pp. 80–81). The rite of joining the Gentiles l. 14 on the back and 46, ed. 1757. Message on the Orthodox Faith 2. The rite of joining the Gentiles l. 71 overleaf, ed. 1757. The words of Vikenty Lirinsky are worthy of note: Multum necesse est propter tantos tam varii erroris antractus, ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici sensus normam dirigatur. In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc enim vere proprieque catholicum (Commonitor. cap. 2). The same idea is expressed by: Tertullian de praescr. haeret. With. 19); Augustine. de utilit. cred. With. 18, no. 36. Menaion for July l. 140 on the back, ed. 1837. He talks very well about this subject, that is, about the interpretation by the Church and St. Scriptures and St. Traditions of Mitrofan Critopoulos, former Patriarch of Alexandria in the 17th century, in his book: Confessio Catholicae et Apostolicae in Oriente Ecclesiae, cap. VII et XIV, pag. 82, 84 et 122, edit. Helmstadii. Discourse on Lazarus III, n. 2. 3, in Works of St. Chrysostom, vol. I, pp. 78–84, St. Petersburg. 1848; Cfr. in Colossus, homil. IX, n. 1; on Ev. Matt. Conversation II, n. 5. 6. St. John of Damascus An exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith, page 270. Moscow. 1844. In general, this idea is repeated by many of the ancient teachers of the Church. See, for example, Basil the Great's conversation on Ps. 1, in the Works of St. Father V, 171; letter 2 to Gregory the Theologian, ibid. X, 9–10; Kiril. Jeryc. public instructive IV, paragraph 33, 35–36; Theodorite Serm. V in tom. IV, p. 555–556 et serm. VIII, pag. 591; Evcev. praepar. Evang. lib. XII, p. 337; Isidore Pelus. Epist. XIV, in lib. I, p. 8. Omnis sermo ei constabit, si et scripturas diligenter legerit apud eos, qui in ecclesia sunt presbyteri, apud quos est apostolica doctrina, quemadmodum demonstravimus (Iren. adv. haeres. IV, 32, n. 1; cfr. IV, 26, n. 2. 5). “Do you not understand what is there (in Scripture)? ... Read anything unclear or incomprehensible several times. If, even with constant reading, you cannot comprehend what is being said, go to the wisest, go to the teacher. Communicate with him about what was said, show great zeal, and God, seeing that you have made such efforts, will not despise your vigilant care” (Conversation on Lazarus III, paragraph 3, p. 85, in Russian translation). Origen. adv. Cels. 1, 48; in Lev. homil. IV; Grieg. Bogosl. words III, in the Works of St. Father 1, 45–46 (word 32, ibid. Ι II, 162; Basil the Great, rules summarized in response to questions 235, ibid. IX, 327; Tertullus. de praescr.haeret. cap. 14; Augustine, de doctrina christ. 1, 39, n. 45. All these definitions of faith are usually published in the Helmsman’s Book, recently published by St. Synod entitled: Book of Rules of St. Apostle, St. Ecumenical and local councils and St. Father. The first is usually published under the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East; the last one is at the Followed Psalter. A fairly thorough study of this book was published in Chr. Thurs. 1844, II, pp. 223–267. “We have found, they say, that this book is in everything consistent with the dogmas of the Church of Christ and the sacred canons, and there is nothing in it that is contrary to the Church, and by the general opinion of the Synod we determine: every pious and Orthodox Christian, a member of the Eastern Apostolic Church, should read this book and not reject it” (See gram. Parthenia, printed under the Orthodox Confession). A similar review was subsequently made by Nektarios, Patriarch of Jerusalem: “This book contains, although briefly, but no less clearly, the true teaching, as its very name shows you; since it is called the Orthodox Confession, that is, the Greeks, a right and pure confession, not having in itself the slightest admixture from the novelties of any other confessions” (See Nektarios’ Grammar there). “He was accepted and accepted by the entire Eastern Church,” testified the Jerusalem Council of Shepherds, which took place in 1672 under the chairmanship of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem. The same was testified by the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius, contemporary to Dositheus (See Johan. Aimont. – Monuments authentiques de la religion des Grecs, ed. 1708, pag. 483), and the new Council of Eastern Shepherds, which took place in 1691 (Heineccii – Abbildung der alten und neuen Grieche Kirchen, 1771, see appendix). in 1837 this book was published, according to the definition of St. Synod, up to 30 thousand at a time to supply all the churches of the Empire. In 1841, the twelfth edition of this book followed. The Commission introduced the teaching of the Orthodox Confession in the lower department of the Seminary in 1838 for the purpose, as stated in the rules for Seminaries it published at the same time, so that this book could verify the details of the Theological teaching in the higher department. In 1840 St. The Synod confirmed the teaching of the Orthodox Confession in Seminaries, in the general schedule of academic subjects for Seminaries. In 1845, March 28-31, he decided: “For the teaching of Catechetical teaching, according to the book of the Orthodox Confession..., in the lower department of the Seminary, add one more class per week..., imposing on the mentors an indispensable duty: firstly, with satisfactory detail and accuracy, explain and instill in the pupils all the truths contained in the Orthodox Confession, considering their explanations, in addition the Synodal Catechism, with the Message of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith and, as far as possible, with the liturgical books of the Orthodox Church. And secondly, in each class, be sure to demand from students a strict account of what was taught to them in the previous class.” In the same 1845, as stated in a paper from the Spiritual Educational Administration to all Academic and Seminary Boards, “St. The Synod, bearing in mind that the book: Orthodox Confession... placed among the educational subjects in Seminaries for the very purpose that all the details of the Theological teaching could be verified with it, by the definition of August 8th it was laid down: to make it a duty for all Seminary Boards so that they ... make it a rule, after students move to the higher department, before the very beginning of the Theological courses, to repeat the newly designated book.” See Royal and Patriarchal charters on the establishment of St. Synod outlining the Orthodox confession of the Eastern Catholic Church. St. Petersburg 1838. Here are the words of the paper from the Spiritual Educational Administration at St. Synod of the Academic and Seminary Boards on this occasion dated August 28, 1845: “St. The Synod, taking into account that the Royal Charter and Patriarchal charters on the establishment of St. All-Russian Synod, outlining the Orthodox confession of the Eastern Cafes. Church, in terms of its importance in relation to the dogmas of the Orthodox faith and the Church, especially to the Russian hierarchy, is very useful and even necessary for Spiritual students, both when listening to the Theological Sciences, and then upon entering priestly places, by decree of July 25-31, he decided to supply this book free of charge to all students of the Seminary when transferring them from the middle department to the higher one, so that, at the end of the course and upon leaving the Seminary, they kept this book with them for constant use...” In general, it must be remembered that the symbolic book of any Church can only be called a Statement of Faith, published on behalf of all the hierarchs ruling in it, and, therefore, on behalf of the entire Church, and not at all the confession of any particular Believer or even Hierarch, no matter how famous he may be. Therefore, foreign theologians are mistaken when they include, for example, the Confession of the Orthodox Faith - Gennady, Patriarch Constantine, among the symbolic books of the Eastern Church, although it is certainly Orthodox and has its own relative importance. Confession of the Orthodox faith (more detailed, but not devoid of some errors in the teaching of the sacraments) - Mitrofan Kritopoulos, who was later Patriarch of Alexandria. And the Confession of Faith (completely Calvinist), known under the name of Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, but not belonging to him at all (as Kimmel recently did, publishing a book entitled: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Orientalis, Jenae, 1843) You might be interested in: