VII. Russian theologians on the same

A certain vagueness that distinguishes the patristic explanations of man's liberation from sin naturally passed into Russian theology of the sixteenth century. All the comparisons made in the interpretation of this dogma are repeated by the Russian Fathers: Christ, as the liberator of men, is called both a sacrifice to God the Father (Zinovy of Otens, v. 353) and a deception of the devil. Such uncertainty, more than understandable in the works of the Fathers of the Universal Church, is inevitable in the Russian theologies of the sixteenth century. In addition to difficulties of thought, the Russian Fathers reasoned within certain limits and used ready-made images of comparisons.

The most detailed theory of the salvation of the human race through the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ to the human race is found in the fourth word "The Enlightener", which could be an adornment of any patristic work of the East, but in Russian theological literature it represents a pearl both in the depth and clarity of the contemplative mind, and in the strength and brightness of feeling: it is a stone that withstands the strongest pressure of enemies, and at the same time, fire that unstoppably burns opponents. The inscription of the word testifies to its polemical purpose: "Homily 4 on the heresy of the Novgorod heretics, saying, "When God could not save Adam and those who are with him, and when he did not have heavenly powers, and the prophets and the righteous, he sent to fulfill his will, but he himself, as not a coveter and a beggar, and became man and suffered, and thereby outwitted the devil. For it is not fitting for God to do this. Here we have a testimony from the Divine Scriptures, that all things are possible to God, but no one can resist His Divine authority; but in the depths of His wisdom and love for mankind, for our salvation, so did He Himself deign to become man, and to suffer, and to descend into hell and rise from the dead, and to deliver Adam from hell and those who are with him, and thus by Divine wisdom to outwit the devil and save the whole world, and to this day He saves." As can be seen from the inscription of the sermon, the Russian heretics, by the images with which the Holy Fathers and hymn-writers most willingly expounded the truth of our salvation, had in mind the very description of salvation and, representing the imperfection of the images, mocked salvation itself. Prep. Joseph defends these images, defends them fervently, with the zeal of a true champion of universal piety; he understands perfectly well that the difficult circumstances of the epoch are least conducive to disputes about dogmatic subtleties. As an ascetic inclined to contemplative insight, he boldly affirms his favorite beginning of theological reflection: "Let the superfluous in the Church of God be silent, let the faithful be glorified." He condemns the sophistic subterfuge and curiosity of the heretics as a lack of reverence: "We do not believe in the benefactor of the forbidden gifts, for the great mercy of the Lord we flee from work - oh, this placeless and evil disposition! Wolves worship, heretics torment as God is in the flesh and in what flesh, whether man is perfect or imperfect to receive." Affirming the incarnation of the Word on the basis of patristic testimony, the Holy Father proceeds to resolve the question of the cause of incarnation, so beloved by heretics.

Why did God Himself appear, and not send any of the angels and saints? The absurdity of such a question is felt by itself. That is why the answer to it is given by St. Josephus is short and clear: "For this reason God was incarnate, since man cannot be saved. And the angel cannot redeem him, for there is no such redemption. Our God cannot suffer, for this reason God Himself was man." Having proved on the basis of the Word of God that nothing is impossible for God, St. The father asserts that many of the works of God, which are narrated in the Bible, have the appearance of a kind of cunning, so that the greatest of Divine works is distinguished by such a character: "Much is the essence in the Divine Scriptures of deception and deceit, which the Lord Himself created. In the same way, according to the Divine command of the holiness of God, men do not think that they are good, but that God is good and pleasing in essence." The last words clearly show the unsuitability of the human point of view for the consideration of divine works and human concepts for their expression. The liberation of man appears to man as a rapprochement, but in reality it is not a rapture, but something else, the like of which man does not know, and therefore cannot name. After all, objects and phenomena unknown to any people are completely incomprehensible to them and do not have corresponding names in their language. How, then, can we define in the language of human conventional concepts the relationship between two beings, one of whom is the self-existent God of the whole world, and the other is the evil principle of life, the fallen but powerful spirit, the demon of evil? Of course, in this case one can speak of cunning and deception only relatively, since it is completely impossible to say more precisely and definitely. St. St. Maximus the Confessor says that the devil is both an enemy of God and an avenger. In general, the works of God should not be an object of idle curiosity. "When God does anything, or commands what you do, receive it rightly, and do not test it boldly; for they have experienced guilt, and tortured them, and sought the image, souls are corrupted and amazed, and there is a work that is sick through unbelief." Having further shown to what sad consequences covetousness leads, St. Joseph in powerful words filled with fervent faith confesses the mystery of salvation through the coming of the Lord Jesus to earth. Then there is a brief discussion of the fall of the law, the creation of man, and his fall. After being expelled from paradise, "the devil took strength upon man. Teach them the devil who has multiplied every way of evil, and forgetting the people of God, enslaved to lust, murder and fornication, sorcery and sorcery." After the Flood, iniquities did not cease, but rather found a new support in the impious cults of idolaters: "Men accept the guilt of their gods, shamelessly defile themselves with all kinds of defilements." The heinous human sacrifices added to the sad picture. The prophets sent by God did not have the power to significantly change the conditions of human life: "For men are all subject to sin and sin for the sake of death." Only a sinless person could be a deliverer. Then follows the arguments that we have already encountered in the "Great Catechetical Discourse" of St. Gregory of Nyssa, namely, that to free a person from the bonds of the devil by force is not in accordance with the Higher Truth of the Godhead. The incarnation of God was accomplished. Having set forth in brief words the Gospel story about the first thirty years of Christ's earthly life, St. Joseph remarks about the arrangement of a new life on earth: "And the disciples chose twenty, commanding man to preach the heavenly dwelling." The devil wanted to destroy Him, as he destroyed the prophets, raised up the malice of the Jewish elders against Christ and through them put Jesus Christ to death, thinking that His soul would be a prisoner of hell. But the descent of God into hell was fatal for hell, and the shameful execution was followed by the glorious resurrection and liberation of the prisoners languishing in hell. Further, the doctrine of man's salvation by faith in Jesus Christ develops. It would be the greatest ignorance to try to find in this teaching any resemblance to the well-known doctrine of the Western reformers of scholasticism, let us once again recall that the thinking of St. Joseph was filled with ascetic ideas and a higher spiritual understanding of questions of faith. He looked upon pious exercises not as an independent way of pleasing God through "merit," but as a means of developing in oneself the spiritual powers that detach man from the earth and elevate him to heaven. The Lord showed the true path of life and gave repentance to sinners, gave spiritual healings that deliver from the very passions. Only those who zealously strive are completely delivered from the passions, but also those who hate the passions and humble themselves and endure from the pangs of conscience will be delivered from eternal torment. "Says the Theologian Gregory: "For this is not torment, this is the kingdom, nor is this kingdom and torment, but it is enough for the lazy to eat and escape torment." The compassionate love of Christ has the power to save obvious sinners, who with humility and tenderness of soul run to Him, "Who died for human sins, Jesus the Lord accepts even the words of repentance, He will not reject the oral confession; For to those who sin against us and to those who repent He pours out the sea of His mercy, increasing the fire of our evils." And then he continues: "For God, Who created us, accepts from those who wish to be saved not only martyrdom and fasting life, but also sorrow over sins, and the pounding of the forehead, and the beating of the forehead, and the bowing of the knee, and the lifting of the hand with sickness of the heart, and the words lamenting for sins, sighing from the depths of the heart, the lamentable weeping of tears, the conscience crying out with sickness, and the fruit of the walls of those who confess the name of the Lord Jesus." Further, St. The father cites an excerpt from an ancient collection in which the devil expresses bewilderment at the salvific path established by Christ: "And the Holy Spirit saith.

And if He came naked by the Divinity, and frightened with terrible miracles and signs, and if they believed, it would be no wonder. But now they have seen nothing of this kind, and have feared and wept, and have been offended by their sins. Truly great is their faith. For this reason I will receive and have mercy on them, and I will vouchsafe them my heavenly kingdom." These touching words show both the salvific nature for man of the deification of Christ's sufferings, and the infinite love of Christ, which, as St. John further argues. Joseph extends beyond the grave as a force unrestrained by the external conditions of law and form. Confessing the salvific nature of Christ's coming for all and noting the success of the spread of the Gospel, St. The father gives a remarkable description of Christian salvation: "Truth and Love Itself is called and leads everyone from impiety to piety, not by arms, not by weapons, not by drowning with water, not by burning with fire, but by meekness, and patience, and humility, and mercy, and love." A clear sign of those who are being saved is humility and simplicity of heart: "What shall we repay against this? Thanksgiving and faith in these deeds with simplicity and humility: for God appears not by labor, but by simplicity and humility." This remarkable exposition of patristic ideas on the question of the salvific action of Christ's coming, a profoundly penetrating and extraordinarily powerful exposition, is the best that we have been able to read on this subject. The images of comparisons are ancient, patristic, but St. Joseph is somehow not limited to them and, in addition to the external theory of redemption, expounds the internal, psychological teaching about salvation through the love of Christ, through the worship of His sufferings, through assimilation to His humility. We boldly venture to say that the Russian Church has not had a better, more exalted, stronger and deeper understanding and exposition of this dogma until now, and the 4th word of the "Enlightener" Joseph of Volotsk could be adorned even by the "Great Catechetical Discourse" of the wisest of the thinkers of the fourth century or the famous work of John of Damascus. Everything that has been written on questions of salvation or redemption since "The Enlightener" is striking in comparison with the 4th word and the pallor of feeling and the conventionality of the description. In addition, the brilliant literary talent of the great Joseph expressed itself in this word with some exceptional force.

In various works of St. Maximus the Greek expounds the same teaching about the salvific life and sufferings of the Lord Jesus, but since Bl. By the way, if St. Maximus had to touch upon this question, we would have searched in vain for such a profound and comprehensive solution to it as St. Joseph gave to the Church. The murderer of Christ, like most of the Fathers, is Bl. Maximus considers the devil (2:391). In the prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos and in the hymn to the Life-Giving Trinity, Bl. Maximus strenuously confesses the salvific nature of Christ's passions, without resorting to any comparisons; these words of his, according to the feeling they express, can serve as a brilliant illustration for the teaching about the saving power of Christ's compassionate love, which naturally evokes tenderness. In the legend on the 18th Psalm, Bl. St. Maximus notes the destruction by the Lord's sufferings of the manifold idolatrous charm and the unity of humanity in Christ. In this legend, special attention should be paid to the fact that the author further speaks about the salvific nature of the Savior's baptism and repeats the thoughts expressed in the prayer at the great blessing of the waters: "Thou hast erased the head of the serpent, Thou hast given it to the people of Ethiopia; The heads of the serpent have spoken in different ways, the deeds of God-hating demons are evil... for this destructive head he broke, and was baptized in the streams of the Jordan" (3:29). Thus, baptism is recognized as a saving act, of course, as a feat of humility. This thought makes it quite impossible to recognize the exclusive salvific nature of Christ's death, which is salvific in the same sense. An even stronger confirmation of the view of Christ's sufferings as an exemplary example is found in the homily on Christmas (3:46). "For it is not righteous to be at all wise about Him, to His all-powerful command they obey in every way, for for they have no other form of healing for Him, but His evil and weak things are manifested wiser than all wisdom and all mighty powers. But although the humble wisdom exhorts us by deed, and the love of God itself is convenient for us to think higher and better, He deigned to eat and suffer on the cross and be buried to all who desire to be good in the future, offering to Himself the image and decree of a perfect life." In the same word, Bl. St. Maximus speaks of the salvific effect of deified suffering and humiliation: "How is it that the formerly abhorred, accursed, and hated, like a mortal instrument, the cross-shaped tree, is now much desired and universally honorable to be worshiped and venerated? For the gift of life and innumerable blessings." In the sermon against "Samuel the Jew" Bl. Maximus briefly remarks about the liberation of righteous souls by Christ who descended into hell; The image is borrowed from the comparative teaching about the ransom and bait of the devil. In the legend of the Sibyls, Bl. St. Maximus speaks of the salvific nature of the feat of the cross. As can be seen from the above brief remarks, Bl. He confessed the teaching characteristic of all the Holy Fathers about deliverance from sin through the love of Christ by participating in His life as much as possible. As far as can be judged, he fully accepts the patristic comparisons of "ransom," but does not seem to introduce anything into this comparative theory that in any way modifies its character.

In the theological system, Bl. Zinovy we do not find such a definite teaching on salvation as in the "Enlightener" of St. Joseph, because the "Testimony of the Truth" pursued narrower, purely polemical aims. Bl. Zinovy very willingly and in detail solves the perplexities of the questioners and rarely goes beyond the limits set by his opponents. He does not have a complete theory of salvation. Christ is called a sacrifice to the Father, "as the Apostle Paul writes in the Hebrew epistole," but without any definite tendency. However, certain thoughts of Bl. Zinovia are completely identical with the ideas of the "Enlightener" and establish the salvation of mankind in the same way as the work of Divine love and the veneration of suffering caused by it. We will not cite his lengthy arguments about the fact that God, without incarnation, could not suffer, etc., since they are completely identical with the corresponding points of the 4th of the word "Enlightener", we will note only those points of his system where the salvation of mankind is spoken of not in a comparative, but in a psychological sense: "By the grace of God the Father, the Son of God came down to seek His image and likeness, and Christ suffered not against His will, passion and the cross, but fulfilling obedience to the Father, he willingly stretched out all things, as a man, for man's sake" (307). From these words it is evident that the need for the podvig of the Lord's sufferings appeared in man; suffering as a man, Christ showed obedience to God, Who established the laws of life, in which suffering exists not only as an inevitable element, but, it seems, as the main content, and gave an image to man seeking salvation from sin. In the consideration of the "cross of Christ," Bl. Zenobius says: "And Christ poured forth His blood on the Cross, by Whom deliver us from the power of darkness, the wrath and torment of the devil, and the terrible and hellish kingdom, and depart us into the Kingdom of the Son of Thy love, which by the Cross is both resurrection and eternal life, the delight of the heavenly kingdom" (547). Here, undoubtedly, the true Christian religion is meant, suffering as opposed to false pagan beliefs of beauty and power.

Concluding the analysis of the Old Russian theological teachings on the salvation of the human race, i.e. on liberation from sin, we will note its two aspects: a) complete fidelity to the patristic universal understanding of the feat of Jesus Christ, reaching the identity of comparative images; b) the psychological and vitality of this teaching in the transmission of ancient Russian theologians; The universal doctrines are not clothed in dry and lifeless formulas, but are expressed with all the fire of faith and contemplation.

VIII. Redemption among Latin and Southern Russian Theologians

In discussing the introduction of the doctrine of the three ministries of the Lord Jesus Christ into the Kievan theological systems, we were forced to clarify the view of patristic theology, both universal and Russian, on blood sacrifices. This view is almost negative: according to the consciousness of the Holy Fathers, sacrifices were allowed in the Old Testament period only as a condescension to the human weakness of the Jews. Such a view of sacrifice did not allow for the recognition of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice to God the Father as the final form of salvation. True, Sts. the Fathers repeated the words of the Apostle Paul about the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 7:27), but of course they understood them in a comparative, figurative sense, like the other names of Christ: if God did not want the death of dumb animals and allowed their sacrifices as a condescension to human weakness, then it is difficult to admit that God needed or even desired (we do not dare to say pleasant) the bloody death of His incarnate Son, full of shame and fear. And indeed, although Sts. the Fathers were, of course, aware of the Apostle's words about the priesthood and the sacrifice of Christ, but none of them builds theories of man's liberation from sin through sacrifice to God the Father. Western scholastic theology, having accepted the teaching of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ, understood sacrifices quite differently and looked upon them as a real means of deliverance from sin (utrum Christus simul fuerit sacerdos et hostia? Sic, hostia et pro peccata et pacifica et holocaustum). Inclined, owing to the religious ignorance of its representatives, to crude literalism, it accepted the figurative words of the Apostle about sacrifice in the literal sense and introduced it as an essential dogma of doctrine; the doctrine of sacrifice, dogmatized in the West, had a firm stronghold in Western culture, based on the ideas of law and knightly honor, "sacrifice" was presented as the usual satisfaction of the offended in chivalric times. Thus, the salvation of man was very easily resolved from the point of view of chivalric concepts. It seems to us that even such a solution to the problem of man's liberation from sin could take place in theology if it were accepted as an artistic image of comparison, although not particularly successful: but the crude literalism of scholasticism did not admit of comparative images, and the concepts of sacrifice and satisfaction acquired the force of immutability and unconditionality. Human limitation passed into the realm of the Divine, and on these foundations the entire system of our salvation is built: "Having angered the infinite greatness of God," we read in Statsevich's lengthy Catechism, "man was no longer able to correct his sin, because he could not bring to the Lord satisfaction commensurate with his crime" (v. 34). But what man could not do, the incarnate Son of God did: "Jesus Christ alone, Who, as a man, could suffer, and as God, could impart to His sufferings an infinite merit, He alone could satisfy the justice of His heavenly Father, offering Him His sufferings of an infinite price, instead of the punishment due to the sin of men" (v. 39). This theory of salvation, borrowed from the sphere of legal relations and therefore known under the name of juridical, fully corresponds to the entire structure and life of the Western community, usually called the Roman Catholic Church. We have already had occasion to speak of the earthly, secular, and highly conventional character of the ecclesiastical mechanism of the West when we made an assessment of the very spirit of the scholastic system. Now we will only note the fact that the juridical point of view has transferred to each individual case of the sinner's salvation: according to the teaching of the Catholic Catechism, the necessary conditions for repentance are contrition, confession and satisfaction (v. 121). Thus, the doctrine of satisfying God's truth, for all its conventionality, is quite appropriate in a religious community governed in the spirit of the ideas of Roman law and medieval chivalry. But, unfortunately, this teaching did not survive in the systems of Latin theologians: in the seventeenth century it passed through the works of the Kievan theologians into Russian theological science. "The first passion and death of Christ is called the sacrifice of the offering of union, which reconciled us to God, and by His wrath many sins (The Great Catechism, v. 45). This sacrifice, which is one body and blood of Christ, is to us the supplication of the wrathful God, which is pleasing to God from all sacrifices, and more than all offerings" (46 l.). However, Lavrenty Zizanius does not defend this view entirely; already on the reverse of folio 47, the point of view changes somewhat: "For this reason Christ was a man for us, and suffered and offered blood to the Father, that the Father might condemn the enemy, having unjustly brought death." On page 53 the juridical understanding again triumphs: "For a single drop of His holy blood weighs before God for the redemption of the whole human race, yet for this reason our Lord Jesus Christ willed to accept and reproach in the great passion of sickness and reproach, so that all the multitude of our sins would abound in His righteousness, and all our sins would be like a drop of sea water against His loving mercy." "In addition to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, every sinner must also bring satisfaction" (341 p.). Thus, in the "Large Catechism" we see not only traces of Latin scholastic thinking, but the completely transferred scholastic doctrine of our salvation by satisfying the truth of God.

In the "Orthodox Confession" of Peter Mogila, which is generally inferior in detail to the "Great Catechism", there are no such definite recognitions of the need to satisfy Divine justice, but his general teaching on salvation differs to a considerable degree in juridical character, although without such a complete explanation of all the details as we have seen in Statsevich's "Catholic Catechism". Christ is recognized as a sacrifice to the Father, of course, in the literal sense, and the penance imposed on the sinner is regarded as a "punishment." The idea of satisfying God with a "bloody" sacrifice was so inherent in the consciousness of the author of the "Orthodox Confession" that it led him to a very characteristic slip of the tongue: on page 39 we read that Christ suffered in one flesh; it is true that the flesh is here opposed to the Divinity, but Christ Himself spoke of the sufferings of His soul (Mark 14:34), which could not have been unknown to Metropolitan Peter Mogila, but faithful to the tendency of satisfaction, he placed all the power of Christ's sufferings in a bloody death.

If scholastic theologians had recourse to the juridical theory of salvation as merely a comparative image, it might be said that the comparison is not entirely successful. If this teaching were not expounded with such crude literalism, then the satisfaction of divine truth could be interpreted in the highest sense, i.e. it could be asserted that the establishment of the salvific path of life and the love of the innocent Divine Sufferer, which attracts to this path, fully corresponds to the plans of the creative will and, consequently, satisfies eternal truth.

Unfortunately, the Catholic theologians, and the Kievans who copied from them after them, speak in this case so clearly and definitely, and with such persistence raise their unfortunate interpretation to an absolute one, that there is no room for any mitigating explanations. From the above excerpts of the lengthy Roman Catholic catechism, it is clear that, in the opinion of the scholastics, God, infinitely offended by sin, was satisfied (i.e., avenged) by the bloody sacrifice of His Son. In order to agree with such an explanation of the divine cause, it is necessary to recognize the very idea of satisfaction, i.e. revenge as something unconditional, inevitable. Perhaps this is how it appeared to medieval society: on the one hand, chivalry, with its infinitely developed idea of honor, on the other, barbarous legal proceedings, which looked upon punishment as revenge on the criminal. But mankind, in the brighter moments of its life, has risen even by natural forces above the cruel idea; many teachers of the East and West spoke about the forgiveness of offenses, and modern humane legislation looks at punishment as the correction of the criminal, therefore, it has also risen above the idea of revenge. Further, in accepting the theory of gratification, one must admit divine wrath as something real, not comparative. Not to mention the fact that the recognition of anger as an unconditional attribute of God contradicts the general Christian concepts of God, it runs counter to the positive testimonies of Sts. Fathers who understood the wrath of God in a comparative sense. Prep. John Cassian directly says that "without blasphemy it is impossible to attribute to Him indignation with anger and fury" (Good 2, vol. 60). In addition, introducing elements of conventionality and dryness into the Christian doctrine and little harmony with Christ's teaching on forgiveness, the legal theory introduces into the church discipline and into the personal life of Western Christians a great deal of dryness and legalistic formalism, completely unknown to the life of the ancient universal Church. In the teaching of the Orthodox Church, which lives by the traditions of the self-sacrificing love of the apostles, martyrs, ascetics and hierarchs, and which has never known the limits of divine love for mankind, this theory appeared quite accidentally, by virtue of a sad misunderstanding. Existing only in books (almost exclusively in textbooks) and penetrating little into life, it remained alien to the consciousness of the Church and therefore had no practical significance. At the present time, however, its inconsistency is recognized by the vast majority of our theologians, and practical objections to it are a well-known phenomenon.

Chapter Three. Analysis of the Doctrine of the Sacraments