In the sixteenth century, the Russian Local Church heard for the first and, it seems, only time, a powerful echo of universal patristic theology, and in the next century the Kievan scholasticists laid the foundation for school theological science in Russia. Both of these phenomena, caused by extraordinary historical circumstances, had a completely different fate. The theology of Kiev soon penetrated into Moscow; met here with unfriendliness and suspicion, it found strong support in the person of the admirer of the West, Tsar Peter I, and with his assistance spread throughout Russia and took possession of the theological school established in the eighteenth century, where it still exists with minor modifications.

A completely different fate befell Moscow theology. None of the movements of Russian thought had against itself such numerous, diverse, and bitter enemies as this bright and noble trend in the theological development of Russian society. The cautious suspicion of the supreme spiritual authority, the ignorant superstition of the people, the decline of monastic life under Peter the Great, and, finally, the Westernizing current of all Russian life, greatly weakened the theology of Moscow. Brilliant in the sixteenth century, it no longer has strong expressions in the following centuries. The Great Catechism of the South Russian scholar Lavrenty Zizanius left its characteristic imprint on the thinking of the Moscow scribes against their will and even without their knowledge. The extent to which theological ignorance and formal literalism had reached in the seventeenth century is best evidenced by the sad history of the Russian schism, the so-called Old Believers. It would be extreme frivolity and an unforgivable misunderstanding of the spirit of the Church to consider the leaders of the schism to be the successors of the Moscow theologians of the sixteenth century. As far as we know their tendencies, the religious doctrine of schism is a sad mixture of extreme Muscovite ignorance, based on scholastic formulas of Catholic origin. If the patristic trend did not disappear completely in Russia, then it always represented something completely separate from theological science. It manifested itself mainly in oral preaching, private correspondence, and even private conversations of our most spiritually enlightened hierarchs.

Moscow theologians

I. General information about them

And my word and my preaching are not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the manifestation of the Spirit and power (1 Corinthians 2:4).

Remembering the reception of the grace of holy baptism from the Greek Church, the Russian Church has always looked upon the treasures of the spiritual wisdom of the Greek Fathers as the main source of her enlightenment. Therefore, composing a truly Orthodox solution to controversial questions in refutation of heresies, our theologians first of all turned to the works of the Holy Fathers of the Eastern Church. But since the heresies of the Russian false teachers represented, as can be seen from the characteristics of the Judaizers (the Enlightener) and Theodosius the Oblique (Zinovy of Otensky), an empty and unsubstantiated denial of the truths of the faith on the basis of moral unbridled and abominable depravity, the Russian theologians had to borrow the exposition of dogmas entirely from the works of the Greek dogmatists. This is evidenced by numerous excerpts from the Holy Fathers in the works of Joseph of Volokolamsk and Zinovy of Otensk, and Blessed Maximus, who laid the foundation for monastic life on Holy Athos, had the opportunity to use the works of the Holy Fathers in the originals. They looked upon their works as a collection of patristic teachings with explanatory notes for the given circumstances. "I have collected little from the Divine Scriptures, contrary and accusatory to heretical speeches... having gathered together from the various Divine Scriptures, as those who lead the Divine Scriptures, having read them, let them remember themselves, and those who do not know have read them, let them understand. And whosoever needs anything against heretical speech, and by the grace of God, he shall find it ready without difficulty in some word" (The Enlightener, 48). Another defender of Orthodoxy of that epoch, the blessed monk Zinovii, tells of his reasoning with the kliroshans, followers of the heresy of Theodosius the Oblique: "After reading the words of the Great Basil, we have come to reverence, we have said to them to come on certain days, to abolish me a little to fast, and to be diligent in prayer, to ask grace, that the Lord may give a word to answer, as the words of the Great Basil did, asking the Lord to tell them" ("Testimony of the Truth to Those Who Inquire About the New Teaching", 728p.). Maximus the Greek, like all the best representatives of Greek monasticism, considered the reading of the works of the Holy Fathers to be his main occupation and the best consolation. How he treated the wondrous creations of his great countrymen, full of power and spiritual beauty, is best evidenced by the following touching lines, apparently written from the conclusion: "To this I beseech you, for God's sake, send me to the support of Gregory the Theologian, a Greek book with an interpretation, for God's sake, send it to me" (II vol., 286 p.).

Noting thus the fact of the undoubted borrowing from the Greek Holy Fathers and writers, let us see the works of which authors were used by Russian theologians of the sixteenth century. In the "Enlightener" of Joseph of Volokolamsk we find excerpts from almost all the most famous Fathers of the Eastern Church; Zinovy of Otensk used mainly the ascetic works of Basil the Great. The works of which church writers were in the XVI century in Russian translation, and what was used by St. Joseph in his numerous references to ecclesiastical historical events, what is the special difference between the 13th word of the "Enlightener"? In the Russian language in the sixteenth century there was an extensive translated literature, and it was it that was used by St. Joseph, almost always calling the works of the Holy Fathers divine writings, thereby expressing his special respect for them. Of course, he did not mix with them the books of the Bible, as is evident from the 5th and 6th words of the "Enlightener"; He only asserted, "That the essence of the Holy Fathers of the Scriptures is true: since the essence is in agreement with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures." In addition to the works of the Holy Fathers, St. Josephus often referred to the patericons and chronographs. The following translated works have survived from the sixteenth century, references to which are found in the Enlightener: the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, Athanasius the Great on the Arians, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, the Lenten Homilies, the Golden-Strui (a collection of the words of St. John Chrysostom), Margaret (the same), the Ladder of St. John of Sinai, Isaac the Syrian, and others. The influence of the authors we have listed is undeniable; There are references to them in the works of Russian theologians, especially St. Joseph, the most talented of the Russian dogmatists. As for the special, exclusive influence of any particular father on our theologians, it can be said that the entire dogmatic part of the "Enlightener" is borrowed from the fundamental work of St. John of Damascus. Most of the reasoning of the Otensk monk Zinovy consisted in the interpretation of the ascetic rules of St. Basil the Great, which, apparently, were well known to Zinovii's opponents. With regard to the most educated of the Russian authors of the sixteenth century, Blessed Maximus, it can be said that in the midst of the sorrowful circumstances of his life he was mentally transported to the age of the flowering of theological knowledge and positively lived by the ideas and concepts of the fourth century. Denouncing the Latins for using unleavened bread at the Eucharist, he very skillfully accuses them of secretly confessing the false teaching of Apollinarius. This circumstance shows to what extent St. Maximus was imbued with the spirit of ancient Church traditions, and with what zeal he studied the works of his fathers, we have seen above.

In addition to the dogmatic and ascetic works of the Holy Fathers, the liturgical books served as a rich source of true concepts about the subjects of higher knowledge. All Russian theologians of the sixteenth century, by their outward position, must have known the divine service, and that they knew it in reality is testified to by the life of St. Joseph, where it is said that some time after the fire, which destroyed all the monastery books, St. Joseph performed the service by heart. But in order to accurately and punctually indicate all the borrowings from the liturgical books, it is necessary to carry out a special study, hardly important in the essence of the matter, since what we have said is quite sufficient for the recognition of the liturgical books (mainly the Octoechos) as an important source of Russian theology of the sixteenth century. Thus composed exclusively on the basis of the works of the Holy Fathers, Russian theology was patristic in its form. This does not require special proof, and it is hardly important, at least at first glance. But in addition to this, it was patristic in spirit, which is undoubtedly a subject of exceptional importance.

II. The Churchliness of Old Russian Theology

Which works should be considered patristic and to what extent the authority of patristic opinions extends is a very important question. Prep. St. Maximus the Greek sets forth the following signs for the recognition of any work as patristic: "It is fitting to know," he writes, "that any scripture has three qualities that are fairly reliable and firmly possessed: if from the faithful and catholic Church we know and the famous scribe was formed; secondly, if in all things he agrees, as foretold, with the apostolic dogmas and tradition; third: if anyone agrees with himself in all things, but nowhere distinguishes" (III, 127). Prep. Joseph of Volotsk, as we have had occasion to see above, sees the main sign of the dignity of the works of the Holy Fathers in their agreement with the Apostolic and Prophetic writings. For all the importance of these features, they cannot be called unconditionally essential: they determine the external properties of the works of the Holy Fathers, which distinguish them from works that do not have patristic authority, but by no means express their inner spirit, which is inherent in them alone. The personality of the author, of course, is also of no small importance here: the works of heretics or representatives of an understanding of life alien to piety, external philosophers, can never be considered the works of the Holy Fathers, even if they do not clearly contradict the word of God, but here only Orthodoxy is important, and not the celebrity of the author, for the decrees of Archbishop. Theophilus of Alexandria, famous in the negative sense, are considered canonical writings on a par with the decrees of the adopted Councils. Agreement with the apostolic and prophetic writings is rather a sign of already accepted creations, and not at all a criterion, since historical experience testifies that there has not yet been a single false teaching on the soil of Christianity that did not try to base its reasoning on the word of God. As for the third feature, it is extremely important when works that are completely alien to meaning and full of internal contradictions are presented as patristic works; but in general there is no need to emphasize it, for it is a feature common to all the works of sound human reason. It seems to us that the most important and essential feature of the works of the Holy Fathers is their internal, as it were, organic connection with the teaching of the Church. Only those works can be considered patristic in the strict sense, where the personality of the author disappears, as it were, where he merges with the whole Church and speaks on her behalf, not by virtue of his position in the Church, but by a deep and irresistible attraction of the spirit. Only that church writer can be called a Church Father who sees in his life exclusively the life of the Church and who considers and evaluates all life and events from the point of view of Church life. It seems to us that these qualities largely determine the personal holiness of the authors. Yet the individual, written even by a famous and undoubtedly holy author, although of extreme interest to the psychology of the pious soul, has no general ecclesiastical significance. And works bearing traces of personal misunderstandings and darkened by the spirit of enmity can be attributed to the category of ordinary literary monuments, but in relation to the personality of the authors they are simply proof of human weakness.

Russian theologians of the sixteenth century looked at earthly life from the point of view of its high purpose. For them, there were no national interests, political enmity, patriotic vanity; first of all, they saw the Universal Church, illuminating the whole world with the rays of its grace. Prep. Joseph is inclined to love his homeland insofar as it serves the goals of universal Orthodoxy and represents the beloved daughter of the Eastern Church. Speaking about the fate of his fatherland, he says with bitterness: "In all the countries of salvation the preaching of the Gospel has gone out, and all have been delivered from the darkness of idols and have been illumined by the light of the understanding of God, while the Russian land has been darkened by the darkness of idolatry, and has been thoroughly defiled by filthy deeds. And for many times passed after the ascension into heaven of the Only-begotten Son" (29). Then he continues with joy about the baptism of Rus', as a special extraordinary mercy of the Life-Giving and Venerable Trinity. And, finally, he enthusiastically affirms the great piety and faithfulness to universal Orthodoxy of the young Local Church. "From that time," he writes (i.e., from the baptism of Rus'), "the sun of the Gospel has shone our land and the apostolic thunder has proclaimed us and the divine churches and monasteries have been formed, and there have been many hierarchs and venerable wonderworkers and standard-bearers, and as the golden wings have flown to heaven, and as the Russian land has surpassed all in impiety of old, so now in piety we have overcome all. In other countries, if there are many pious and reverent, but many are impious and unbelief, living with them and heretical philosophies; and in the Rust of the land there are not only many villages and ignorance, but also many cities, who are the one Shepherd of Christ, and all are of one mind and all glorify the Holy Trinity, but no one has seen a heretic or a wicked person anywhere" (31). Then begins the sorrowful narration about the beginning of the "heresy" of the Judaizers, as a violation of church peace and a grave blasphemy against church teaching. Prep. Joseph looks upon the Moscow Cathedral of the Dormition as an earthly heaven, because of its significance for the Russian Church, and from the time of the desecration of the temple of Wisdom - God the Word - for the Universal Church. Grieving over the sad indifference of Metropolitan Gerontius and the desecration of the episcopal throne by the heretic Zosima, he remembers Saints Peter and Alexis, in whom he sees not adherents of Moscow and supporters of autocracy, but first of all - teachers of the Church, interpreters of divine truth. "Having flown away from us," writes St. Joseph, as the Schurov of good songs, as the glory of great voices, as the swallows of sweet-talking, the divine hierarchs and great wonderworkers, Peter and Alexis, and the other Orthodox hierarchs, who in the midst of the garden of the church announce the ears of those who hear the teaching of Orthodoxy. Flying away like the eagles of the crystals, whose claws torment the eyes of those who do not see the right sight of Christ, having flown away to Christ, who have winged over the faithful in multitudes, and having left us sirs" (43). Such a disastrous situation of the Russian Church, as a result of the unworthiness that distinguished the successor of the great hierarchs, forced St. Joseph, as it were, to speak on behalf of the Church with his "Enlightener".

The same mood in the spirit of the deepest ecclesiastical understanding of all life distinguishes the works of Blessed Maximus. The fate of southern Europe, southwestern Asia, and northeastern Africa, in a word, of the ancient "universe," interested him solely because in these places, more than anywhere else, there was the splendor of the full development of church life. What genuine sorrow and heartfelt bitterness sound all his arguments about the decline of church life. "Where, then, in piety and honesty, is the beauty that shone forth together with the glory of the former faithful in Jerusalem, and Alexandria, and Egypt, and Libya, and Antioch? Where is the warmth and divine zeal of those who shone forth in fasting, in the skete and in the heavenly Thebaid, and in various countries and mountains, our God-bearing and angelic fathers? Where, in piety, is the most glorious height and the praise of all Western tongues, the holy, I say, catholic and apostolic Church of the Old Rome?.. What do I not say more than all the most glorious hearings and visions that have been on earth? Where is the loftiness and unapplied glory in the realm of wisdom and all virtue and good law and the Orthodox faith of the kingdom of Orthodox Christian kings, who reigned in the all-glorious and pious city of Constantine the Great? Where is he the universal light of piety, which like the sun illuminates the entire universe by the hierarchs equal to the angels in him... Where is it now, more than the mind and the word that was accomplished in him from the Most-Pure Mother of God Jesus, which delivers him more than the hope of frequent barbarian findings? Blessed Maximus sees the reason for such a sad situation of the apostolic thrones not in the natural political circumstances of the epoch, but in the fulfillment of the special plans for the economy of Christ, caused by the sins of the children of the Church. To all the above questions he gives one answer: "Formerly dared in him for the sake of our ancestors incurable iniquities." The above excerpts testify to the depth of the ecclesiastical worldview and worldview of the authors we are considering. But this is not enough: all the existing foundations of social life are discussed from a strictly ecclesiastical point of view. By virtue of the strictly ecclesiastical system of life, seeing no need to separate church life from state life, for the Church was everything, and the state was only a tribute to human limitations, St. John. Joseph also reveres the governmental power, since it is the servant of the Church, but "if there is a king reigning over men, he has over himself the filthy passions and sins, but the love of money and wrath, deceit and unrighteousness, pride and rage, and the worst of all, unbelief and blasphemy, such a king is not God's servant, but the devil, and not a king, but a tormentor. Such a king, for his wickedness, do not call our Lord Jesus Christ a king, but a fox... (I,133-135). Do not listen to such a king or prince, who leads you to impiety and deceit, if you torture or give you up to death" (287). In the face of zeal for the glory of the Church, kinship ties must also recede: "Behold, there are enemies, who, when father and mother, or son, or daughter turn away from the true faith, it is fitting to hate them, and to turn away, and flee from them, lest we perish with them" (474). Moreover, the most precious thing for the feeling of St. The hierarchical principle of church discipline is preserved as long as the hierarchy corresponds to its high purpose. In spite of his abbot's rank, the Volotsk abbot did not hesitate to denounce the All-Russian metropolitan when he turned out to be a heretic, and, as the main principle of the canonical worldview, St. Joseph, we should consider his idea that hierarchical privileges are effective only on the condition of faithfulness to the Church. With regard to the priests and bishops who have violated this faithfulness, he repeats the words of St. Athanasius the Great: "Without them it is not possible to gather in the temple of prayer, unless we are plunged with them, as with Anna and Caiaphas, into the fiery Gehenna" (272).

III. The source of understanding of divinely revealed truths is contemplation

The penetration of the spirit of the Church, which leads man into the realm of divine manifestations, gave the Holy Fathers a special power of knowledge, almost unknown to the rest of humanity. This power is contemplation. In the realm of the world, it is partly approached by the inspiration of poets, which, however, is far inferior to contemplation in purity, and, consequently, in power. The first condition of contemplative knowledge is piety, and the main power of piety is prayer and the reading of the Divine Scriptures. It should be noted that the leaders of the contemplative life do not distinguish between these two activities, which are really impossible without the other. "In relation to the Divine Scriptures, it is in our power to read them, and to understand what is read depends on us and not on us. It depends on us to be careful and attentive when reading; the same, in order to understand what is read, is the work of God's grace... Reading teaches a person what guides him to God and makes him God's; prayer causes God to have mercy on man and enlighten his mind so that he understands and remembers what he has read. What is written about other worldly matters, readers can understand for themselves, but it is impossible for anyone to understand or remember things divine and salvific without enlightenment from the Holy Spirit" (43 ff. of Symeon the New Theologian). This precious testimony belongs to St. Simeon, who received the name of the New Theologian for the contemplative power of his works. In comparison with the usual method of human research, contemplation is a very special path, standing outside ordinary conditions. St. Isaac puts it this way: "When the mind is renewed and the heart is sanctified, then all the concepts that arise in it are aroused in accordance with the nature of the world into which it enters. First the love of the divine is aroused in him, and he longs for communion with the angels and the revelation of the mysteries of the spiritual knowledge of creatures, and the contemplation of the mysteries of the Holy Trinity, as well as the mysteries of the economy venerated for our sake, shines forth in him, and then he enters wholly into unity with the knowledge of the hope of the future" (Homily 55 of the Epistle to St. Simeon). Contemplative knowledge was always considered a special gift of Divine grace, and by no means an ordinary development of psychic powers. That this opinion is true is evidenced by the following words of Anthony the Great: "I have prayed for you, that you also may be vouchsafed to receive that great and fiery Spirit which I have received. If you wish to receive Him so that He may abide in you, bring first bodily labors and humility of heart, and enrapturing your thoughts into heaven day and night, seek with righteousness of heart this fiery Spirit, and He shall be given unto you. In this way Elijah the Tishbite and Elisha with the rest of the prophets received Him. Whoever cultivates himself by this cultivation is given this Spirit forever and forever. Abide in prayer with a painful search from all your hearts, and it will be given to you, for that Spirit dwells in upright hearts. And He, when He is received, will reveal to you the highest mysteries, and you will be in this body, as those who are already in the Kingdom" (Philokalia, I, 34). We have the right to consider patristic theology to be contemplative, since the Fathers themselves looked upon contemplation as the main condition for the true knowledge of divine phenomena. "About him (i.e., about God)," writes St. Gregory the Theologian, "only those who have succeeded in contemplation, and first of all, those who are pure in soul and body, or at least purify themselves, can reason" (On Theology, Homily 1). If we look at the works of the Russian Fathers of the sixteenth century from the point of view of their method, we will see that they are all imprinted with the spirit of high contemplation. We have already seen above that the blessed monk Zinovii prepared himself by fasting and prayer for a conversation with the followers of Theodosius the Oblique. Prep. Joseph of Volotsk with particular persistence pursues the idea of the necessity of spiritual feats for those who try to investigate the content of Christian teaching. "Since the Divine Scriptures instruct us and establish the law known and unconcealed, it is fitting to receive and preserve them into the law. And if they proclaim in secret, both in parables and in cases, or in wisdom, it behooves them to pray to God with humility and much labor, and with the advice of the skilful, in deed, and not in word: but there is no secret to seek the Scriptures, for there is no such thing as this. As the great Apostle said: "Wherefore, O man, who is this, declaring to God: But rather deny this, as unworthy beings.