And thus shaking the darkness of passionate thought, let us approach the true Teacher of truth immaterially; And the Teacher is Christ, the composite wisdom of God, and in Him all the treasures of understanding are hidden, as He Himself said: "To Him the Son wills, He reveals, but without Him speak understanding, lie: for He speaks by divination, and not truly, from immeasurable opinion He boasts. To him the Theologian Gregory says: "Do not exalt yourself to the understanding of God, reproaching the story, for you speak brutally and crookedly, if you do not heed the power of reason, but the ink of writing. And it is foolish for him who hopes to be wise, but what he thinks he has, it will be taken from him, because he does not want to decide: we do not know, for all holiness lead, we say, "Nothing knows." And if the essence of the words in the Divine Scriptures is hidden and hidden from us, and behold, God has done for the greatest benefit: for we shall not be condemned many times, transgressing in understanding; For he who has been vouchsafed to eat reason and does not asceticize, as our former holy fathers did, in fasting, and in prayer, and in chastity, and in humility, such as he is not worthy is expelled from the grace of the Holy Spirit with rebuke, as Saul is expelled from the kingdom, as St. Maximus said" (Homily 8). The above excerpt clearly testifies that the only source of theological understanding of St. Joseph considers ascetic contemplation, but he had the lowest opinion of the rationalistic study of the Bible.

The undoubted dominance of the contemplative patristic method and the recognition of all the depths of divine knowledge accessible to man made the representatives of Russian theology very cautious in their attitude towards other sources of theological knowledge. Even Blessed Maximus, who himself listened to the sciences in Italy for some time, advises us to beware of the works of Latin authors, as infected with concepts alien to the truth. "Latins," he writes, "have been much seduced by external teachers, and it is not fitting for you to listen to their teaching, to translate them into the Russian language; guard yourselves from them as from gangrene and the worst scab, if you want pure wheat, and not tares to be found in the day of harvest" (III, 232). By "external teaching" Blessed Maximus did not mean any knowledge from the field of positive sciences, which in its applied purpose has nothing to do with piety, and therefore cannot be either harmful or useful in this respect, but the scholastic method of theology, which burdens Christianity with a multitude of rationalistic concepts, alien to the spirit of divine truth. That our conjecture is not only plausible, but also quite just, can be seen from the description of the Latin theological schools, which are blissful. Maxim saw it while living in Italy. Having mentioned the Apostle's commandment (Col. 2:8) to beware of external philosophy in the matter of knowing the truth, he continues: "Do not the Latin sons go about today and turn the apostolic truth? Go with your mind to the Italian school, and there you will see in the likeness of the streams flowing, especially drowning Aristotle and Plato and those around them. And there is no strong dogma in them, neither human nor divine, even if the Aristotelian syllogisms confirm this dogma. And if he does not agree with the artistic, - either as the worst rejection, or, if it seems to be contrary to art, this is cut off to please the Aristotelian art of the premenish, and as the truest, they intercede. And what shall I say to thee, that the Latin sons are wicked today, deceived by the philosophy of vain deception according to the Apostle, about the immortality of the soul, and about the enjoyment of the righteous in the future, and about the structure of the faithful who depart from the present life, who suffer all, and who will follow more than external dialectical knowledge, and not the inner ecclesiastical and God-given philosophy" (I, 247). In the predilection for external philosophy, in theological rationalism, in the betrayal of the general church tradition, acceptable and assimilated through obedience and prayer, he sees Bl. Maximus the main cause of the death of Western Christians. His definition of church dogmas "as an internal God-given philosophy" is very characteristic. In fact, the content of Christian dogmas given by God through the teaching of the Apostles is assimilated by the inner struggle of prayer and contemplation, and therefore can in no way be taught by means of external scholastic proofs, for, as we said above, divine knowledge is the realm of a special world, of special phenomena, and consequently of special concepts. - Thus, Russian theology in the sixteenth century was strictly contemplative in nature. Piety was recognized as the main condition for a correct understanding of Christ's truth. When studying the Holy Scriptures, prayer was considered the best way to know it. Any teaching alien to the Church was rejected without any reflection, even if it did not contradict the writings of the previous Fathers, quite rightly believing that there can be no truth outside the Church, which the Lord created as the pillar and foundation of truth... The appearance of theological systems of St. Joseph and Bl. Zinovy was caused by the emergence of the heresies of the Judaizers and Theodosius the Oblique, and was primarily a polemical movement against the enemies of the Church. In order to see more clearly how closely the Russian theologians adhered to the Holy Fathers in this respect, it is necessary to briefly expound the most famous systems of the latter.

IV. Patristic Systems of Christian Teaching

The fullness of divine truth, accessible to the human mind, is revealed in the life of the Universal Church. The assimilation of this truth by individuals is possible only in living, sincere unity with the body of the Church. Inasmuch as each individual lives the life of the Church, inasmuch as he partakes of the spirit of the great universal truth proclaimed to mankind by the incarnate Word, this truth is the Lord Christ Himself, the truth in the life He founded. Insofar as the individual person bases his individual existence at least on strictly biblical principles, he becomes alien to the Church, and then to the Bible itself, and the divine truth becomes unclear to him. Having lost the light, a person begins to look for it, but not where he is. When does a person assert his individuality with a special force? When love is scarce in him, and love is impoverished by the increase of iniquities. Following the impoverishment of love comes the pride of the mind, which strives to give answers to all possible questions, even if in essence having nothing to do with piety. Such is the origin of heresy. The Church has never remained an indifferent spectator of human destruction and, condescending to the weakness of the passions, has not refused to give a correct solution to questions that are often incorrectly posed and by their very meaning constitute more an object of curiosity than a real demand for the interpretation of a pious life. The most zealous teachers of the Church, grieving over the tearing of the "seamless tunic" of Vladyka, set forth in detail the decision of the Church regarding the issues raised. Such is the origin of polemical theology. Its main difference from the contemplative conduct we have examined, which has a completely independent beginning from any external events, lies in its external similarity with the works of external philosophers, for the ancient heretics built their doctrines on the basis of Hellenic philosophy. Fighting against heretics on their soil and their tools, the Holy Fathers showed an example of extreme condescension, but they never forgot that the main strength of the Church is piety and the only knowledge is contemplation. All the questions raised by the heretics were resolved by the Holy Fathers from a purely ecclesiastical point of view and on the basis of the experience of reverent contemplation. St. Gregory of Nyssa writes about this: "For Severus has in mind only bare expressions and places piety in words and sounds alone, contrary to the words of the Apostle: 'For the Kingdom of God is not in words, but in power and truth' (1 Corinthians 4:20), because in this Severus he is considered to be the most excellent theologian, who has studied well the Aristotelian categories and other intricacies of pagan philosophers: then we need to explain in advance the meaning of each expression, usually accepted in the teaching of Severus, according to the reason of the church teachers" (Glas. l. 192). From the time when the number of heresies multiplied, and in the inquisitiveness of the human mind, which strives to comprehend the mysteries of Christianity without going through the path of the activity of wisdom, there appeared a constant source of new false teachings, it became necessary to present the teaching of the Church in a correspondingly harmonious form of system. This was first accomplished in the fourth century by the efforts of St. Gregory of Nyssa, for the previous experience of the Christian system, the famous work of Origen, is rather an exposition of Christian principles in comparison with the principles of the pagans. St. Gregory of Nyssa expounded in his "Great Catechetical Discourse" the teaching of the Church as the true interpretation of Christ's teaching, in contrast to the false and erroneous systems of heretics. Establishing a correct, strictly ecclesiastical understanding of those questions that were touched upon by the heretics, St. Gregory makes an explanation of the very essence of Christianity, devoting a large part of his system to the exposition of the true concept of the descent to earth and the incarnation of the Word of God and of the rebirth of man in church life, which is manifested with particular force in the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. The Holy Father, in spite of his exceptional gifts in the systematization of Christian truths, nevertheless acknowledges the difficulty of presenting a system that fully satisfies all the spiritual needs of the age... "Not all those who are approaching enlightenment will be suitable for the same way of teaching, but according to the difference in beliefs, the catechesis should be changed, having in mind the same purpose of instruction, but not using proofs in the same way. For the Judaizer is led by other concepts, and he who lives in Hellenism is led by other concepts. And the Anomaeus, and the Manichaeans, and the Marcionites, and the followers of Valentinus and Basilides, and other hosts of erring heretics, led by special notions, force us to separately enter into a struggle with their opinions. Therefore, according to the nature of the disease, the method of healing should also be used. Let us not heal the polytheism of the Greeks and the unbelief of the Jew in the Only-begotten Son of God by the same thing, and let us not overthrow the seductive, fictitious fables of erring heretics regarding dogmas by one and the same thing. For what anyone could correct Sabellius, the same thing will not benefit the anomoean, and the struggle with the Manichaean is useless against the Jew" (Og. l. 3). Thus, the system was intended mainly for the struggle against the enemies of the truth, who had to be converted, or for those children of the Church who, through frivolity, through the decline of piety, or deceived by the intricacies of heretics, were inclined to fall away. In itself, Christianity was presented to St. Gregory as a life full of spirit and power, and by no means as a doctrine, even if it was irreproachable in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel. Speaking of the origin of the Church, he exclaims: "A lofty wisdom has been established, accomplished more by deed than by word" (92), and in the development of Christian life the Holy Father sees the main support of the divine origin of the Church. Speaking of the exploits of the martyrs, who were more willing to lose this temporal life than to renounce Christ, he rightly believes that they would not have been subjected to this without having a clear, indubitable proof of the Divine coming. What proofs did the martyrs have? Of course, these are not philosophically grounded systems, but contemplative revelations given by God for their purity and zeal. The Protomartyr Stephen, as the book of the Acts of the Apostles testifies, saw Christ, and that this was not the only event in the lives of the martyrs is evidenced by the story of the passion-bearers full of miracles. The freedom of the regenerated spirit, which has always been inherent in the Church, was also reflected in the first system of Orthodox theology. In the "Great Catechetical Discourse" of St. Gregory there is no predilection for words and literalism, which serves as the best indicator of the poverty of the spirit and the slavish attitude to the teaching of Christ. The degree of loftiness and real freedom attained by St. Gregory is best seen from his attitude to the precision of the name of the Godhead, which was especially important in view of the development of the Arian troubles. "If, therefore, you reflect on the nature of beings, whether they be celestial, or subterranean, or located in each of the above-mentioned ends of the universe, then everywhere your mind encounters the Divinity, everywhere appearing to be one in beings and containing all things in being. Wherefore whether this nature be called by the Godhead, or by the word, or by power, by wisdom, or by any other exalted attribute and name which is more capable of expressing the supreme being, our word does not in the least dispute about the sound, or the name, or the manner of expression" (143). But, having complete freedom regarding the expression of the general church beliefs and reasoning about concepts, and not about words, St. Gregory is extremely reluctant to resolve questions in which human curiosity is at least somewhat affected. We have noted above that he developed with extraordinary and unique completeness the teaching about the salvation of man through the incarnation of God. But as for the question of the cause of incarnation, a question so natural from the point of view of human thought, St. Gregory does not consider it necessary to resolve it. To the supposed question of why exactly the Son of God appeared as a man among men, St. Gregory gives an answer in the spirit of the Church of Christ, which has always shunned curiosity, which is useless for piety. "If love for mankind is a sign inherent in the divine nature, then we have the cause of the manifestation of God among people, for our nature, subjected to weakness, had need of a physician; fallen man had need of a restorer, he who deviated from life needed a life-giving; he who was cut off from communion with the good needed a guide for the good; the prisoner in darkness had need of the presence of light, the prisoner demanded a redeemer, the prisoner a helper, possessed by the yoke of slavery a liberator" (76). But when this inspired confession of the supreme truth of piety proved to be unsatisfactory for the inquisitiveness of human thinking, which very often lacks a guiding force, and the former question was raised with greater urgency, St. Gregory says: "It would suffice it to say that the afflicted do not prescribe to their physicians a mode of action and do not argue with their benefactors about the method of healing, i.e. for what purpose the physician touched the sick part and thought of this very thing for the destruction of the disease. and not another decent means; on the contrary, looking at the beneficial consequences, they gratefully accept the allowance. But since, as the prophet says, the abundance of God's goodness has a hidden benefit (Isaiah 30:20), which is still not clearly seen in the present life (for, of course, all contradiction on the part of unbelievers would cease if what was expected were before their eyes), and since it (the grace of God) awaits the succeeding ages, so that in them the blessings now contemplated by faith alone may be revealed, it will be necessary to find by means of certain inferences, if possible, the solution of these questions as well, in accordance with the previous answers" (89). These words of the Holy Father show that the inferences by means of which he wishes to give the questioners an answer that is quite intelligible to them, appear to him to be nothing more than a matter of condescension to the infirmities of the human mind, which often needs analogies and pictorial images and is not always capable of understanding the truth in all its abstract grandeur and simplicity.

After St. Gregory of Nyssa, the systematist of Christian theology was Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. His system, the "Summary of Divine Dogmas," to a greater extent than the "Great Catechetical Discourse" of St. Gregory of Nyssa, bears traces of the epoch in which it was written. St. Gregory of Nyssa only pointed out the polemical purpose of his system, but as an outstanding thinker, he gave a unique exposition of the very essence of Christian teaching in its depth and integrity. The great work of redemption and the assimilation of this mystery extends its significance to all ages, and if circumstances made it necessary to explain it in the language of human concepts in the sixth century, then, of course, it is even more necessary in the centuries to come. The questions that occupied the universe at the time of writing the "Homily" are solved by St. Gregory as if in passing. Blessed Theodoret did not have the philosophical perspicacity of Gregory of Nyssa, and for this reason his exposition of divine dogmas is a more modern creation, i.e. answering mainly those questions that were of burning interest in his time. A detailed exposition of the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity was necessary in view of the fresh memories of the numerous dialectical doctrines of the sophistic disciples of the rebellious presbyter. The chapters on creation, on matter, on aeons, on the devil were written in denunciation of the Gnostics of various shades and the Manichaeans. The same can be said about the chapter on man and providence, in which the question of the origin of evil is resolved. The exposition of the dogmas about the union of the two natures in the one Hypostasis of the Son of God reminds us that Blessed Theodoret was a zealous denunciator of Eutyches. The chapters that One and the same is good and just, that One and the same gave the Old and New Testaments, are wholly directed against Marcion. In the Church of Christ, which has received its teaching from Jesus Christ, such questions are positively irrelevant. The chapters on marriage, celibacy, and fornication were introduced into the system of exposition of divine dogmas precisely because in Syria there were strong sects that combined the confession of Christ with an extremely dissolute life. The following feature of the dogmatic work of Blessed Theodoret should also be noted: the divine dogmas are expounded to the extent necessary for the resolution of controversial questions; the same idea that we saw in the "Great Catechetical Discourse" can be seen: namely, that Christianity is wisdom more in life than in the feeble human word, which is not always able to express lofty and divine concepts. If attempts are made to formulate the content of the Church's consciousness, it is because of pity for those who are perishing and for those who may perish in the abyss of heretical impiety. With the expression of the last thought, Blessed Theodoret concludes his work: "And so I ask all who will have the opportunity to read this work, to compare the divine dogmas with the false teaching of those impious ones, and from this comparison to learn what is the difference between truth and falsehood. For what is righteousness to have to do with iniquity? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14). And truly, heretical fables are the invention of the devil's wickedness, while the divine dogmas are the teaching of the Holy Spirit, which must always be contained, invariably preserved, and to which one must direct one's heart in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Ed. of God, Dog. 137).

The third exposition of universal theology belongs to St. Father John of Damascus. Since in the eighth century the intensity of theological disputes on metaphysical grounds weakened, the form of the "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" is less polemical than the works of Blazh. But in its content this system is purely polemical and first of all intends to give a correct answer to those questions which were of most interest in the eighth century. In addition to the essence of the Christian teaching, i.e. the dogmas of the Trinity and redemption, the teaching on the Christian cult is expounded in great detail, as a result of the iconoclastic troubles that began at that time. There was even a point of denunciation of the Jews, who, under the rule of the Arab caliphs, raised their heads and began to pose a clear danger to the Church. The desire to give the fullness of all knowledge prompted St. John of Damascus to introduce into his system a detailed course of contemporary cosmology. This last attempt cannot be called particularly successful, for the teaching on the properties of created nature has nothing to do with the life of the Church of Christ and can be the subject of other sciences without any damage to piety. The exposition of dogmas in St. John is the most detailed; The system is common to all three Holy Fathers-systematists. First, the teaching on the Trinity is expounded, to which St. John prefaces general discourses on the Divinity, then on our salvation through the descent of God the Word from heaven, then on our assimilation of Divine grace, i.e. on prayer, on the Scriptures, on the most important sacred rites, and, finally, as far as necessary, on the final fate of the Church and humanity. Such is the content of the patristic system worked out by history. More is said about those issues that in this era posed the greatest danger to the integrity and unity of the Church of Christ. All the significance and all the power of the patristic system is not in the external arrangement of the component parts, which is very simple and natural, but in the inner and deep power of contemplation and in the bold vitality.

Having examined the three patristic systems that have come down to us from a time of greater development of church life than today, we come to the conclusion that all the efficacy of patristic theology came from its profoundly ecclesiastical spirit and from its contemplative method. It would be extremely wrong and contrary to the actual state of affairs to look for anything particularly strong in the very structure of the system, which was entirely determined by the content and in secondary points, as we have seen above, completely depended on causes of an accidental character. And the author of the most detailed system of Orthodox theology himself does not see in it an important acquisition for the Church, but reverently recalls the first centuries of Christianity, the era of miracles and pure revelations: "The disciples and apostles, being made wise by the All-Holy Spirit and working by His power and grace divine signs, catching them (i.e., the pagans) in a network of miracles, led them out of the abyss of ignorance upwards into the light of the knowledge of God. In the same way, the heirs of the grace and virtues of these, both pastors and teachers, having received the sanctifying grace of the Spirit, and by the power of miracles and the word of grace, enlightened the darkened and turned to the true path those who had gone astray. But we, who have received neither the gift of miracles nor the gift of teaching, because we have made ourselves unworthy by the passion for pleasure, wish to tell about this a little of the grace handed down to us by the heralds, calling upon the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit to help us" (Chapter III). But the fact is that the work of John of Damascus himself is nothing other than the highest manifestation of divine truth, revealed in the Church's teaching, a manifestation, by its own will and grace, fully worthy of the successor of the great Fathers of the faith and the disciples of the Apostles.

V. Old Russian Theology in Relation to Ancient and Contemporary Life

Such was the origin of the theological-polemical system in the East, where the abundance of heresies, echoes of extreme Eastern teachings, and extensive acquaintance with ancient philosophy made the polemical exposition of Christian truths extremely difficult: each heresy separately required an exact generalization and consistent refutation. Therefore, to write a denunciation of all heresies meant to take into account the state of mind in a given epoch and to systematize Christian dogmas accordingly. And so did Sts. Fathers, as we have seen above. The situation was somewhat different in Russia. The first Russian heresy, which aroused against itself the theological system of St. Joseph, had a very strange character, due to his complete ignorance of theological subjects and extreme moral laxity. Secretly separating themselves from church communion, on the basis of the Jewish law, the Judaizers were nevertheless not ashamed to occupy the highest ecclesiastical offices and even to defend their hierarchical rights (Verse 13). Denying all the content of Christianity in church teaching, the Judaizers demanded a lenient attitude on the part of the church authorities. It does not even appear that they wanted to substantiate the doctrine precisely and definitely, and were inclined to found their own religious community. The main seal of Judaism - circumcision - was alien to them on the advice of the Jews themselves, so that their connection with the hated tribe of god-killers would not be revealed. The heretics were left with only one denial. It is precisely as a complete denial, often groundless, that the entire teaching of the Judaizers is presented. Here is how St. Joseph: "The Divine Nativity of Christ, which is from the Father, is falsely named, and His incarnation, which is for our salvation, is mocked, saying, that God the Father Almighty has no Son, nor the Holy Spirit. They are of one essence and co-throned with Themselves, and as there is no Holy Trinity, but the books say that God the Father Almighty has the Word and the Spirit, that is, the word is spoken, and the Spirit is poured out in the air. And his Scriptures shall call Christ the Son of God, he is not yet born, but when he is born, then shall he be called the Son of God, not in essence, but by grace, as Moses and David and the rest of the prophets, and Him is spoken by the Christians of Christ God, he is a simple man, and not God, and was crucified by the Jews and decayed in the tomb, for this reason, he said, it is now fitting to keep the law of Moses. And again, behold, God cannot save Adam from hell and those who are with him, and when the heavenly powers and the prophets and the righteous do not have it, it is not fitting to fulfill their will: but he himself descends, as a non-possessor, and seeks, and becomes man, and suffers, and himself outwitted the devil, it is not fitting for God to do so" (34). On the basis of such a strange teaching, they denied the monastic way of life, accusing the monks of an arbitrary way of life, alien to biblical men, and depriving monasticism of its beauty and glory of the Divine institution. Despite such a negative attitude towards divine dogmas, they occupied hierarchical posts, apparently in the form of desecration of the Orthodox. The priests who held this heresy clearly mocked the sanctity of Christ's teaching: "Drinking and overeating, and on the great holy and all the holy fasts, and on Wednesdays and Fridays, eating meat and defiling with fornication, and entering the divine churches and celebrating the holy liturgy" (36). Metropolitan Zosima was not only a blasphemer, but it seems that he did not even recognize the dogmatics of the Novgorod heretics. Like them, he blasphemed Christ God and the Most Holy Mother of God, was defiled by carnal sins and blasphemy, but in addition he added: "And what is the kingdom of heaven, and what is the second coming, and what is the resurrection of the dead? Nothing of the kind, a man died, and then a hundred" (44). Sexual promiscuity, which constitutes the essence of their life and is only covered up by false biblical teaching, has reached the extreme limits of a pathological phenomenon. Not to mention the unnatural mixtures, they defiled the chaste in a very special way with some kind of pleasure incomprehensible to a healthy person: "I bring the harlot to their temples," writes St. Joseph about the Novgorod archimandrite Kassian and his like-minded people, "and I defiled with them with fornication and washed with them in a tub, and I took this filthy water and poured it into wine and honey, and sent that wine and honey to the saints and priests, and to the sick, and to the guests, and to all Orthodox Christians" (520). Prep. Joseph is not at all exaggerating when he asserts that "they do not eat anything like this." It is unlikely that such phenomena can be tolerably substantiated on the writings accepted by the Jews, and the Judaizers, as St. Joseph, only for the sake of appearance, they referred to the Divine Scriptures. Such an outrageous and deeply shameful teaching, if it can be called a teaching, caused the appearance of the first theological system in Russia. If Sts. the Fathers first of all condemned the heretics for the rebellious disruption of church unity, the Russian heretics armed St. Joseph against them mainly with their unheard-of blasphemy and abominable depravity. Prep. Joseph, however, crossed the boundaries of literary polemics and demanded government repressions. But it should be noted that the heresy of the Judaizers in its essence belongs to the number of crimes punishable by the most humane legislation, and appeals to the supreme secular power are quite understandable given the ecclesiastical nature of the state itself.

The heresy of Theodosius Kosoy found a zealous accuser in the person of the blessed monk Zinovii of Otens. Since the heresy of Kosoy caused less movement in comparison with the indignation of the Judaizers, its denunciation was carried out in a more restrained tone. The content of the heresy in general strongly resembles the ravings of the Judaizers; the same mixture of various concepts, united by the power of round ignorance and depravity. Blessed Zenobius also had to expound the entire essence of Christ's teaching, and besides this, to discuss the non-originality of the world, the significance of various passages of the works of the Holy Fathers, the oath of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and many other questions, which alone can be spoken of in view of the existing false teaching, for for the Orthodox children of the Church they either do not represent the slightest doubt (as the non-originality of the world). or they belong to the sphere of church discipline (like the question of the Seventh Council, which is far from being a matter of primary necessity, since it is a matter for the whole Church).

And the essential dogmas handed down to us by the Universal Church are considered, as far as possible, in relation to the understanding of Russian society of this epoch. In the latter respect, the system of bliss. Zinovy differs from the work of St. Joseph; the most educated and intelligent man of his age, St. Joseph transferred to Russian soil all the depth and power of patristic Eastern theology; in spite of the quite local and even temporary purpose of his work as a denunciation of the heresy of the Judaizers, he, as a first-class talent, was able to forget all conventionality in the exposition of dogmas, as it were, and gave the Russian Church a creation of unique brilliance and power.

If we turn to the third theologian of the epoch we are considering, to the teacher of Blessed Theodore. In addition to a few contemplative and didactic words, we will see that all his works were written on various issues that were very important for the Russian Church at that time. The Universal Church has given us, in the person of the ever-memorable monk Maximus, a great fighter against the West, which invariably strives to infect us with its impiety, and against its own superstitions, which stemmed (and stemmed, let us add) from a separate existence in the ecclesiastical sense, from a constant inclination to be content with one form, and from the beginnings of empty and stupid national pride. The number of works of a dogmatic nature in Bl. Maximus is not much; as such, one can only point to the "Confession of the Orthodox Faith," caused by the ignorant suspicion of the Russian church government, and to the "Homily for the Nativity of Jesus." In the rest, he has to affirm various dogmas of universal piety, either against the Russian heresies (Judaizers), or against the impiety of Hagar, which is tempting for Christians, or against the charms of Latin exhortations to imaginary unity, or against the inclination of Russians to various superstitions. Denouncing the Jews and followers of Mohammed, Bl. Maximus condemns the West for the distortion of the symbol, for the use of unleavened bread at the Eucharist, contrary to the Churches of the East, which seems to him to be a revival of the superstitious teaching of Apollinaris of Laodicea, and especially for its predilection for rationalism, in contrast to which the Vatopedi monk affirms the beginning of spiritual contemplation, the inner life and spiritual feats. Against Russian superstition, inclined to determine and change one's fate by means of sorcery and fortune-telling, Maximus the Greek tried to present a true view of the life of man, dependent on the action of free will and Divine Providence. In addition to this, Bl. Maximus wrote on exegetical, ascetic, and canonical questions. History testifies that none of the Russian theologians of the sixteenth century had such a strong influence on society as Blazh. Maxim; it is true that he did not leave a theological system, but he rendered a service to the Russian Church, which now seems to have been completely forgotten. He was perhaps the first to note the peculiarity of the heretical creations of the Latins and warned Russian theology against them. This circumstance alone compels us to rank him among the pillars of our theology. The secret of his strong influence lies in his charming personality, which can be seen everywhere in the creations of even the most abstract nature... Here again we encounter the same phenomenon: not a system, as an external arrangement of parts, sometimes accidental, sometimes caused by some conventional circumstances, but an inner strength, a spirit of pure contemplation, a feeling filled with fiery zeal for the Church, ardent love for people and pity for the fallen – this is what constitutes the peculiarity of patristic theology, its eternal unchanging beauty and indestructible power.

Like the great fathers of the Universal Church, the Russian saints. The Fathers and Teachers saw the peculiarity of Orthodox theology not in conventional pettiness, not in narrow literalism and endless terminology, but in the integrity and general fidelity of the Church's understanding. Arming himself against the rationalism of the Judaizers, who, turning to the Scriptures, saw in it one letter, St. Joseph says: "Let us move with the fear of God, and let us be abolished with humility in the Divine Scriptures, as the divine John Chrysostom says, if we see the head of the Scriptures as it lies, and in due time they will come, and not without time, and they will not agree with us, but they will agree with us" (Verse 5). The seeming contradictions of the Divine Scriptures, such powerful weapons against the truth, as they seemed to the Judaizers, stem from the inability of sinful and carnal people to understand the words of higher spiritual knowledge; The decisive vote in controversial questions of this kind should be considered the unanimous opinion of Sts. as highly spiritual exponents of Christ's truth. "For the great Maximus says," we read in the same 5th homily, "that every Divine Scripture, both old and new, has permission not to have permission for itself, unless the Holy Fathers, filled with the Divine Spirit, as it is absurd, they will say so, as they write, for they see many in the Scriptures, as they resist one another, and sometimes they say this, but otherwise. And this happens from our lack of reasoning, or from offense, or from contempt: but the words of holy men do not change, but we, who are fleshly, cannot be spiritually wise, as one of the saints spoke, as if we were carnal philosophists, not according to the will of the Holy Spirit. The Divine Scriptures understand the Spirit, but according to the will of the flesh." And how were the searches for the meaning of the Holy Scriptures carried out? Scriptures, we have seen above. Here, too, importance is attached not to the mechanical cohesion of individual patristic thoughts, but to the inner fulfillment of the higher knowledge by the spirit: "Whosoever desires to gain understanding in the Scriptures, sets up his understanding to no one, as good, but this one is evil, who keeps the words unshaken, and by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit he acquires the hidden mysteries, testified to from the Divine Scriptures" (Verse 5). Possessing the fullness of spiritual knowledge, they considered the truth to be the property of an ascetic, contemplative life, and they were very reluctant to reason in the language of human concepts about those questions that can be clarified only by the grace of the Holy Spirit. They are understandable only to reverent and pious people. First of all, as we have seen above, they called for the correction of life, and with extraordinary power and perseverance pointed out to the knowledge of the truth the contemplative path, devoid of useless curiosity and superfluous subtleties. Those who live in ordinary conditions and those who are poorly adapted to the highest asceticisms are persuaded to be content with the general confession of the Church, which fully determines salvation: "Let the superfluous in the Church of God be silent, let the faithful be glorified, let not the silent be tried. If we begin to experience the untested, the imams and we will perish," i.e. useless reasoning about the higher manifestations of the Divine world leads to disastrous divisions.

VI. Ancient Russian Theology and Monasticism