Протестантизм в XIX веке

Religious results of the century. The outstanding role of Protestantism as an advanced, progressive religion of the enlightened West. The deep influence of Protestant theological science on our theological literature. Reflection of Protestant influences in Russian science and life. The need for a serious fight against them. A thorough, comprehensive acquaintance with Protestantism, as a counterbalance to a superficial enthusiasm for it. Historical outline of Protestantism over the last century, as the best means to achieve the intended goal. When the great Tsar-Transformer brought Russia out of its centuries-old, home-grown stagnation and set it on the path of reform, from the very beginning he made it culturally dependent on the West. Since then, the Western world, as a representative of higher culture, began to serve as an example and model for Russia; and imitation of him - at first forced and involuntary, and then willing and voluntary - became the ideal of life and activity of advanced Russian people. This historical movement towards the West, as the center of culture and progress, cannot but be recognized as having an important, educational significance, since we owe our modern successes in all areas of science and life almost exclusively to it. But for all the tangible positive influence, this slavish imitation of the West undoubtedly had its downside. Like any extreme hobby, it often suffered from a disregard for history and a lack of criticism. Not knowing the historical conditions on the basis of which certain cultural and everyday features or scientific traditions of Western Europe grew and took shape, Russian Westerners sometimes transplanted onto their native soil something that was alien to it and therefore could not take root, but only produced a violent break in their historically established way of life. On the other hand, in reverence for everything that the West lives and thinks, these enthusiastic admirers of it, along with the wheat, collected tares, along with the seeds of true enlightenment, they also picked up various cultural waste. Such imitation of the West in the sphere of religious relations was especially dangerous and harmful. Here, every weak attempt to transplant heterodox beliefs and views onto Russian soil is, in essence, a betrayal of the purity of Orthodoxy. Yet in the 19th century, more than in any other, we were far from perfect in this regard. Following in the footsteps of Western Europe, at the beginning we sympathetically greeted French religious freethinking: then, after the end of the Napoleonic wars, continuing along the same path, we patronized the Jesuits and various mystics and sectarians. But perhaps most of all, for almost three quarters of a century, we were fascinated by Protestantism. Indeed, of all the religious confessions of the heterodox West, Protestantism - the advanced, progressive religion of the enlightened West - involuntarily produces a special charm both from its internal, ideological side - as a religion of spirit and freedom, and from its external - practical side, as an apparently excellent organization of church government and the best implementation of the charitable and educational tasks of the Church. Being by its very historical basis a denial of the spiritual slavery that was created and strongly supported by Roman Catholicism, Protestantism freed the religious conscience from external oppression and proclaimed the freedom of spiritual life. And it is known that nothing fascinates and attracts people as much as freedom - this Archimedes lever of all life-creative activity and cultural progress. “And indeed, as soon as Protestantism proclaimed the freedom of spiritual life, the human spirit seemed to awaken from an age-old sleep, threw off the chains of scholasticism and mental life began to boil” 46. Scientific thought, mainly scientific and theological, after a miserable stagnation in captivity of scholastic formulas, since the Reformation has declared itself to be intensified activity and was accompanied by results that are amazing in the richness and completeness of the material, the originality and depth of its development. But along with this healthy, vital principle, German Protestantism also contained another, harmful, grain of that rationalism, which, gradually developing, in a natural historical way brought Protestantism to internal decay, to the loss of any indisputable positive content, almost to the complete denial of religion in general. This phenomenon is quite natural. Protestantism proclaimed freedom of spirit; but freedom presupposes certain norms and laws, not regulated by which it necessarily, in the end, turns into licentiousness and arbitrariness. This is exactly what happened with Protestantism - it rejected all external authorities, i.e. all norms and laws that could restrain freedom within proper boundaries, and the only criterion of truth was proclaimed by human reason, that is, personal opinion, from where the transition to the personal arbitrariness of everyone is completely invisible. From this it is quite clear that all Protestant theological literature is imbued with rationalism. “This fatal flaw of Protestantism was recognized by the first figures of the Reformation, and at the same time various formulas of confession were developed, which were supposed to serve as the norm and criterion of theological thought. But once the scope of individual thought was proclaimed, such formulas were only pitiful, paper dams, and of course they could not stop the stormy flow of unbridled thought” 47. With both of these sides, that is, both positive and negative, Protestantism had a strong influence on the development of our theological science in the 19th century. It is no secret to anyone that the overwhelming majority of the scientific works of our theologians owe their appearance to the influence of Protestant German literature, which either gave rich new content to church-religious science, or posed new tasks and aroused theological thought to living work with its critical views. Particularly much has been done by Protestant theologians in the field of church history, philology, historical criticism and exegesis: so our famous church historian had every right to say that “whoever does not know modern German church-historical science does not know this science at all” 48 . According to another authoritative researcher, “German theology in its influence on our science goes beyond the limits of our theological science, in the sphere of which not a single work that claims to be scholarly can do without the aid of German literature; it also penetrates into social thought. It is known that the enemies of religion propagate German books of a negative direction; Feuerbach, Strauss, Buchner were translated into Russian (of course by a secret edition), Schopenhauer and Hartmann were translated almost entirely (by an open edition) and read by the entire educated class; and the name of the new Tübingen, negative school of Baur is quoted in every book or treatise devoted to exethetical questions” 49. The novelty and richness of ideas, the boldness of flights of fancy, the enchanting clarity and strength of arguments with external signs of scientific erudition - these are the properties of Protestant, mainly critical, theological literature that produce such a hypnotizing effect on the minds, especially on people who falsely understand the freedom of research and have superficially mastered religious teaching. Thus, Protestant theological literature had a more negative than positive influence on Russian society, especially if we mean the so-called “large public.” The impact of Protestantism on Russian life in the 19th century was not limited to just one abstract, theoretical area: no, it was much broader, and had a deeper impact on the church-social and moral-practical side of Russian life. Indeed, in both respects, German Protestantism apparently offers a lot of instructiveness. The organization of church government of the Evangelical Church, as it is established, for example, in Prussia, represents such a harmonious combination of central power (the Supreme Church Council) with local, regional representation (parish councils and provincial synods) and the synodal structure of the church with the monarchical principle of state power that here, apparently, nothing better remains to be desired. Hence, for many it is a tempting ideal of church structure. Even more charming is the social, charitable and Christian educational activities of Protestantism, which constitute its best decoration. Here, in the fight against ignorance and darkness, against the ailments and disasters of suffering humanity, the free, sublimely humanitarian spirit of Protestantism manifested itself in all its greatness and strength. The active organization of external and internal missions to combat paganism and other faiths, a whole network of social, charitable and educational institutions, hospitals, almshouses, workhouses, schools, etc., which usually covers Protestant states - these are the wonderful and admirable fruits of such high, truly Christian activity... Finally, the personal religious and moral disposition of Protestants, which often has a corresponding expression in their lives, is also quite attractive. The serious, meaningful faith of Protestants, alien to superstitions and prejudices, their often high religious animation, their majestic in their simplicity of worship, their strict observance of the rest of Sunday, their honesty, truthfulness and courtesy in mutual relations, finally, their moderation and restraint in private life - all these are features that cannot but attract one, and especially have a strong effect on the good and from childhood the pious heart of the Russian. Thus, both the theoretical and the practical side of Protestantism had an undeniable and quite strong influence on Russian life, with the main difference that the theoretical, scientific side of Protestantism has more influence on the higher, educated classes, attracting them with the breadth and boldness of its free hypotheses, and sometimes with the destructive power of its arguments; the external, practical side of Protestantism has a stronger effect on the lower strata of society, who come into direct living communication with Protestantism and become infected by its example, as we see in our south, covered with a network of Protestant colonies. We see reflections of both the positive and negative nature of these influences everywhere – both in science and in life: for example, it is enough to point out at least the widespread dissemination of the mystical-rational ideas of L. Tolstoy and the rapid development of Stundism, which is a reflection of Protestant pietism. We do not need to dwell on the danger of such infection by Protestantism. Suffice it to say that even a passion for what is good and positive in Protestantism cannot be considered particularly desirable, since the latter, in most cases, has an unhealthy religious lining and requires such critical caution, which is generally difficult and sometimes completely impossible. Finally, there is always a danger that passion for anything in Protestantism, due to the organic integrity of its component parts, can consistently lead to infection with the harmful, negative sides of Protestantism, with which it is incomparably richer than the first. In view of the serious danger posed by the influence of Protestantism on Russian science and life, an energetic struggle against it is necessary, which would remove the outer attractive veil from Protestantism and reveal its internal ugliness in all its nakedness. The best way to achieve this goal would be to reproduce the main moments of the external history of Protestantism over the last century and the main phases of its internal development during this time, which would show, not with unfounded statements, but with the very facts of history, what Protestantism of the 19th century came to through the consistent development of its basic principles. Neander, famous church historian External history of Protestantism in the 19th century. Mental ferment caused by the French Revolution. Vulgar rationalism. German idealistic philosophy. Materialistic direction of science. Pietism and sectarianism. A sad picture of the complete internal fragmentation of Protestantism and the struggle of various trends and parties. Unionist movement. Brief history of the union Reactionary current. Attempts to internally unite Protestants on moral grounds. - "Gustav Adolf's Verein." "Evangelical Union". Protestant Union. Internal mission and "External mission". Lack of internal ideological unity in Protestantism. Further development of the process of decomposition in Protestantism and its probable outcome. The two largest events of all new European history, the German Reformation of the 16th century and the French Revolution of the late 18th century, stand in undeniable historical connection and close interaction. The religious revolution in Germany prepared the ground for the special political revolution in France. The principle of personal freedom and independence from all authorities, proclaimed by the Reformation, became the vital nerve of Protestant German philosophy, where it was developed to the most extreme conclusions. The ideas of Protestant philosophy, due to special historical conditions, found a hospitable shelter in England, which becomes the soil where the seeds of modern rationalism grow and ripen, and from where they are subsequently transferred to the soil of other states. These ideas met with a particularly warm welcome at the end of the 18th century. in France at the school of free thinkers-encyclopedists - the main forerunners of the great French Revolution. French literature of the 19th century was a complete echo of English. The followers of Voltaire's school and encyclopedists follow the same path as the English free-thinking philosophers (deists): only they do not stop, like the latter, halfway, but go through it to the end. The goal that both of them strived for was the same, this is unconditional freedom of thought and conscience: freedom in religion, freedom in politics, freedom in private life. But in the means and methods of its implementation, the French encyclopedists were much more decisive and persistent, more thoughtless and unscrupulous than the English deists. This probably explains the fact that French encyclopedism, being an indirect (through England) product of Protestant rationalism, finally eclipsed the latter and even influenced it in terms of further development. “The negative trend of French philosophy of the 18th century quickly and loudly echoed in Germany, which was strongly susceptible to the political and moral influence of France. In it appeared the most daring propagandists of French skepticism and materialism from persons who enjoyed the special attention and patronage of the King of Prussia, weight and importance in the upper strata of society and who had a wide circle for revealing their activities (La Metrie, d'Argent, etc.) 50 · Thanks to this, materialism began to quickly and widely spread in Germany, embracing in its networks, mainly, people close to the court and belonging to the upper class, in including many scientists and writers, penetrating even among pastors and preachers of the Protestant faith 51 . But crude, vulgar rationalism with its logical conclusion in the form of materialism did not harmonize with the spirit of the German people, and diverged from the prevailing idealistic direction of minds there, and therefore soon met strong opposition there in the person of German idealistic philosophy, the main representatives of which were Kant, Hegel, Fichte and Schelling. Postponing a more detailed acquaintance with the worldview of these philosophers until the next chapter, we will only say that idealistic philosophy in relation to religion preached the same rationalism, only in a more refined form: having set out to reconcile faith with knowledge, it decided to destroy every barrier. separating the realm of faith from the realm of knowledge and merging the former with the latter. Thanks to this, faith had to lose its true character, lose its soul and retain only the shadow of its existence. Consequently, in the end, philosophical idealism led to the same thing that open, vulgar rationalism led to, i.e. to the exclusion of everything supernatural from the realm of faith, to distortion and weakening, and almost complete denial of natural faith itself. Under the techniques of this spiritualistic rationalism, Christianity emerged without Christ. The gospel is without sacraments, revelation is without miracles, religion is without reverence for God and without the true God.” This rationalistic trend, produced by the latest idealism, was especially strong in Germany and acted there on the widest scale, thanks to its complete correspondence with the basic spirit of Protestantism and the outstanding popularity of its creators. On the basis of this philosophy, various rationalist sects arise in Protestantism, such as. Socinians and anti-Trinitarians, followers of Hugo Grotius and Arminians, etc., who made the banner of their separation the denial of one or another of the basic dogmas of Christianity, especially for example. dogma of the Trinity. Such strong successes of religious rationalism aroused in many pious Protestants a sincere desire to support the interests of faith and, if possible, to expel the revolutionary spirit from society. But such a mood of minds and hearts from one extreme led to another, namely, contributed to the strengthening of mysticism and, most immediately, caused a revival of pietism. Under this name, a special direction of Protestantism is known, which appeared in the 17th century, led by Spener, which focused all its attention on the external, practical side of Christianity, striving to actively implement the principles of true Christianity. But the revived pietism, which neglected the theoretical side of Christianity, which was in danger from rationalism, not only did not save Protestantism from the corruption that was corroding it, but strengthened it even more, contributing to the formation of new sects that became more or less hostile to the original Protestantism, such as, for example. Methodists and, in particular, Swedenborgians. Thus, this good attempt to maintain faith ended in failure. In view of all this, the situation of Protestantism at the end of the 18th century and at the beginning of the 19th century presented a rather sad picture of discord and struggle among various parties and trends. The Protestant religion faced a double danger: either, under the dominance of rationalism, to turn into one of the philosophical schools and be subject to their usual fate, or, under the influence of mysticism, to become the property of various small sects, with the loss of a more or less significant part of their distinctive features. Fortunately, extraordinary events in the social and political life of Europe that marked the beginning of the 19th century helped Protestantism avoid such a fate. The great wars of this era, especially the so-called “Holy War” of liberation from Napoleonic oppression (1815–1813), produced a beneficial revolution in the religious life of Germany. In these times of deep humiliation, heavy yoke and constant danger, many, not seeing help or salvation in anything on earth, raised their gaze to heaven, and - previously alien to faith - sought and found consolation in it alone” 52. Such arousal of religious feeling caused a reaction to the spirit of denial and opposition to church division: the first was produced by Protestant theology, the second by society itself, led by secular power. 2. The first and most important in a series of unification attempts of fragmented Protestantism was the attempt of the church-state unification of Protestants, undertaken by the Prussian government and known in history as the “Evangelical Union”. The external reason that gave impetus to this unionist movement of the Nineteenth century was the upcoming three-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation (1517–1817). Since the division of Protestants into Lutherans and Reformed with many private sects and trends, which were in constant internecine struggle, led to a complete weakening of Protestantism and served as a clear reproach to the very cause of reform, the best way to commemorate A great historical anniversary, the Prussian government rightly considered an attempt to unite fragmented Protestantism and thereby remove from it the stain of internal split. And so, on September 27, 1817, the Prussian king Frederick William III, by a special decree, prohibited the use of the very words “Lutheran” and “Reformed” church in official papers, ordering that they be replaced with one common name for them, the “Evangelical” church. The king’s appeal contains the idea of ​​an internal merger of the divided Protestant churches into one whole: “may the two divided Protestant churches turn into one Evangelical Christian, in which the union of the two would form one newly revived Evangelical Christian Church in the spirit of its divine Founder”... “The meaning of this unionist movement is clear. To unite two Protestant confessions, one of which is a further development of the other, means to arrest the elastic power of Protestantism at the very beginning and foundations, to destroy in the very bud those questions that inevitably lead to rationalism, to unite the common forces of the Protestant world for a new structure of church life. That is why, in connection with the union and at the same time with it, another thought appeared - about the need for the church structure of Protestant communities in the ancient spirit, about the development of liturgical forms to replace abstract Protestant forms, etc. " 53. In the history of the union itself, three main periods are distinguished: the first extended until 1834, the second until 1848 and the third from this last to the present day. The first period of the union is characterized by the desire for a decisive internal unification of Lutheranism with Reformation until they are completely merged into one religion. However, there were local differences in this regard as well. Thus, in the Palatinate, Nassau, Baden and some other places, the Bible was recognized as the sole authority of the Evangelical Church, and therefore the private symbols of each of the united societies lost their former meaning. On the contrary, these symbols retained their former power in Prussia, where the union imposed on them only the condition that members of the Lutheran and Reformed symbols, in which there are differences, no longer lead to church division in life itself. The union of the first kind was called negative (negative Oder absorptive, otherwise Lehrunion), the second type - positive (positive, Lobensunion). The initial period of the union is characterized by the dominance of the first union, on the side of which stood the Prussian government, headed by the culprit of the union, Wilhelm III. Concerned about the merger of all Protestants into a single “Evangelical Church,” it, first of all, set out to create uniformity in the liturgical ritual and introduce the unity of church governance. Therefore, soon after the establishment of the “evangelical” church, a special missal was published for it (1821 - Kirchenagendae); Almost simultaneously with this, the external organization of the church began, for which a special commission was established, which came to the conciliar type of organization. According to her project, a “presbyterium” should be established in each parish community, which would include a priest, the patron of the community and a certain number of elected members. Once a year all the parish clergy should form a congress or council under the chairmanship of the superintendent. The latter also form a council once a year under the chairmanship of the superintendent general, who is at the same time the head of the provincial church-governmental institution - the consistory. The main government power was to belong to the Supreme Consistory or the Minister, and the direction of the entire course of affairs and the supreme supervision of everything was placed in the hands of the king himself. But this project was not implemented, mainly because the culprit of the union, Frederick William III, showed excessive jealousy and began to introduce the union with arms in hand, which pushed many away from it. Since, in fact, doctrine and life are connected much more closely than the Prussian government assumed, the project of Frederick III, which essentially destroyed both main Protestant churches and created a third - a new one in their place, encountered insurmountable obstacles from the clergy and the masses during its practical implementation. These resistances irritated the king and he began to introduce the union with an armed hand, which further increased his dislike for it. This continued throughout the entire first period of the union, that is, until the end of the reign of Frederick William III. In 1834, the second period in the history of the union began. From that time on, control of the Prussian state actually passed into the hands of the son of Frederick William III, Frederick William IV, who adhered to different principles in church politics, wanting, as he put it, “to put the church on its own feet.” Therefore, from the very beginning of his reign, he took away the coercive nature of the union - he stopped the persecution of the Old Lutherans, returned to them the rights taken from them, etc. On February 28, 1834, the new king issued a special decree in which the main task of the union was “spreading the spirit of tolerance and maintaining external church communication,” i.e., it acquired a greater practical-life character. Only after this did Frederick William IV begin the work of external organization of the Evangelical Church, begun but not completed in the previous reign. Wanting to lay aside the burden of the higher episcopate, he settled on a project for a church structure that would partly resemble the structure of the Apostolic Church, with the division of the entire country into churches or communities, with the establishment of a presbytery, diaconate and parish assembly in each community. Several such communities or churches were to form an ecclesiastical district, governed not by a superintendent, but by a “bishop,” deriving his powers from the whole church. But the project of such an autonomous structure of the church was met with unsympathy by Protestants, due to their age-old habit of government supervision in matters of church administration and hostility to the solid and independent structure of the church, rooted in the very spirit of the Reformation, which in principle denied the visible church. William IV, seeing the general lack of sympathy for his project, did not insist on its implementation and subsequently limited himself to only some changes and corrections in the existing system - for example, the reorganization of the Ministry of Confessions, the expansion of the competence of consistories and the establishment of the Supreme Church Council. – The second period in the history of the Protestant Union is thus characterized by the predominance of a new, broader and freer view of the union, together with the intensified struggle between both of these views, which led to the final rupture of the eastern and western provinces of Prussia. The beginning of the third period was the most troubled time in the history of the union: after the major political and social upheavals of 1848, the Prussian government at one time had the intention of completely destroying the union, especially since the reaction against it intensified among the masses. But soon circumstances changed and on July 12, 1853, a decree was issued that was completely favorable to the union, since it elevated the power of the clergy and strengthened the importance of church-evangelical worship. From that time on, the cause of the Prussian union stood on more solid ground and continued to develop more or less successfully. Thus, by decrees of 1855 and 1857. “meetings of Evangelical Christians in Germany and other countries” were established, at which not only Lutherans participated, but also Reformed people from all Protestant countries, and even freethinkers: from that time on, the cause of the union was finally strengthened. According to the famous German historian Nippold, the preservation and spread of the union constitutes the hereditary tradition of the Hohenzollerns, the modern reigning dynasty of Prussia. It is known, for example, that Wilhelm 1, a famous figure in the German political unification, advocated no less energetically for church union: “Hitherto,” he said, “unaccommodating orthodoxy in every possible way hindered the beneficial development of the evangelical union; but my decisive will is to inviolably maintain the union and promote its spread” 54. From that time on, even if the government sometimes issued favorable decrees in favor of the Lutherans, it acted more generally in the spirit of toleration and, in particular, pursued the interests of the same union, wanting to soften the religious antagonism between confessions and thereby prepare the ground for the union. But while yielding to the religious separatists in some cases, in other circumstances the Prussian government made them feel its heavy hand. So, for example, when the Hanoverian Lutherans, in their opposition to the North German Evangelical Union, moved from words to deeds and intervened in politics, the Prussian government at the head of this union banned their official organ, the Hanoversche Landes-Zeitung, and placed all dissidents under strict police supervision. Seeing such energetic assistance from the government to the cause of union, many of its former opponents, led by the most influential of them, the New Lutheran party, changed tactics and went over to the side of the champions of union, understanding the latter in a broader and freer sense of the word. Thus, regarding the note of the Berlin council legitimizing the union, Gengstenberg, the head of the New Lutheran party and previously an ardent opponent of the union, appears in his organ (“Evangel. Kircheu-Zeituiig”) with a number of extensive articles in which he approves of the union, since it is carried out without constraint or restriction of religious characteristics. “To justify the legitimate aspirations of the evangelical union,” he wrote at the conclusion of his articles, “we will cite those decrees of the fifties that define the nature of the union, namely, from October 31, 1850, June 10 and October 27, 1851 and March 6, 1852. These decrees definitely state that the union does not lead to a transition from one religion to another, much less to the formation of a new confession; the government of the evangelical church must protect the independence of the Lutheran and Reformed confessions. The Supreme Church Council must govern the Evangelical Church as a whole, representing in itself the competent authority of individual confessions. Therefore, he must protect all institutions based on this right 55. From this it is clear that Gengstenberg, leaning in favor of the union, at the same time defends the independence of the Protestant faiths, and looks at the union as a kind of theological compromise, or even better - a church-political agreement. A view on the union opposite to this was expressed by Schenkel, a well-known political-church agitator and the main apologist of the strictly unionist movement. Regarding the note of the Berlin council, he also published a special brochure entitled: “on the current situation of the Protestant Church in Prussia and Germany.” In his opinion, a necessary condition of the Protestant union should be that all its members renounce their dogmatic and traditional inheritance, contained in their symbolic books. “To insist on the communion of two faiths (Lutheran and Reformed) while preserving their confessional characteristics would mean remaining in the sphere of outdated dogmatics, resorting to the weak means of theology” 56. Such a radical view of the union, as less feasible in practice, did not correspond to the views of the government and was less encouraged by it. The latter's main organ on the issue of union became the newspaper of the New Evangelicals, which zealously advertised the cause of union in the spirit of opportunism. Thanks to all these circumstances, i.e. on the one hand, the patronage of the Prussian secular power, and on the other, literary sentiments and opinions, the union has occupied a dominant position in Germany since the middle of the 19th century and finds zealous supporters not only among the Prussian evangelicals, but also among the Lutherans and Reformed people of other German provinces. The Berlin Supreme Council, leading the cause of union, decided to stick to the golden mean in order to attract free-thinking Protestants and at the same time not reject strict evangelicals. Following the spirit of the times, he makes certain changes, additions and innovations in the matter of church administration, constantly considering everything with the needs of life and local conditions. As for the very organization of the Evangelical Church in Prussia, it owes its origin mainly to the same “Supreme Council of the Evangelical Church” established in Berlin in 1850. This council itself consists of ten members - seven clergy and three laymen. One of his main affairs was the project of establishing synods - district, provincial and general, the purpose of which was to weaken the importance of the former central government institutions - consistories and superintendents and to make the Evangelical Church completely popular. This draft, despite the opposition of many pastors and consistories, was finally edited and distributed to the consistories in 1867. According to the first point of this project, the synodal structure of the church extends to the following provinces: Prussia proper, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Silesia, Poznan and Saxony. In its practical implementation, it met with significant opposition: it did not please either the radical adherents of the union, to whom it seemed too narrow, or the zealous orthodoxies, who found it too liberal. And only in 1875, the Prussian King Wilhelm I approved the statute of the “General Synod of the Evangelical Church,” which completed its new structure. “Two elements participate in the modern government of the Protestant Church: government – ​​in the form of the Evangelical Church Council, consistories, superintendents and the minister of confessions, and purely ecclesiastical – in the form of synodal government and council, with its highest form being the “general synod”, and the intermediate ones being provincial and district synods” 57. The general or general synod of the Evangelical Church, according to the code of 1875, consists of 120 members elected by provincial synods and 30 appointed by the government. It protects, together with the civil authorities, the Church and its unity, promotes the development of its institutions, unites representatives of science and public figures for joint activities in the interests of the Church, and promotes communication between the Prussian Church and other parts of the Evangelical Church. But the synod's legislative powers are more or less limited. True, he has the right to freely discuss issues put forward, for the most part, by district or regional synods, he can make certain decisions regarding them, and can make more general fundamental decisions affecting the entire church, but all these decisions and resolutions receive legislative force only under the condition of their approval by the government, which can not only change, but even reject them altogether. An ordinary general synod meets every six years, an extraordinary synod meets every time as needed, but the one I am different is certainly determined by the king, on whom the appointment of dates depends. It is not difficult to see that the basic principles of the church structure of the Evangelical Church of Prussia are imbued with a government-bureaucratic character. “The sovereign is the bearer of church power” is a principle that stands out decisively throughout the modern system (law of June 3, 1876). By virtue of this power, he issues church laws, convenes and opens general synods. They are necessarily attended by a government commissioner, who has the right to make inquiries and demand explanations at any time. A certain number of members in the general and provincial synods, all members of church-governmental institutions - the highest church council and consistories and, finally, all superintendents are appointed by the sovereign and are considered government officials (Staatsbehorden). No ecclesiastical law can be passed if the government objects to it. Finally, the minister of confessions, therefore an official of the state, has the right to fill a certain number of church and government positions at his own discretion” 58. This is the current situation of the notorious “free church in a free state.” Obviously, it is quite far, to say the least, from the ideal of the relationship between church and state. All these fundamental principles of the modern church structure of the Evangelical Church constitute a direct practical consequence of the history of the Protestant Union outlined above, from which the leading role that belongs to the government here is clearly revealed. In general, we can say that the church structure of Protestant Germany is an echo of its state life. The Evangelical Union itself is a reflection of the unification policy of the Prussian state power, which ended with the creation of a united Germany with its center in Berlin. Church consistories are the central government bodies of the church, this is an expression of the monarchical tendencies of the Prussian government; and general and regional synods are representative, popular government in the church, parallel to the constitutional principle in the state This, in the most general terms, is the external history of the Evangelical Union and the main foundations of the modern church structure of Protestant Germany. From all this it is clear that the “evangelical union” is not so much a matter of religion as of state unification policy. The church itself, from the point of view of this union, is interpreted not as a special religious institution, but as a public-state institution in charge of certain aspects of people's life, mainly the work of teaching and public charity. This, in essence, is not a church, in the usual sense of the word, but a religious-civil union pursuing well-known, mainly moral and practical goals. This is the positive significance of the evangelical union, since here it achieved more or less tangible results both in the sense of external church order and in the interests of Christian educational and charitable activities. As for the other, internal side of the union, that is, the actual dogmatic teaching of its theologians, a completely opposite phenomenon is observed here. Accordingly, the two main tasks of the Protestant union are to promote the unification of Lutherans with other Reformed people and to counteract the successes of rationalism and Rome. Catholicism, the central point of the theology of this school is the question of the Church. Due to the same practical goals, the immediate subjects of study are those points of doctrine in which Lutherans and Reformed people disagree with each other, namely: the doctrine of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, predestination and, depending on it, free will and justification itself. At the same time, they try, although not in the same way, to rise above the different, often completely opposite views on these issues among Lutherans and Reformed people, and to reconcile them, thinking in this way to present a complete “true Protestant” doctrine. The starting point in disputes between unionists and other parties, aimed at reconciling them, is the question of the meaning of Protestant symbolic works and the recognition of generally binding well-known symbols of the ancient Christian Church. The dispute over this point (Symbolfrage), which occupies the majority of Protestant parties, is indeed very important, since it stands in the most inextricable connection with one of the basic principles of all Protestantism - with the doctrine of Holy Scripture as the only source of faith (the formal principle of Protestantism). In resolving these issues, not only Lutherans and the Reformed, but also the advocates of the union themselves are far from agreeing with each other. While some of them call for the destruction of all confessional differences and for the recognition of St. The Scriptures are the exclusive source of doctrine, others allow, along with it, the existence of the apostolic symbol of the ancient Church and the obligatory authority of the symbolic writings of the initial period of the Reformation - the Augsburg Confession and its apology - others demand, finally, equal recognition with them of other reformist symbols. Hence, instead of the desired unification, the union led to even greater disunity, to endless disputes and mutual struggle between various parties and directions of Protestant theology. Even theologians of a rationalistic hue, apparently inclined to the broadest and most liberal views of the Church, are not particularly sympathetic to the unionist movement, as can be judged by the following review of one of them: “We cannot sympathize with the so-called “mediocre theology” and consider it more than incredible that victory in the real struggle of parties would remain with the adherents of the union. The last foundations of these theologians are unclear and untrue; the reconciliation that they put forward is not a real reconciliation of faith and modern consciousness; The gap between ancient Protestant and new theology, to which the representatives of this party themselves adhere, they cover up only artificially. They themselves do not strictly adhere to Protestantism, not only in those points in which the confessions disagree with each other, but also in its essential teachings. On the other hand, without the proper courage, with a divided conscience and in outdated forms, they follow the modern speculative direction. Finally, their theology, presenting constant denials, hesitations this way and that, half affirmations, attempts to reconcile the opposite, is so artificial that no one can have firm confidence in it, no one is able to find their own convictions in it” 59 . This harsh, but at the same time truthful review, gives a proper, completely objective assessment of Unionist theology, as it expressed itself in the so-called “conciliatory” or “mediational” direction. Thus, the main disadvantages of the Protestant union are the external, legal, police nature of the church structure in the field of practice, and the lack of internal stability, certainty and clarity of views in the field of dogma. 3. The above-mentioned negative properties of the “Evangelical Union,” as one might expect, caused a reaction against it, expressed in the so-called “anti-unionist” movement, which came from both interested parties, i.e., both Lutherans and Reformed, which were also joined by all free-thinking Protestants. The beginning of this opposition is almost contemporary with the very origin of the union. The first voice of protest was raised during the anniversary celebrations of the Reformation (1817) by the strict Lutheran Klaus-Garms, who, following the example of Luther, published 95 theses that resurrected the forgotten precepts of the father of the Reformation. From among them, as many as 25 theses, he assigns to the proposed Protestant union, where he mercilessly smashes it in strong and energetic terms. “Like a poor bride,” he says, for example, “they now want to enrich the Lutheran Church with marriage. For God's sake, don't do this on Luther's bones: they may come to life, and then woe to you."... (75th thesis) 60. Excited by such inspired speeches, the masses met Frederick William's first attempts to introduce a union with quite strong opposition, which required the government to take violent measures. According to the German church historian, during the reign of Frederick William III, “the Old Lutheran party was persecuted, their meetings were prohibited, their preachers, if they performed divine services and sacraments, were punished and expelled.” 61 However, adherents of this party courageously defended their views, although some of them (pastors) were forced to pay for this with removal from office and even imprisonment. Since 1827, the Lutheran party founded its own organ, the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, which continues to serve as the main organ of the reactionary party to this day. From then on, the strength of the reaction increased as the disposition of the Prussian government towards the union decreased: seeing in the spirit of its adherents an affinity not only with rationalism and indifferentism, but even with revolution - since through elective, synodal representation the importance of the central government bodies was weakened - the reactionaries pointed this out to the government with particular force and in this way sought its sympathy. But when, in the half of the past century, the social-constitutional principle triumphed over the monarchical principle, the unionist movement gained a decisive advantage over the trend opposite to it. Since then, the Lutheran party has found adherents mainly among the masses of the common people and among rural pastors. Of the German universities, only Erlangen is distinguished by the same oppositional trend: a reactionary journal 62 was founded here, in which the peculiarities of the dogma of the Lutherans and the Reformed are revealed with particular force, making it impossible for them to actually unite without abandoning their foundations. At the beginning they expressed a strong desire for the authority of symbolic works, and then for the authority of the church and church pastors. The latter was an inevitable consequence of the first, but on the other hand it directly contradicted the Protestant symbols themselves. Many therefore stopped at the first degree of reaction and parted ways with the more consistent representatives of the second: in this way a division arose among the reactionaries themselves into two parties - “Old Lutherans” and “New Lutherans” 63 . The main distinguishing feature of the latter party is the doctrine of church pastoral authority, which brings it significantly closer to the Roman Catholic. views on it; for which its adherents received the name “Catholics.” Subsequently, this party joined the union. However, both of these parties are usually united by the common name “reactionaries are also called “confessionals” and “orthodox.” Inconsistent in its positive content, the Lutheran party is, of course, strong in criticizing the “evangelical” union. Thus, in the editorial of Hoffmann's journal, criticizing the notes of the Berlin Supreme Council of 1867, we find, for example. the following review of the union: “This official attempt at an evangelical union to unite all Protestant denominations in one church organization is nothing more than an expression of modern Prussian policy. But such a desire for external unity without the internal connection of religious societies is contrary to Lutheran concepts of the church. The note, speaking ambiguously about the “Catholicism” of the evangelicals, involuntarily recalls Roman Catholicism, which so vividly realized in its history the idea of the church in the meaning of one external organization. But are we really going to return to what Luther freed us from?... In the further presentation of his article, the author strongly and convincingly criticizes the epithets of the “national” and “Evangelical church”, which he undeservedly ascribes to himself Prussian church. “Thus,” the author concludes, “no matter where we turn, no matter from what angle we look at this evangelical national church, everywhere we encounter injustice, lies, and contradictions of reality. Therefore, it would be completely legal and timely if all right-thinking Christians rejected it” 64. Soon this opposition to the union moved from words to deeds. In the same 1867, Saxon Lutherans filed a protest against the note of the Supreme Council, finding many of its particular points unfair and offensive to true Lutherans” 65. Even stronger opposition was expressed by the Hanoverian Lutherans, who submitted to the consistory an address against the union, signed by 700 pastors. A similar address was submitted by the Reformed clergy, signed by 140 persons. These addresses say that it is not individuals who are protesting, but parishes, so that the signature of each pastor expresses the voice of the entire community 66 . Moving on to newspaper columns, this fight against the union took the form of passionate polemics: “our enemies (i.e., unionists,” write Hanoverian Lutherans, “preach a completely different path to salvation than we do; they see justification for sins, for immorality, not in the reconciling sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but in the state interests of political necessity, in German unity and progress. We do not, and cannot have, any dealings with unionists. We would rather renounce our positions than make any concessions 67 ... To all these statements, the body of the Prussian Union responded with the statement that the party of the Old Lutherans - church renegades - was in no way inferior to the Ultramontanes in their fanaticism and hatred of the New Evangelicals 68. The anti-unionist movement we have considered, coming from the Lutherans and Reformed, has, as we have seen, a church-practical character. But besides this, there is another opposition to the union, coming from the school of free thinkers and having a scientific, theological and even philosophical character 69 . Its representatives advocate freedom in the matter of faith, care about the independence of religious beliefs, or, better said, about their greatest possible dependence on modern science. In essence, this is a renewed rationalism, transformed under the influence of Schleiermacher's pietism and Goetelian-Kantian philosophy. At first, this school sympathetically greeted the union, seeing in it a new and more liberal trend; but she soon parted ways with her, dissatisfied with the uncertainty and inconsistency of views among the adherents of the union. The center of gravity of this school lies in the development of Protestant church historical and theological science; and its main breeding ground is the University of Tübingen, from which it received its name. It forms the “left” side of the Protestants, if by “center” we mean the unionists, and by the “right” we mean the reactionaries 70 . Concluding the history of the Prussian Union together with the reaction it caused, we must admit that this official attempt at a state-religious unification of Protestants did not achieve its goal. Despite the fact that, thanks to the support of the government, the Unionist Church took a dominant position in Germany, it not only did not unite all Protestants, but gave the opposite result - it led them to the final division into three main parties. The reason for this lies in the duality of the basic principle of the union and in the bureaucratic nature of its church structure. The Union sought to restore positive Christianity and to a stable structure of the church - in contrast to the rationalists, and at the same time it declared itself against the importance of doctrinal differences and against the meaning of church authority, that is, it destroyed in theory what it created in practice; hence the instability, uncertainty and vacillation of views that so repels all radical people from it. In practice, this union was expressed in the creation of a government Evangelical Church, which represents not the Church, in the strict sense of the word, but a religious and political institution in charge of certain aspects of state and national life. This “Staatskirchie” with the bureaucratic character of the clergy and police discipline, without a doubt, could not have a beneficial religious and moral influence on society. The deadening principle of officiality, externally imposed forms, was introduced into the free sphere of religious life; in the church there was a lack of independent life beating from within, and cold indifferentism, the absence of free and living religious activity, and hence the instability of religious principles and an easy evasion from them in theory and in life. Clearly aware of this abnormal situation of the Protestant Church and deeply feeling all the harm that comes from it for social and religious life, the best people decided to unite among themselves in free ferein (unions) in order to, through friendly, joint efforts, raise and elevate the inner spirit of Protestantism and, if possible, implement its best behests. This is where a whole series of attempts at the moral unification of its followers arises in renewed Protestantism. 4. The Evangelical Union, as we have seen, did not achieve its goal; therefore, in view of the urgent need for unification living in Protestantism, other experiments of a similar kind were undertaken. Since the failure of the Protestant union depended mainly on its external, civil-political character, on the one hand, and on the fruitless dogmatic dispute about various doctrinal points, on the other, new attempts at unification, taught by this historical experience, focused all their attention precisely on these sick points of the state union, that is, on the internal life of the church and on the moral and social life of its members. Even the best representatives of the first union came to realize the great importance of all this, seeing the main importance of their party in its practical aspirations. “Before us,” says one of them, “new future practical goals are opening up: national unity on the basis of the evangelical confession, free and zealous charity in the midst of social disasters, mutual defense against common enemies, tireless common action (Zusammenwirkens) in solving great Christian-moral problems, which is becoming more and more urgent, education, state relations, associations, common concern for the poor, sick, deluded, in need of care" 71. This task was undertaken by various educational, charitable and missionary societies that emerged in Germany and other Protestant countries, which arose on the basis of the union, and in turn contributed to its success. Among these societies, one of the first places - both in time of origin and in degree of influence - is occupied by the Gustav-Adolphus Union. It was originally founded in Dresden and Leipzig in 1834 to support brothers in faith, but it gained fame only in 1841, thanks to the efforts of the court preacher Zimmermann. The statutes of this society were approved in Frankfurt in 1843. Soon after this, private “unions” of almost all cities in Germany joined him. Since 1851, special women's branches of this society have been opened. Ten years later - in 1861 - the Gustavus-Adolf alliance began to operate in Austria and Belgium. Now its branches are located in all Protestant countries 72. The main task of this society is the desire to unite all Protestants in a more successful fight against its enemies, that is, with rationalism and especially with the papacy. “The noblest task of our verein,” says its chief president, “is to kindle the light of the Gospel in the darkness of ultramontanism” 73 . He is not affiliated with any particular branch of Protestantism, but strives equally to attract everyone to Christian activity. Thus, according to Rogge’s statement made at the Prussian General Synod of 1890, the members of this society adhere to the Lutheran, Reformed, liberal, and positive way of thinking - only under the indispensable condition that they all proclaim the pure Gospel, the true word of God 74 . The Gustav-Adolf Union has the broadest unification program. Having very significant charitable sums at its disposal, and having many high-ranking and influential persons among its members, this society took upon itself the responsibility of satisfying the moral needs of the German evangelicals, given their cramped situation in various European countries and in other parts of the world. Evangelical communities in Holland. France, Italy, Serbia, Romania, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, South America, etc. receive assistance from this society, either in cash or by petitioning for them before foreign governments through Prussian ambassadors. Currently, the Gustavus Adolphus Society has very substantial funds and has widely expanded the scope of its activities. Thus, from the report on the activities of this society for the period 1891 - 1896, read by Rogge at the last general Protestant synod in 1897, it is clear that the number of subsidiary verein, formed with the help of the main one, reached 549, including 152 women. The total income, including related ferein in the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy and Romania, reached an impressive figure of almost 10 million. marks. The speaker further stated that the verein was concerned mainly with the construction of churches and houses of worship for evangelicals scattered throughout the world. During the reporting period, he built, for example, 90 such churches, 37 churches for pastors and 10 schools 75 . From this alone one can get an idea of ​​the enormous moral and unifying significance this society has for Protestants. We find official recognition of this in the “note of the Supreme Berlin Council” of 1867, which points to the “Evangelical Union of Gustavus Adolphus” as one of the most effective means of uniting evangelicals scattered everywhere 76 . Another, no less important, experience of uniting Protestants on moral grounds is the “Evangelische Alliance”. It arose almost simultaneously in two places in Scotland (1845) and England (1846) and set its initial task to fight the papacy; but soon expanded it in the sense that it took upon itself the protection of all, in general, fellow believers persecuted in Roman Catholic countries, as well as concern for maintaining the evangelical spirit unity in societies separated from the church - in the name of principles common to all Protestants. The unity of origin opens up the opportunity for the Evangelical Church to enter, under certain conditions, into a federal union not only with representatives of different faiths, but even with sectarians. The basis of this union should be “mutual support in evangelical principles and common religious and philanthropic activities.” This idea was met with general sympathy, first in England, and then on the continent, and the well-known “Evangelical Union” arose, with its main goal of establishing peaceful and friendly relations between various Protestant denominations and sects, and then caring for the poor, sick and generally all those in need of help - members of the Protestant community, regardless of their party. Even at its very foundation, the “Evangelical Union” was divided into seven branches: 1) Great Britain and Ireland, 2) the United States of America, 3) France. Belgium and French Switzerland, 4) Northern Germany, 5) Southern Germany and German Switzerland, 6) British possessions in North America, 7) West Indies. The dominant role at the general meetings of this union was played by the pietistic element, that is, reasoning and events relating to issues of moral and practical life and active piety 77 . The basic doctrinal principles, the confession of which is obligatory for every member of the Evangelical Union, are set out in nine points drawn up at a general meeting of its members in London in 1846 78 . According to the principle of this society, its members should no longer be concerned with polemics with heterodox people and not with the struggle with various church parties, but work in the spirit of peace, unity and divine love. “The Evangelical Union,” declares the chairman of the consistory in Berlin, Professor Goltz, “provides the most convincing proof of that beneficial communion of faith and love, which binds the different denominations within Evangelical Christianity with cordial, mutual ties and instills in various clashes a feeling of complete brotherly relationship” 79 . As for the practical implementation of the first and main task of the “Evangelical Union”, it, at least on the continent, does not seem to promise much success. “The supposed peaceful resolution of the issue of regulating and limiting sectarian propaganda did not move forward at all on the path to implementation. The continuing attacks of sectarianism on the old evangelical churches, the intensified activity of sectarian missionaries who unceremoniously invade the sphere belonging to the churches - all this makes friendly relations and community of action absolutely impossible. The Union was unable to guarantee the security of the Evangelical Church: the conditions set by the Protestant clergy are not accepted, or simply not respected by the sects” 80. The Evangelical Union has had comparatively more success in achieving its philanthropic goals; but this is a secondary role of this union, not directly related to the cause of the union. Both of the above societies, i.e. both the Gustavus Adolphus Verein and the “Evangelical Union”, one way or another, work in the interests of the “Evangelical Union” and contribute to its success. Standing aside from them and taking a different road is another, most powerful and influential unifying society, the so-called “Protestant Union”. Founded in 1863, chaired by the lawyer Bluntschli in Golderberg and the court preacher Schwarz in Gotha, and finally organized in Eisenach in 1865, it set as its goal "the renewal of the Protestant Church in the spirit of evangelical freedom and in accordance with the cultural development of our time" 81 . He denies all doctrinal formulas and symbolic books as human inventions that unnecessarily constrain piety and theological science, and demands that the “Evangelical Church” be “evangelical,” that is, that the only basis and object of its faith be the Person, work and teaching of Jesus Christ, as well as the implementation of this teaching in life. Trying to introduce the spirit of renewal into church life and bring it into line with the educational movement of modern education, the “Protestant Union” also advocates for the independence of the church structure and fights against state tutelage over the church, against its exploitation for political, reactionary purposes, against the seizure of Rome. Catholicism and hierarchical aspirations in the Evangelical Church, against the oppression and fetters imposed by faith on Protestant science, against the restriction of freedom of speech from the secular and ecclesiastical pulpits and all oppression of conscience. Thus, the program of the “Protestant Union” is the broadest and most liberal. Accordingly, the members of the union do not allow the dominance of any one-sided theological or ecclesiastical trend, but, following the principle of freedom, they strive to give scope to the most diverse trends that have developed on the basis of the Reformation: the “union” only wants these trends to stop the disastrous, internecine struggle and unite into one Evangelical Union for friendly, joint work in the spirit and strength of the fundamental principles of the Reformation. Currently, the “German Protestant Union” has been joined by its related ones – the “Dutch Protestant Union” and the “Swiss Union of Free Christians”. As can be seen from the above, the “Protestant Union” is not a unifying institution of the union, with the goal of smoothing out the religious differences of disparate Protestantism; not bearing in mind confessionalism and based only on general Protestant symbols, it serves as one of the best expressions of Protestant unity, in addition to private denominations, and represents a general Protestant confederation of members of all confessions following the principles of Protestantism - Lutherans, Reformed, Unites and Herrnhuters. Its main idea is to protect common Protestant interests and protect them both from the external enemy - Roman Catholicism, and from the internal one - complete religious skepticism. Particular points of this broad program are determined by the needs of the time and serve as subjects of discussion at general Protestant diets. Here issues of religious and moral education, the state of church communities, the relationship of faith to science and, in general, everything that science and life put on the agenda are discussed. The Diet meets as needed, and usually in various cities of Germany to express the idea of ​​a traveling preacher. Without constituting a church within the church and in relation to the church government having only the power of advice, request or petition, the “Protestant Union” has a very great social significance, since, to a certain extent, it satisfies the needs of Protestants for unification, without betraying their confessional characteristics and the basic principles of Protestantism “82. The desire for the internal unification of Protestantism is the exclusive subject of activity of a special church-religious institution, known as the “internal mission”. The “internal mission” arose from the same idea as the “Protestant Union” and is adjacent to it as one of its most important parts. It serves as an expression of the reaction to the anti-Christian trend in the depths of Protestantism itself and strives to establish and elevate religious and moral principles in society through the most versatile activities in the spirit of faith and love, so that it represents one of the broadest charitable institutions in the modern Christian world. What in Roman Catholicism is included in the responsibilities of various monastic orders - all this in Protestantism is carried out, perhaps in a broader form and with more energy, by the activities of free charitable corporations, united in the institution of “internal mission”. Distribution of the Bible, prayer books and edifying books, itinerant preaching, caring for the poor and sick, Christian work in prisons, Magdalen asylums, public schools and books for public reading, educating youth in the spirit of faith, spreading sobriety, caring for the religious state of Protestant communities in other countries - this is a wide range of charitable activities of the “internal mission”. Thus, if the “Protestant union” has an abstract, scientific and theological character, then the “internal mission” is almost exclusively distinguished by its practical, everyday, tactile character. It breaks up into many Verein, each of which takes care of the moral and material needs of the members of the Protestant community within its territory 83. In this regard, the so-called existing in Berlin is especially outstanding. Stadtmission (city, mission). It was founded by a famous contemporary Protestant figure, Adolf Stecker, a former court preacher. The main merit of this mission is that it operates in the purely practical sphere of all types of Christian charity and has a very wide range of activities. As a matter of routine, Berlin pastors usually notify the “city mission” about those poor and needy members of their parishes who cannot be satisfied by local parish funds; the mission takes care of their organization and carries out this task perfectly: the sick are sent to hospitals, the elderly and incapable of work are placed in almshouses, the poor and homeless are given food, clothing and an apartment, those who have lost their place or income are given the means to get them again, those who have gone astray in moral terms are assigned to various correctional shelters and refuges, trying to make them useful members of society again. The main figures of the “internal mission” are traveling preachers: they pass through the cities and villages of Protestant Germany, directly become acquainted with the material and moral state of their inhabitants, recognize the moral vices of society and the oppressive material needs of its individual members, recruit agents for the central committee and employees for the mission, and finally, collect voluntary donations for the mission. It is clear that the greatest attention of these preachers is received by the lower classes of the people in the centers of labor activity, in factories and factories, as well as by the masses during any severe social disasters. An instructive example in this regard was set by the founder of the “internal mission” himself and the chairman of the central committee - Dr. Wichner, who corrected the duties of a simple missionary in Denmark during the Schleswig-Holstein War, observed the activities of deaconesses with the sick and dying, and used means to stop war. – The branch offices of the “internal mission” have their own management - their own agents and their own committees, but the latter are all adjacent to the central committee of the “internal mission”, as private branches of one great institution of Christian faith and love. Since the “internal mission” includes members of all Protestant denominations, it is an interconfessional institution. But in practice, this main feature of the “internal mission” is often forgotten and its leaders often take the side of one or another of the Protestant parties, which, of course, cannot but be reflected in great damage to the success of its unifying activities. The “external mission”, which carries out specifically missionary tasks of the Protestant Church, differs from the “internal mission”. Its immediate task is to prepare preachers of Christianity for Africa, Asia and other pagan and Mohammedan countries. Then, she sends these preachers to different countries to preach the Gospel, gives them maintenance, provides all the means for the best results of preaching and takes care of the new converts. According to the main Protestant states, several “external missions” are distinguished - German, English, American, etc. A clear idea of ​​the activities of such missions can be obtained from the report of Professor Warneck at the fourth ordinary general synod, which took place at the end of 1897. Here the speaker noted that the “German mission” had in 1895 690 missionaries, 65 unmarried missionaries and 4,543 assistants. The number of baptized pagans reached the very respectable figure of 303,422, of whom 68,168 were regular students in the day schools of the mission. Its total income consisted of 3,657,827 marks and its expenses were determined at 4,777,648 marks. As far as it is possible to conclude from statistical data about the success of Protestant evangelization, one cannot help but admit that things here are, at least from the outside, very good. However, the success of the Protestant mission is greatly harmed by its struggle with the Roman Catholic one. Since in almost all those countries where Protestant propaganda exists, at the same time or even before it, Roman Catholic propaganda operates, then with the irreconcilable hostility in which these two opposing faiths are located, a struggle usually ensues between them. It is clear that in this struggle, which in general greatly undermines Christianity and undermines the success of Christian preaching, victory often remains on the side of Latinism with its tactile-external character, more accessible to the consciousness of undeveloped pagans than the abstract theories of Protestantism. In close connection with the missionary propaganda of Protestantism among heterodox tribes is the “work of evangelization” among heterodox peoples. By “evangelization,” says Chakkert, “we mean the acquisition of Roman Catholic countries for the Gospel (i.e., for the Evangelical Church)” 84 . This propaganda operates not without success in France, Belgium, Spain, Serbia, Romania, etc. Protestants are especially proud and value their religious conquests in Italy - the center of Latinism and the papacy. The Waldensian Evangelical Church, Wesleyan Methodists, various Baptists and some other “free churches” 85 operate here. However, all these aggressive successes of Protestantism in Latin countries are significantly paralyzed by the corresponding, if not superior, results of the opposite order - the peaceful conquests of the papacy in Protestant states. Not limiting itself to the Roman Catholic Church, Protestantism is trying, and - unfortunately - not without success, to extend its influence to the Greek-Eastern Church, mainly to our Russian, where the victims of its influence are our South Russian Stundists. Since this point is a sore spot in the Russian church, we will allow ourselves to make a small digression in order to characterize the essence of the shtunda in a few lines. The Stundists got their name from the custom practiced in their religious societies of meeting at designated hours (Stunde) for preaching and public prayer: the Stundists themselves call their society “the brotherhood of the people of God.” The spread of Stundism began to become more noticeable in the second half of the 19th century. At this time, it attracted the attention of the Kyiv diocesan authorities, who collected accurate and detailed information about it on the spot, which was subsequently published in local diocesan bulletins. From these official data it is known that Russian Stundism is a direct offspring of German Protestantism, grafted on Russian soil by southern Russian colonists. The main focus of the shtunda is the German colony of Rohrbach - the Kherson province, where its planter and distributor was a local Reformed pastor. As for the religious beliefs of the Stundists, in general these are the beliefs of the Evangelical Church; the first member of their religious symbol is the constant reading of the Gospel and the New Testament in general and its free interpretation according to each person’s own understanding: the further content of their religious ideas and their church practice is determined by the Protestant spirit of denial of religious teachings and church discipline prevailing in the Orthodox Church; Thus, they reject the veneration of St. icons, deny as many as five sacraments, recognizing - and even then rather conditionally - only two: baptism and communion, do not recognize in principle the existence of the clergy, teaching about a universal priesthood, do not consider it necessary to commemorate the dead and, in general, do not conduct ordinary church services, replacing them with prayer meetings with a special program. In order not to seem to anyone, in our depiction of Stundism, biased and unfounded, we will use its characterization given by the Protestants themselves. “Stundism, in its modern form,” writes Fossova Gazeta, “has a rationalistic direction, since it rejects the sacraments, the veneration of saints, the observance of fasts and other church regulations. An arbitrary and peculiar interpretation of the Bible is the main distinguishing feature of this sect. The Stundists dispute the legitimacy of the established authority and argue that there should be no authority on earth other than the authority of God himself. They express disgust for military service, do not recognize the court and do not take the oath; Thus completely denying the socio-political forms of life of the present time, they dream of transforming it and of organizing it in a new form, corresponding to the gospel morality, which they understand incorrectly and one-sidedly. Hence, they often show a desire for freedom, equality and community of property, which gives every right to suspect the Stundists of social-communist and anarchist tendencies. From all this it is clear that Stundism is something other than Protestant pietism transplanted onto Russian soil with its active and practical direction in the spirit of the ethical requirements of Gospel morality” 86. Such are the sad successes of Protestant propaganda, that is, its external mission, or more precisely, the work of evangelization, within our fatherland, obliging us to actively fight against this evil 87. In conclusion of the historical outline of the moral and practical unification attempts of Protestantism, through which the disintegrating Protestantism would like to unite again, establish itself and even spread, it must be said that they also far from achieving their goal. Those of them that directly pursue church-religious goals, such as. The “Evangelical Society” and the “Protestant Union” do not satisfy all Protestants, because they, in essence, serve the interests of one of the main parties - positive or liberal: others, serving the cause of Christian-evangelical preaching (external mission and the cause of evangelization), find obstacles in counter attempts of this kind, emanating mainly from the Roman Catholic camp; finally, the third, most numerous and active societies - the Gustav-Adolphus Union and the departments of the internal mission - are not so much religious as, so to speak, humanitarian and philanthropic in nature. In the practical direction of all attempts of this kind lies the grain of the particular benefit that they have in different places. The lack of internal, ideological unity in these attempts leads to their ineffectiveness in the interests of Protestantism: representing a pile of disparate bricks, they do not have a binding cement that would connect them into one grandiose building... So, all the unifying attempts of Protestantism did not at all produce the “one great evangelical Church” that the Protestant utopians dreamed of. The pressure of civil power created the “official Prussian Church” with a police-bureaucratic structure of its administration, reflecting all the advantages and disadvantages of the modern social and civil system and little reminiscent of the true Church. Attempts at the moral unification of Protestants, at best, only led to the emergence of a whole network of social, charitable and educational institutions of a philanthropic nature, specifically having the same relation to Protestantism as any humanism has to Christianity. The most that can be given to them as a historical merit is that they gave Protestantism, although an external semblance of a church, introduced some order and decorum into church government and served as temporary and local palliatives for the long-standing ulcers of the Reformation. But they did not resurrect Protestantism and did not save it from destruction: the process of further self-destruction of Protestantism continues to go its own way. 5. “Despite the fact that formally all Protestant confessions merged into one and adopted the common name “Evangelical Church,” in reality they exist in exactly the same way as before,” notes one of the modern observers of religious life in Germany 88 . “Even more,” he continues: the number of divisions of Protestantism is growing and growing, so that you often have absolutely no idea which sect you are in. There are a lot of such religious sects in Germany that have separated from the dominant church of the country. In addition to the four main divisions of Protestantism into Lutherans, Reformed, Evangelicals and Baptists, up to fifty other smaller sects can be counted here, with the complete impossibility of describing all the significant differences in their teaching" 89 . “Hardly any thinking person,” says one of the main figures of the Protestant Union, “will not agree that the Evangelical Church of modern Germany presents, from the outside, a picture of such a division of parties as has hardly been seen since the very days of the Reformation” 90. The sad state of modern Protestantism is not hidden by its followers themselves. “Our church,” says, for example. Superintendent Tauscher at the pastors' conference in Berlin (1893), - has neither appearance nor kindness. The place of spiritual unity was taken by sad division: from the free Church, about which the apostle speaks. Paul, ours has turned into a slave of the newest theological tribunal and the modern church-political regime” 91. The lack of freedom of religious and church governance and the pressure of political oppression, contrary to the concept of church autonomy, forced many of the Protestants to separate from the mainstream church; hence the fragmentation of Protestantism into private communities and the formation of the so-called “free churches.” This process of further fragmentation of Protestantism is, as it were, the reverse side of the unionist movement; it develops in parallel with it and even depending on it. At the end of the 18th and at the very beginning of the 19th century, the Prussian government clearly expressed a tendency to reduce the church to the level of an external state institution. By decree, for example, in 1808, all church affairs and institutions were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs under the same heading as schools and theaters 92 . And so, at the same time, Schleiermacher’s voice is heard that “the church is not in a church where an unreasonable crowd sings its chorales, but in the free recesses of the spirit.” He thus strives to restore that invisible church, devoid of any external shell, any external framework that constrains a person, which is affirmed by the founders of Lutheranism. Due to the enormous influence of this theologian-philosopher on all modern Lutheran theology, his views were and are of guiding importance in developing the question of the church for a whole half of the theologians of modern Lutheranism 93 . The more definitely and sharply the public-state attempts to give the church a certain external organization were expressed in practice, the more strongly the theologians of the liberal school developed the doctrine of the church as a purely spiritual institution, not subject to any external regulation. Liberal views of the church, while agreeing on their negative points, are far from being so uniform in revealing their positive views. In the field of biblical-theoretical and dogmatic-symbolic disclosures of the question of the church, such a diversity of opinions currently prevails that the scientist who took up the development of this topic is dealing with a real Babylonian confusion of languages” 94. The Achilles heel of all Protestantism is the question of how to reconcile church unity with personal freedom, the obligation of external authority with the internal autonomy of believers? The resolution of this issue is characterized by a complete contradiction between theory and practice. This contradiction was especially pronounced in the Lutheran doctrine of the church: the theory demanded the creation of an invisible church without any hierarchy, as can be seen for example. and from the above words of Schleiermacher; practice forced one or another external organization to be communicated to the church, so that it would not completely lose all semblance of a well-ordered church society. “The nineteenth century, and with it modern Lutheranism, inherited from previous centuries the solution of a problem insoluble from the Lutheran point of view: either, in accordance with the basic principles of the Reformation, to create a church that cannot be externally defined, which - because of this - cannot be real; or, on the contrary, by abandoning the basic principles of the Reformation, create a real, real church. The whole life of modern Lutheranism is concentrated around the solution of this insoluble problem” 95. The history of the 19th century is especially instructive in this regard: it presents us with experiences in solving pressing issues in one and another kind, but with equally sad results. We are already partly familiar with the experiments in resolving this issue in the latter sense, i.e. in the sense of creating an external, visible church - this is the unionist attempt that gave the official, governmental church in Germany - and the Orthodox movement, which represents a reaction to it, moving along the path from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism. As for the first of them, i.e. governmental organization of the church, then it does not stand up to criticism from two sides: it contradicts the basic principle of the Protestant teaching about the invisible spiritual church, since it tries to create a visible, external one; but it does not satisfy supporters of true churchliness, who rightly find that this is not a church, but a police-civil institution. The best verdict on the complete failure of such a church is the report of D. Werken, made at the church-social conference in Berlin, which is filled with complaints about the extremely cramped and slavish position of the Protestant church in Germany 96 . Awareness of this state of affairs and the desire to impart greater churchliness to the Protestant community led the conservative party of Lutheran theologians to such an organization of the church that is quite reminiscent of the Roman Catholic. All its defenders rightly believe that the guarantee of true churchliness lies in the restoration of the ancient episcopate and, with it, the former pre-Reformation church structure - of course, only without the pope. This solution to the question of the church is given by the party of New Lutheran theologians, or the school of “new orthodoxy”; and it should be noted that it is very popular in modern Protestantism, where it is beginning to find practical implementation. One of the most prominent representatives of modern Protestantism, Adolf Harnack, recognizes the catholization of the evangelical concept of the church as a distinctive feature of modern Lutheranism. “The evangelical concept of the church,” writes, for example. he is close to complete disappearance, and whoever dares to remember him is condemned as an empty dreamer. The majority of our influential ecclesiastical newspapers, among which we must count two or three political ones, work in favor of the catholization of the church... This process of gradual catholization of the evangelical concept of the church is carried out with such consistency and with such spontaneous force that the church government, apparently, must have a lot of effort to resist it; but it is almost powerless against the newly formed concept of the church, which is taking place before our eyes” 97. Indeed, in modern Lutheranism all the main ancient church forms come to life again: the authority of tradition is elevated, a strictly defined liturgical ritual is created, determined by special acts, the Roman Catholic view of the sacraments is resurrected, and finally, to top it all, the clergy is visibly distinguished and elevated to a height. “If such a trend,” writes Harnack, “continues further, then a second Catholicism will degenerate from Protestantism, only more meager and less serious in religious terms than the first; for Roman Catholicism has a pope, saints and monks, but we do not have them and will never get them” 98. Gradually, all the consequences of the Roman Catholic understanding of the church - fanaticism, lust for power, religious intolerance, church formalism and the police nature of church governance - are being assimilated. This is the practical solution to the question of the church that prevails in modern orthodox Protestantism. It does not require special work to see that Protestantism has become here in obvious contradiction with its foundations and has come to complete self-denial. To approach Latin, which is hated by Protestants, to return again to the historical moment from which the Reformation began - does this not mean for Protestantism to betray itself, to admit the meaninglessness of the reform and to recognize the entire three-century history of Protestantism as an empty, deceptive ghost? And this is exactly what Orthodox Lutheranism does! Liberal Protestantism falls into a different kind of extreme, although leading to the same result, in its teaching about the church. True to the basic principles of Protestantism, that the church is “the kingdom of pure thought, the heavenly, all-encompassing body of Christ,” he does not recognize a certain external regulation of the church, putting forward in the concept of it exclusively the internal side of the relationship of its members. From this point of view, the doctrine of the church can never be definite and complete: it is forever growing and changing, like life itself, of which it serves as a reflection. The direct practical consequence of such views is absolute freedom, or - more precisely - complete arbitrariness for believers in the exercise of religious and church life. “The most characteristic expression of this freedom can be considered the question raised in modern Lutheranism about the optional use of the apostolic symbol during divine services (Apostolikumsirage), which until now has served as the main expression of the unity of the liturgical cult in Lutheranism” 99. Naturally, such freedom ultimately leads to the complete denial of the church as a whole. “If in fact I can lead church-religious life the way I please, then I can belong to any religious society, and even more than that, I don’t have to belong to any church society, I can form a whole church out of myself” 100. Hence there is complete scope for the emergence and development in Protestantism of many different sects and societies with a mystical-rationalistic character. Without going into a detailed acquaintance with them, we will dwell only on those in which the question of the church is raised and resolved in principle; these are the so-called “free churches”, representing the last word of liberal Protestantism. This is for example the free church preached by Vina. According to the latter’s teaching, the church is not only a negation of the union with the state and the people, but at the same time a negation of itself, in the sense of a certain value. Therefore, the endless division of the church into many sects and the formation of as many of the latter as possible, in Vine’s opinion, should be considered a manifestation of the normal life of the church, a sign of its spiritual growth. Hence, the more different sects and societies in the church, the better for it. And indeed, if anything else, then this is precisely what the Protestant Church can safely boast of: there, every somewhat original thinker has his own church. But they all have one common basis - the idea of ​​an invisible and super-experienced church, which is a spiritual and moral union of believers, united by mutual love and imbued with a high moral mood. Of the church movements of this kind in recent times, we can note, for example. Egidi's attempt. In his essay, published in the summer of 1890 (“Ernsten Gedanken”), he decisively rejects all the dogmatics of Christianity and sees the purpose of the church in educating the spirit of Christianity, i.e. disposed believers to think, love, pray, repent, feel and act in such a way as to be worthy of divine love. He emphasizes heavily. that Christ was an ordinary person, and by this he wants to arouse energy to the complete imitation of his highly moral image. He calls the practical implementation of a church with a similar structure, that is, without dogmas, without hierarchy, without sacraments and worship, “the reunion of all Christians in the Christianity of Christ,” “the crowning of the church building” 101. But for any unprejudiced person it is clear that this is not the “crowning and completion” of the church, but its complete decomposition and transformation from a specially religious institution with certain church functions into an ordinary social-democratic society, occupied with the functions of everyday life. No less typical in this regard is Sultse’s project on the creation of a “community church,” that is, on the organization of a Christian society on the model of various philanthropic institutions, such as. temperance societies, or aid to the poor, charity for the sick, etc. The actual religious element in such churches is completely abolished. There can and should not be any super-experimental dogmatic teaching, any ecclesiastical authority, or any sacraments in this church. Here there is only one step left until the complete destruction of not only the church, but also Christianity itself. And this step has already been taken in the so-called “Society of Ethical Culture”, which arose on Protestant soil in America. Its motto is “the development of true humanism” and therefore it opens the doors wide not only to different confessions, but also to different religions: Protestant and Catholic, Christian and Jew, Muslim and Buddhist - everyone is equally welcome here. There is apparently nowhere to go further than this: here we are dealing with the complete abolition of the Christian Church and its degeneration into a humanistic-philanthropic community. In Germany, an experience of this kind is represented by “religion within the boundaries of pure humanity” by the Marburg philosopher P. Natorp, letters on “independent morality” by the brothers E. and Fr. Langhans, Theobald Ziegler's attempt to implement Strauss's "new faith", the emergence of the "international union of spiritual religions" and various small communities of a theosophical or spiritualistic nature into which modern liberal Protestantism is gradually degenerating. In conclusion of the review of the history of the Protestant Church in Germany for the 19th century, it remains to repeat what was said at the beginning, i.e., that this history serves as the best proof of the complete failure of the religious principles of Protestantism. Forced by history and life itself to provide a solution to the fundamental religious question of the church, Protestantism has proven its complete powerlessness to do this. The entire nineteenth century represents a continuous series of attempts to resolve this pressing issue in one sense or another, starting with external experiments of a civil-governmental nature and ending with attempts at the internal, moral structure of Protestant society. But all these attempts did not give Protestantism a single church. On the contrary, they contributed to its even greater fragmentation. As a result of this historical movement, which is modern Protestantism, two main currents clearly stand out: one - conservative, belonging to the school of new orthodoxy and representing a return to Latinism, hated by Protestantism; the other is liberal, dreaming of creating Christianity without Christ and a church without religion and, thus, destroying not only Protestantism, but also Christianity itself. And since the extremes converge, then in both cases Protestantism, exposed by its history, equally comes to self-destruction. “The country,” writes one Protestant believer, “which was the cradle, becomes the grave of the Reformed faith. The Protestant Church is dying. All the latest works on Germany, as well as all personal observations, agree on this”... 102. Internal development of Protestantism - Close connection of Protestant theology with philosophy. – Kant's subjectivism. – Idealistic pantheism of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. – Schleiermacher, as the founder of Protestant theology of the nineteenth century. – New Tübingen School. Strauss and the "mythologists". Baur and the historical-critical school. Orthodox theology. – “Mediator” school. “Protestantism is a world that denies another world” - in the apt expression of our famous theologian-publicist: “take away from it this other world it denies - and Protestantism will die, for its whole life is in denial... As soon as this feeling of reaction disappears, Protestantism immediately decomposes into personal opinions without a common connection” 103. This is the best description of the internal content of Protestantism and the entire history of its development. In contrast to Roman Catholicism - a religion of earth and body, Lutheranism is a religion of spirit and thought. The entire history of the Reformation is a series of attempts to create an abstract philosophical religion. Hence the closest inextricable connection between Protestant theology and German philosophy. Germany is to the Protestant world what Rome is to Latinism; hence, when speaking about the connection between Protestant theology and philosophy, we will rightfully speak only about German idealistic philosophy. That Germany is a country of philosophy, and the German is a type of dry, rational activity and abstract, formal thinking - this has long become a commonplace. On the basis of this national peculiarity, as we know, the Reformation itself arose as a protest for individual rights and freedom of research in matters of faith. The desire to free human thought from oppressive, deadening slavery, first to Rome, and then to any external authority, is a distinctive feature of Protestantism throughout its almost four-century history. The need to create a new, opposite to the papacy, “free” church was the main motive for the activities of the father of the reformation himself - Martin Luther. The starting point of his dogma was the beginning of personal faith and the direct relationship of the believer to the Spirit of grace. He understood religion itself not in the form of a known set of obligatory dogmas, but in the sense of the internal mystical unity of the believer with Christ; This fundamentally denied the need for any kind of mediation between faith and the believer, between Christ and Christianity; and hence the existence of a visible church with a liturgical cult and with all its external structure was considered, at least, unnecessary. A living, purely rational conviction and a corresponding heartfelt disposition are all that is needed for salvation, according to Luther’s view, which he laid as the basis of all Protestantism. The consistent development of these principles and their practical implementation in life threatened the dominance of the unrestrained arbitrariness of everyone and complete anarchy in the field of thought and life. Luther himself, obviously foreseeing a similar outcome of his reform, retreated before the consistent development of its basic principles and made compromises. He proclaimed, precisely, the two main dogmas of Protestantism: the doctrine of justification by faith alone and the recognition of St. The Scriptures as the only source of faith are the so-called formal and material principles of Protestantism. But it is not difficult to see that already here Luther betrayed himself and allowed a contradiction. While he taught that man is justified by faith alone, that salvation is given tuna, for the sake of the merits of Christ, he remained true to his basic view of religion as an act of internal, mystical union of the believing soul with God. But as soon as he added to this material principle another formal one - the doctrine of Holy Scripture as the source of faith, he fell into gross self-contradiction. Desiring, obviously, to save Protestantism from the domination of boundless arbitrariness, to put freedom of religious research within proper boundaries, to provide a fulcrum and reliable authority to the Protestant doctrine, he gave the Bible into the hands of his followers and demanded from them reverent admiration not only for the spirit, but also for its very letter. By this, he overthrew his teaching about the complete religious freedom of the believer and the absence of any outwardly constraining authorities. From this basic conflict between two principles - material and formal - Lutheran dogma emerged, full of inconsistency and contradictions. “In general, the life and history of Protestantism is a life of disorder and disorder, chaotic fermentation of religious opinions, disintegration into countless religious sects. This is not the life of society, but rather the life of individuals 104. The reason for this lies in the internal inconsistency of Protestantism and in the right of each believer to comment on and reconcile its contradictions in his own way. However, no matter how diverse and contradictory the church-religious theories that arose on Protestant soil are, all of them are equally characterized by the desire to give the Protestant dogma the character of a system, and to impart to its church structure the semblance of an outwardly church organism. With all this, and especially the last, Protestantism moves far away from its historical fundamental principle - the attempt to create an invisible, spiritual church - and through a long historical process it consistently comes, as we saw in the previous chapter, to its own negation. Therefore, this is not where we should look for the typical, true to itself, internal development of Protestantism. Since the latest conclusions of the main principles of the reform threatened the complete fall of not only the church, but also religion itself, German thought, saving both, refrained from making final conclusions in the field of religion. She could complete her work only in the field of philosophy. German philosophy is the true daughter of German Protestantism. It contains his last word. “True, although not completely, in religion to its extreme idealism, abstraction and denial of everything visible, Protestant thought in the sphere of philosophy declares itself even more tangibly, its distinctive character and reaches the nec plus ultra in the direction it has accepted once and for all, completely breaks off all connection with human reality, exclusively concentrates itself in the ideal fundamental principle of all things. For her, the world either completely loses its pre-existing existence or becomes spiritualized, deified, and appears as an endless development of one divine principle. “The conclusions of Protestant German philosophy are the ripe fruit of the same trend that passes through and manifests itself in the religious views of Protestants” 105. This is the secret of the powerful, vital influence of German philosophy on Protestant society, and most importantly on the development of its theology. Hence, acquaintance with German Protestant philosophy has a dual interest for us - both as the last word in the development of the basic principles of Protestantism, and as that living spring, the streams of which feed the scientific theological thought of Protestants. 2 The nineteenth century opens a new era in the history of the development of Protestant theological thought - the era of its highest flowering. At the beginning of this century, two of the most prominent thinkers in Germany appeared on the active stage of history - the father of modern philosophy, Emmanuel Kant, and the founder of modern Protestant theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher. Their names are associated with everything that was most important and typical in the development of both. As for the first of them, the philosopher Kant, according to his basic principle, he was, first of all, a true Protestant. With his teaching about the conditional and relatively subjective nature of all our knowledge, he finally shook the ground of strict dogmatism: and if anywhere, then it is in his system that one can find a strict, logical application of the Protestant principle of personal freedom of research and the subjective nature of our knowledge. Both in knowledge itself and in our entire spiritual life, Kant strictly distinguished between two sides - the theoretical, transcendental, which has its primary source in God - and the practical, real, arising from the idea of ​​the moral imperative inherent in man. According to the basic principles of the reformation. Kant considered the first, that is, the theoretical area, to lie beyond the borders of our knowledge and therefore inaccessible to it. Hence, the doctrine of God, the world and their relationship, as something lying on the other side of our knowledge, does not constitute accurate knowledge that corresponds to reality, but has only the character of a personal, subjective opinion. The subject of precise research in the field of science and religion is only the sphere of the moral and practical side of life. Hence, the center of religion and theology is not in dogma, but in morality. The dogmatic teaching of religion, as well as the entire externally historical, empirical side of it, has no significant significance: it is nothing more than a passing moment on the path to achieving a true religion of reason, resting on the idea of ​​spirit and excluding the existence of any external mediation. This is the purely Protestant ideal of religion according to Kant. From the height of his philosophical pulpit, he solemnly proclaimed the complete subjectivism of religion in theory and its extreme individualism in practice. Having rejected all the objective content of religion as something irrational, he recognized only its subjective meaning, in the sense of expressing the ideal aspirations of man himself. The historical example of Christ, whom Kant considered the most perfect man, can serve for us as a living embodiment of this ideal. Thus, the religious philosophy of Kant - the founder of German idealistic philosophy - has an anthropocentric character, Mr. she. puts human nature with its ideal needs and requirements at the center of the entire study; the objective, empirical side of religion is assigned a lower and servile position, assigning to it only temporary, transitory significance. All subsequent development of German philosophy followed the path indicated by Kant. Thus, Fichte only continued the teachings of Kant. The basic principle of the latter - about the subjective nature of transcendental knowledge - Fichte extended to the empirical field. Everything we know about the real world is a product of our “I”: there is only our own thought, which produces everything from itself. Consequently, Fichte develops, and what we call Divinity does not exist outside of our thought, but lives in its manifestations, or in other words, this thought itself represents, in fact, Divinity. Human thought, while limited and changeable in individual individuals, is absolute and unchangeable in the totality of them. in all of humanity. God is a manifestation of the temporal-historical “I” and in this respect He is inseparable from man. The main dogma of Christianity, the doctrine of the incarnation, delighted Fichte: he saw in it a brilliant justification of his theory of the identity of God with man: he only found that Christianity understands this dogma too narrowly, limiting it only to the personality of one historical Christ, while in reality, in his opinion, each of us is a God-man, because each of us has a thought, the consciousness of our own “I,” which is the only independent being or God. And whoever has reached the point of conviction in his unity with God, all questions have been resolved, he is not tormented by doubts, he is not bothered by misfortunes, he is saved. “So - according to the fair remark of one Roman Catholic theologian - Luther himself extends his hand to Fichte, who said: I believe, therefore I am saved” 106. It is clear that Fichte, along the path paved by Kant, went significantly ahead: if Kant taught about the affinity of the human spirit with the nature of the Divine and about the revelation of God in human nature, then Fichte proclaimed the complete identity of the Divine Being with the human personality and its exclusive existence in the human spirit. The philosopher Schelling went even further in this direction. He was not satisfied with the discord between the objective and subjective world, between our thinking and being, which Kant laid as the basis of his philosophy. Fichte's philosophy could not satisfy him either, in which, instead of reconciling objective and subjective being, only the destruction of the former was given in favor of the latter. The desire to connect these two spheres of existence and derive them from one common primary source led Schelling to the concept of the highest unconditional being, representing the complete identity of thinking and being. This absolute, precisely, by virtue of its absoluteness, does not allow connection with any specific predicate, since any predicate would already be its limitation, but it is diffused everywhere and everything is contained in it. Schelling called the method of knowing this absolute the special term “contemplation,” which is not the contact of our spirit with an external appearance alien to it, but our spirit itself in its certain highest state. Schelling's philosophy thus preaches the purest pantheism. The essence of religion, in his opinion, is the poetic contemplation of the infinite in the finite, of God in man and nature. Hence, although none of the historically known religions, not excluding Christianity, provides a complete, true religion, they all have their share of meaning, in the sense of the successive stages of the ascent of our spirit from the lower to the higher being, from the finite to the absolute. Christianity still occupies the highest place in this gradation; but it has only a passing significance, and will retain its power until all humanity and all the diversity of life plunge again into primitive indifference, and then there will be a blissful peace, an eternal kingdom of the absolute. The basic principle of the “spiritual church” of Protestantism and the “internal mystical fusion” of the believing soul with God found its most complete and typical expression in Schelling’s philosophy, and was brought to the most extreme conclusions - towards idealism. The culmination of all these idealistic systems is the philosophy of Hegel, which had an exceptional charm on the minds of half of our century, and has not lost its influence to this day. Hegel, a gifted student of Schelling, adheres to the point of view of his teacher, to the idea of ​​the identity of the ideal and the real, thinking and being. He only moves the center of gravity, namely, from the area of ​​the intuitive view of the mind, as Schelling did, transfers it to the sphere of pure thought and strict dialectics. The supreme absolute being or the indefinite “Universe” of Schelling turns into Hegel’s absolute thought or idea. As pure being, it is the negation of any determinate being, and therefore the same as pure non-being. Both of these principles, taken separately, do not give any real content: the latter is obtained only from their combination, which gives, through mutual limitation, or what is the same - the definition of being and non-being, some positive result, in the form of real being, or, more precisely, “being”. In this continuous process of self-development of the absolute idea, i.e. in its passage through all three successive stages - being (thesis), non-being (antithesis and existence (synthesis) - is the life of the absolute or the process of its internal self-development; and thesis, antithesis and synthesis are the laws and together the moments of the development of divine life. In his philosophical system, Hegel gives a historical gradation of gradual the ascent of the idea, starting with the lowest and crude forms of existence (the kingdom of minerals) and ending with the highest - abstract philosophical thought (German philosophy). Standing on this point of view, Hegel, like Schelling, recognizes a certain significance for all historically known religions: but he assigns the highest place in their classification to Christianity. Looking at Christianity through the prism of his philosophy, he colors with a special light all the positive content of Christianity, putting his own meaning into the gospel terms and church teaching, caring not about loyalty to the spirit of Christianity, but about its harmony with the principles of his philosophy. Thus, although in Hegel’s philosophy reconciliation with Christianity was apparently achieved, it was bought at a high price, at the cost of complete distortion of the basic meaning of Christianity and its transformation into an idealistic-pantheistic system. The basic principles of Protestantism - the beginning of a personal subjective view in the matter of faith and internal ideological understanding of Christianity, being developed to the end, led to the abolition of Christianity itself. Hegel's philosophy completed the harmonious edifice of what had been the cherished dream of earlier philosophers, developing with inexorable logic the entire system of the universe from one beginning. That is why it had a particularly charming effect on the minds of its contemporaries. No philosophical system has left such a deep and wide mark on the development and direction of the mental life of the West as Hegel’s system, which left its special stamp on all branches of knowledge, science and art, history, philosophy and religion. With this we consider ourselves entitled to end our essay on German idealistic philosophy of the 19th century, since after Hegel, German philosophical thought did not produce anything new and original, except, more or less, peculiar variations on old themes. 3. The ideas of German idealistic philosophy, which had a tremendous influence on contemporary society, had a particularly strong effect on Protestant theology, obviously due to their internal affinity with the basic principles of Protestantism. The first place among the Protestant theologians of the 19th century, both in terms of the time of his life and even more so in the degree of his influence, undoubtedly belongs to Friedrich Schleiermacher, who was in the field of theology what Kant and Hegel were in philosophy. “A nature with which, in terms of richness and versatility, hardly any of the theologians of modern times can be compared - theologian, philosopher, philologist, teacher, preacher, poet - he introduced new principles into all branches of theological science” 107. He opens a new era in the history of German theology, and his name is quoted in every German theological book; It is not without reason that Schleiermacher’s most enthusiastic students compare their teacher with Luther and even with the apostle himself. Paul 108. Currently, at the University of Berlin there is even a special department for the study of Schleiermacher's theological views, a lecture on which Prof. Lomatsch 109 gives. A true assessment of Schleiermacher was given by the famous church historian Neander, who, upon learning of his death, said: “we have now lost a person with whom they will eventually begin a new period in theology” 110. “All directions of Protestant theology have Schleiermacher as their starting point and his influence has not yet been exhausted. Therefore, anyone who wants to depict the current state of Protestant theology should start with Schleiermacher, says the author of one of the newest monographs on Protestant theology of the 19th century 111. The main significance of Schleiermacher is that he was the first to teach Protestant theologians the art of systematic thinking, giving the first and very successful experience of such a system - he was, in the full sense of the word, the creator of Protestant theology as a special religious system. Friedrich Schleiermacher was born in 1768 and was the son of a Silesian Reformed preacher. He owes the first impressions of his childhood and youth, on the one hand, to the influence of his mother, a deeply religious and highly intellectual woman, and on the other, to the pietistic Hernhuter brotherhood, in whose school he was brought up. Both of these influences sank deeply into the receptive soul of young Schleiermacher and imparted to her for the rest of her life the imprint of a certain tenderness, sensitivity, piety and piety. Later, as a home teacher, Schleiermacher devoted himself to the passionate study of philosophy, where his mind was especially captivated by the philosophical systems of Plato, Spinoza, Jacobi and Kant, which were akin to his spirit. “Put under the most diverse influences of the multilateral era of the end of the last and beginning of the present (XIX) century, brought up in the rules of the religious-mystical sect of the Herrnhuters. imbued with the spirit of romance, pietism and the Jacobian philosophy of faith, and at the same time a follower of the newly revived Spinozism and a student of Kant, a living witness to the struggle between supranaturalism and rationalism - Schleiermacher reflected in his theological activity all the elements of these influences. The deeply religious feeling of a Christian and the abstract and speculative thinking of an idealist and pantheist philosopher, the principles of supranaturalism and pietism and the theory of rationalism were combined in him in complete balance: and the original system of his theology was the result of all these heterogeneous and opposing elements of the religious-scientific movement of the modern era” 112. Schleiermacher’s first work, which immediately brought him to the forefront and created his fame as a new prophet, was a small book he published in Berlin just a few months before the onset of the 19th century, entitled: “Speeches on Religion to the Educated Among Its Despisers.” The title of this work alone clearly defines its apologetic character. Being a deeply religious man, Schleiermacher was greatly tormented by the complete internal discord that reigned in the Protestant theology of his time and was personified in the decisive and fierce struggle of supranaturalism, which understood religion in an abstract, one-sided way, with rationalism, which degraded it to the level of an ordinary natural phenomenon. Schleiermacher set the task of his theological activity to reconcile these two dominant trends of the era. To do this, he needed to find the highest criterion of religious truth, equally binding on both warring parties. To achieve this goal, Schleiermacher did the same in theology that Kant did in metaphysics, transferring the beginning of theology from the external historical area, on the basis of which old disputes revolved, into the internal area of ​​religious consciousness, moving on to the fact of immediate religious feeling and to the analysis of its nature. To find and defend religion, we do not need to engage in the study of theological systems and teachings, there is no particular need to study the Holy Scriptures, but one thing is absolutely necessary, according to Schleiermacher, namely, deepening into the spirit, where religion has its deepest root. The demand to understand religion from the depths of the human spirit was expressed by Kant; but he confused religion with purely internal, autonomous morality. Schleiermacher acts somewhat differently; while also declaring a requirement for religion, he wants to indicate for it a special area in the human spirit, wants to define it as a specific feeling (mood). “Religion, in Schleiermacher’s own words: there is a feeling and taste for the infinite... This is life in the infinite nature of the whole, in the one and everything, a life that sees everything in God and God in everything. In a word, it is “the direct perception of the existence of everything generally finite in the infinite and through the infinite, everything temporal in the eternal and through the eternal” 113. So, religion, according to Schleiermacher, lives inside us, is rooted in the depths of our immortal spirit: it is not knowledge, not perception, but a feeling of dependence or a living, direct sensation of the infinite, combined with an uncontrollable desire for it. To be religious means to bow to the fullness of life, scattered everywhere, to love even the smallest particle in creation, to feel at one with nature, to merge with it and in all the phenomena of its changing life, joyfully await the fulfillment of its eternal laws... It is easy to see from here that the worldview from which Schleiermacher derives his concept of religion is strongly colored by pantheism. Thus, God for him is the purely pantheistic unity of the world whole (Weltall): being in its plurality is the world, being in its unity is God. Religion is the internal relationship of the individual with the universe, that is, with God. There is no proper distinction between the supernatural and the natural in Schleiermacher’s system; on the contrary, there is a pantheistic shade, in the spirit of Spinoza and Hegel, of his views on Christianity. Thus, Christ for him is a more conceivable ideal of man than a real, historical Person, a true Redeemer. Revelation and miracle are various discoveries or manifestations of the life of the infinite in external nature, or in the spirit of man himself. In general, he reduced the entire essence of religion to one internal, subjective activity of a person, deliberately ignoring the actual personal existence of religious objects - God and man, and not recognizing religious teaching, in particular Christian dogma, as having any serious significance in the matter of religion. Yes, Schleiermacher himself did not deny his sympathies for the principles of pantheism: to the reproach for this, he responded only that “he should not be suspected of “materialistic” pantheism,” from which it is clear that his pantheism was idealistic, reflecting the influences of Spinoza, Kant, Fichte and Hegel 114. These were the theoretical foundations of Schleiermacher's religious system. like any pantheism, if they were consistently implemented, they threatened with the complete overthrow of Christianity and the destruction of any religion in general. Schleiermacher was saved from these extreme conclusions by his deeply religious feeling, which forced him to ignore abstract theoretical speculations, and with all the strength of his soul to strive for the active practical implementation of religion in life itself. If in terms of the general nature and extreme theoretical conclusions of his religious-philosophical system, Schleiermacher is a faithful follower of idealistic philosophy, then from the point of view of its basic principles, he is a direct student and successor of Luther. The essence of his positive views on religion and morality is set out in a special essay entitled “The Christian Faith,” written by Schleiermacher in 1821. True to Luther’s basic position that true religion lies in the spirit of man and consists in his direct internal communication with the Divine, Schleiermacher sets the task of his dogmatics not to establish well-known, strictly formulated religious truths, but to depict or describe certain states of religious feeling, according to their historical discoveries. Hence, dogmatics should not be a collection of inviolable, eternally unchanging truths, but a work of artistic creativity, where religious life would flow in its ever-fluid content. “This anti-dogmatism of Schleiermacher cannot be considered a new fact belonging only to the personal view of this theologian. This is the main thought of all Protestantism, the cherished thought of the Evangelical Church" 115... Schleiermacher's merit for Protestantism lies precisely in the fact that he sanctioned this idea, gave it a scientific and philosophical formulation and developed in its spirit a whole system of Protestant theology. In this regard, he is truly the father of Protestant theology as a science. As for the particular points of Schleiermacher’s “dogmatics,” we will briefly note only the main ones. In the first part of his “dogmatics” Schleiermacher talks about the world, God and man. True to his basic principle, in his treatise on each of these subjects he strictly distinguishes the internal side, which is subject to religious knowledge, from the external, which constitutes the subject of scientific research. Thus, in the doctrine of God, Schleiermacher allows only those properties that express the dependence of the finite on the infinite; the latter, i.e. God, is defined as an “eternal, good, omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent being: although at the same time he adds that all these are not real properties, but categories of human thinking that do not express the true nature of the Divine. The external, visible world, or universe, according to Schleiermacher, is the church of God living and revealing himself in it. As an instrument of divine providence, the world is as perfect as man is perfect. The second part of Schleiermacher’s “dogmatics” deals with the question of the origin of evil in the world or the doctrine of sin. The essence of sin is defined here as a clash between our God-consciousness and sensuality, in which the advantage remains on the side of the latter; since this constitutes the basic property of our limited nature, in this sense it can be called “original sin.” In the biblical story of the fall of our ancestors, Schleiermacher sees not real history, but a poem that graphically depicts the fall of each of us. Schleiermacher sets the task of every person’s entire life to be victory over sin, that is, the desire to give predominance to the spirit over the flesh—the triumph of the inner man over the outer. An ideal example of this is presented to us by the founder of Christianity - Jesus Christ, in whom God-consciousness takes complete and decisive predominance over the external life of feeling. In his teaching about the face of Jesus Christ, Schleiermacher reduces everything to the idea of ​​Him as the Redeemer. But he understands His redemptive ministry in a unique way, seeing in Him only the venerable ideal of religious self-consciousness, the highest manifestation and implementation of the idea of ​​communion with God, and not an external historical fact and not an objective source of salvation. Hence, a whole area of ​​historical facts of the Savior’s earthly life, His miraculous birth from the Virgin, His miracle-filled activity, His resurrection and ascension - remained outside Schleiermacher’s dogma. Society of Followers of Christ, ie. people reborn according to His example, with the goal of mutual assistance in spiritual improvement, forms the Church of Christ. Their moral connection is a single, gracious spirit, in other words, the Holy Spirit. But by this Schleiermahsr does not mean the third Person of the Holy Trinity, but a simple inner principle that unites all believers and animates them to a life of grace; the communion of this kind of the Holy Spirit takes place not so much in the personal self-consciousness of the believer, but in the general self-consciousness, in the consciousness of the presence of this Holy Spirit in the whole Christian society, that is, the Church. The Church is invisible and cannot be an institution similar to civil society, or a theological and clerical institution; high religious inspiration and close unity of its members among themselves and with Christ - this is the true life of Christ’s Church; the same forms into which the church, as a well-known historical society, is cast have only a secondary character and transitory significance. This is the essence of the theological and church views of Schleiermacher, the apostle and prophet of modern Protestantism 116. 4. Schleiermacher's teaching required a particularly detailed presentation, since all the main currents of Protestant theology of the 19th century come from this source and are still fed by it. In the history of the latter during the period under review, three main currents are usually distinguished: free-thinking or “liberal”, “positive” or “mediocre theology”. “All these directions, to a certain extent, can be put under one heading, called Schleiermacherian... - all in general, but not one entirely” 117. Schleiermacher's teaching, like any great system, was assimilated, due to its versatility, not equally and from different sides: some developed more of the rationalistic-philosophical side of this system, others - the supra-naturalistic-ecclesiastical side, others - tried to be faithful to its main principle - the desire to reconcile faith with science and unite various directions. Since the starting point of Schleiermacher’s teaching, as well as of all Protestantism, is the fact of “empirically perceived feeling or direct self-consciousness of the spirit,” he recognizes the mystical feeling, artistic and poetic creativity as the dominant element in the matter of religion; hence, both Schleiermacher himself and the schools that emerged from him are united under the common name of “romantics,” i.e., representatives of the “romantic theology” of religiously-minded feelings. Closest of all to the basic principles of Schleiermacher and more akin to him in spirit is the “liberal school.” We have already seen that Schleiermacher’s philosophical and theological principles, which constitute the inner essence of his entire system, owe their origin to the influence of German idealistic philosophy, most notably its last and most prominent representative - Hegel. All subsequent liberal theologians stand on the same basis and come from the same place, who, like Schleiermacher, are the same, or even more consistent, champions of philosophical speculation in the sphere of theological ideas. Consequently, the theologians of this school are not so much Schleiermacher’s students as his co-workers, and together with him, followers of German idealistic philosophy. Since, after the era of Schdeiermacher, the influence of Hegel’s philosophy prevailed in the liberal school, its representatives became known as “Hegelians.” For almost three quarters of the 19th century, the “liberal trend” was dominant in Protestant theology: and to this day it remains the most typical expression of its true spirit and the clearest indicator of what consistent Protestantism inevitably comes to. Hence, the historical characteristics of this school receive special interest in our eyes. From the very beginning of its historical existence, the school of Hegelian theologians was divided into two main parties, forming the so-called “right” and “left” sides. The reason for this division is given in the very nature of this school, which, in its internal essence, represents nothing more than the old “vulgar rationalism”, transformed under the influence of new philosophy. And so, the more moderate of the followers of rationalism, wanting to save Christianity and comprehend it in the spirit of Hegel’s philosophy, decided to rebuild all Christian dogmatics according to the principles of this philosophy and thus founded the school of speculative theology (“right” of Hegel). Others, being more consistent, decided to reject Christianity, opposing it to the pantheism of their teacher and sacrificed the entire history of Christianity to this pantheism, reducing it to the world of myths, which is why this school is called “mythical”, and after its place of origin - “Tübingen” (“left” Hegelian). There is no need to dwell on the first of these factions, i.e. about the school of “speculative theology,” since it has never enjoyed special significance in Protestant theology. In the history of the latter, it can only be noted as an attempt to apply the speculative method to theology, an attempt that proved the complete inconsistency of such a method. The theology of this school, as it was expressed in the writings of its main representatives - Daub, Marheinecke and Rothe - bears the stamp of some unpleasant amalgam of the most heterogeneous elements: the Bible and philosophy, the apostle of Christ and the philosopher; simple religious truth and intricate rational thought were placed on one line, alternated one after another, and all this was adjusted to the main point of view of one or another philosopher, followed by a famous theologian 118. – Such artificial thinking gave rise to lifeless theology, which reflected the techniques of old scholasticism, so hated by Protestantism. It is not surprising that this school did not find suitable soil for itself here and, despite the affiliation of such major thinkers as Daub, Margainese and especially Rothe, it left almost no trace in the modern theology of Protestantism. 5. The other, “left” side of the Protestant theologians of the Schleiermacher-Hegelian school had a completely different fate. It is better known as “new-Tübingen” because of its place of origin (Tübingen University is its breeding ground) and “critical” because of the main distinctive feature of its theological method. In this respect, the New Tübingen school is the complete opposite of its predecessor, the “Old Tübingen” school. The latter was the defender of supernatural Revelation in Christianity and more or less strictly adhered to the orthodox trend. On the contrary, the teachings of the New Tübingen school are permeated with the most radical, destructive tendencies in relation to the positive content of Christianity and the history of its Church. In terms of the significance that this school had in the development of Protestant theological science and even more so in the influence that it enjoyed not only in Protestant Germany, but also in theologically educated circles of all countries, this school is unique and incomparable. The leading role of the New Tübingen school is explained by the nature of its theology, on the one hand, and the outstanding properties of its representatives, on the other and mainly. Hence, the exceptional importance of a thorough acquaintance with it is clear by itself. “It can be positively said that in the field of theological science there has never yet been a school that would be so systematically consistent in the negative direction it once adopted, so organized in its composition and, moreover, would have so many talented representatives possessing such extensive scholarship, which the very opponents pay respect to, and at the same time such wit and ingenuity with which they not only developed for themselves a completely new view of the most important church-historical events, but also found support for themselves in new sources, processed by them themselves, with which they, finally, based on several – apparently insignificant data, were able to create a complete and detailed, although, of course, incorrect image of what happened, over the course of two centuries” 119. The founder of this school, who headed it for almost 40 years, was Ferdinand Christian Baur, a professor of theology at the University of Tübingen (d. 1860). Of his students and followers, the most famous names are Strauss, Zeller, Watke, Schwegler, Kaestlin, Bruno-Bauer, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, De-Wette, Reis, Ewald, Wellhausen and, in modern times, Biedermann, Lipsius and Pfleiderer. However, this school, like all others, split into two main factions: one, with the character of a crude and decisive denial of Christianity, was called “mythological”, the other, distinguished by more subtle methods of denial, is known as “historical-critical”. The head of the school of “mythologists” was the most prominent of Baur’s students, a professor at the same University of Tübingen, David Friedrich Strauss. This was one of Hegel’s most consistent students, who fully developed his views on religion and drew from them extreme conclusions in relation to Christianity. As is known, Hegel, trying to reconcile his philosophy with the teachings of Christianity, thought to achieve this through an ideal explanation and understanding of Christianity. With such an attitude towards Christianity, he naturally attached greater importance to the historical basis of Christianity and was not at all embarrassed by it when developing his new views on the Christian religion; but at the same time, he did not make an open systematic attack on the external historical side of this religion, which should have been expected from him, judging by his starting points. “But where Hegel stopped was continued by one of the most desperate Hegelists - Strauss, who completed what his teacher did not manage to do.” The main obstacle to a new idealistic understanding of Christianity was the historical nature of the New Testament Scriptures, especially the Gospels - this foundation of the Christian religion. It was necessary, therefore, to undermine the significance of these Scriptures as historical documents and to destroy the real character of the narratives contained in them. This is what he thought to achieve by proclaiming a new, so-called “mythological theory,” i.e., the theory of the origin and formation of gospel stories in the likeness of classical myths, as the fruits of the collective thought of a certain nation and era. David Strauss was not original in this regard either. The poet Heine, who aroused interest in the study of mythology with his praises of classical poetry, suggested a new, desirable way to get rid of the difficulties created by the Gospel story (mainly its miracles). He discovered that the true nature of myth is the presentation of an idea, view or belief under the form of an objective story, composed through a living, continuous tradition, diversifying over time and gradually taking on more and more miraculous and, at the same time, more objective forms. Soon this mythological criterion was applied to the explanation of everything miraculous in revealed religion; Through the efforts of Lorenzo Bauer and De Wette, the entire Old Testament history was reduced to myths. It remained to do the same with the New Testament history, in particular with the Gospel history, which is the main foundation of all Christianity. D. Strauss took upon himself this laudable task. In 1835, he published the book “The Life of Jesus, Edited for the German People,” which created a lot of noise and opened a new era in Protestant theology. He prefaces the very presentation of the Gospel story with a long introduction, in which he subjects the sources of this story to destructive criticism, transforming them from strictly historical documents, as they hitherto were in the general Christian consciousness, into a poetic record of myths or allegorical tales. In the light of this theory, he further examines all individual events from the life and teachings of I. Christ. His Christ is not a real historical person, as the Gospels portray Him to us, but a fictitious, idealized personality; not what Jesus of Nazareth was in reality, but what the Savior should be, what humanity would like to see Him and what it needed. Fictional traits and events transferred to Him or presented in Him as historically existing, represent only the ideal person in the religious field, express the secret desires and aspirations of the human spirit, not realized in any one person, but having to be realized in the whole of humanity. Eliminating from his life of Christ everything miraculous and supernatural, Strauss leaves only the ordinary and, with the help of his lively and rich imagination, creates a plausible fiction to explain how a simple, pious Jew from Nazareth - which, in his opinion, Jesus Christ was - could turn in the imagination of His disciples and followers into the promised Messiah, the Savior of the world, all this he explains by the influence of historical, local and national conditions, revealing at the same time extraordinary flexibility of thought and resourcefulness of imagination. Despite such a decisive denial of the divinity of I. Christ, Strauss was not, however, an atheist; According to his religious views, he was a true Lutheran. In his opinion, which constitutes the cherished thought of all Protestantism, in every historical event or image it is not the external factual side that is important, but its internal, ideological side. The same applies to the person of the Evangelical Christ; what is important is not whether He existed or did not exist exactly as the Gospels depict Him, but that this is how He appeared in the minds of the authors of these stories. In the lofty image of the Savior, humanity outlined for itself its highest ideal and expressed the cherished aspirations of its spirit. The history of Christ is the ideal path of all humanity, and that this ideal is conscious, that this path is indicated in this very idea of ​​the Redeemer (it makes no difference whether real or fictitious) and lies the entire redemptive meaning of the Evangelical Christ. The duty of every Christian is to be internally reborn according to the example of the universal human ideal of Christ and thereby redeem himself. All this is reasoning that any Orthodox Lutheran would readily subscribe to. It is not without reason that they say that “from behind Luther’s stern and stately face, Strauss’s mocking and wry face was already peeking out” 120 . Thus, in the person of the founder of the mythological school, Protestantism finally undermined the historical soil of Christianity and eo ipso wide opened the doors to complete arbitrariness and inevitable anarchy in the field of theological thought and religious life 121. Feuerbach took a new step forward along the same path along which Strauss walked. If the former crossed out all of Christianity, recognizing it as a mythological fiction, then the latter abolished all religion, condemning it as a delusion of the human mind. Feuerbach was the most decisive Hegelian, more straightforward than Hegel himself. The latter, as is known, allowed a certain shadow of the existence of religion, recognizing the existence of a supreme “idea” manifested in the world - the life of the universal spirit, achieving self-consciousness in the human personality. But if this is so, if the world spirit is conscious of itself only in the personality of man, then, consequently, in it only it really exists. To speak about the objective existence of something unknown, unconscious of itself outside of us, as Hegel does, means contradicting oneself. In Hegel's inconsistency and self-contradiction, Feuerbach sees a remnant of mysticism, which, in his opinion, should be completely abolished. The existence of the absolute outside and above man is the purest abstraction: the truly existing absolute or God is only man himself. Hence, all theology must turn into anthropology. But if man is identical with the Divine, then how can we explain his innate need for faith and reverence for God? To this Feuerbach replies that the concept of the Divine is an illusion created by the heart's desire and poetic imagination. The Divine is the object of desire and the ideal of the human heart, objectified by the power of our imagination. The ideal to which a person, attracted by a religious feeling, strives lies not outside and not above a person, but in himself, and religion is nothing more than a person’s relationship to himself, but, as it were, to another being. The fact of religion is the illusory self-confidence of our heart, which demands the satisfaction of its desires. This “humane (homo) religion,” as one of Feuerbach’s students explained, consists of nothing more than man’s striving for the true essence, or ideal, hidden within himself, the forms of which are knowledge, art and practical activity. It is clear that religion, in its generally accepted sense, remains only an empty phrase. It is not surprising, therefore, that Feuerbach's realism resolved itself into an extremely negative direction, sparing nothing high and sacred for man - neither religion nor morality. Having proclaimed the cult of man in his religion, Feuerbach looks at him very lowly: Feuerbach’s pun is well known - “der Mensch ist, was er isst” (man is what he eats). Looking at man only as a product of material nature, in the likeness of plants and animals, Feuerbach deprived himself of the right to speak about any ideas of man, be they moral, artistic, aesthetic or scientific. The naturalistic point of view he adopted logically consistently led to the denial of all ideas and ideals, to pure nihilism and solipsism, which, indeed, was developed in the famous work of one of his students, entitled “The One and Its Properties” 122. Thus, German idealistic rationalism, consistently developing, in the teachings of Feuerbach finally degenerated into pure materialism, that is, it came to complete self-denial, which decisively condemned itself. From this it is clear that in the very embryo of idealistic rationalism, which constitutes the inner lining of all Protestantism, there were seeds of unbelief, which gradually developed and grew within it, although for a time they were covered by a plausible mask of faith: Feuerbach's realism, which embodied the development of German idealism, did no more than as soon as it took off this mask and revealed what had long been hidden under it. The merit of realism lies precisely in the fact that it exposed to us the true nature of philosophical idealism, strong with its charm, revealed the yawning abyss to which it consistently comes, made us shudder, awakened all the horror and disgust for it in the soul of everyone who has not yet lost the “spark of God” in themselves. On the basis of Feuerbach's realism, German materialism soon grew and developed; The period of its highest flowering was the time from 1854 (the year of publication of Lange's History of Materialism) to 1866, when the preponderance again tilted towards ethical idealism. Focht with his “Physiological Letters”. Mileschott with his “Physiology of Nutrition” and Buchner with his notorious work “Force and Matter” were the main apostles of German materialism. He had a tremendous influence on the spiritual and mental atmosphere of his era: English agnosticism, French positivism and subsequent German skepticism owed a lot to him. The ideas of German materialist philosophy, together with the Darwinian principle of the “struggle for existence,” became sui generis the main tenets of positive science, constantly reflected in life itself (the economic materialism of Marx and Engels, etc.). But all this development of materialism no longer has anything to do with religion: it is atheistic by its very nature 123. 6. The “mythological” school we have just examined represents, as we have already indicated, the extreme “left” in the “liberal” party, distinguished by the greatest radicalism of its views. Its activities are extremely destructive; to turn the entire revealed religion into a myth and destroy everything miraculous and supernatural - this is its last goal, the implementation of which consistently led it to materialistic atheism. Another faction of liberal theologians, which, in fact, forms the so-called New Tübingen theological school, refrained from these extreme conclusions. On the ground cleared by mythologists, numerous adherents of this school set themselves the task of giving a positive explanation of the historical development of the ancient Christian church. Due to the prevailing influence of the historical-critical method in the theology of this school, the school itself received his name, that is, it also began to be called “historical-critical.” At the head of this direction is the most famous historian-philosopher of the 19th century, Christian Bauer, the founder of the New Tübingen school. This major synthetic thinker successfully united and artistically developed into a whole system all the fashionable theological and philosophical trends of his time. Having assimilated the views of Hegel and Schleiermacher, he succumbed to the immediate influence of his own students (Strauss, K. Planck and Koestlin), representing in this regard a rare and rather exceptional phenomenon. “Thus, the essay of his student Strauss: “The Life of Jesus” prompted him to decisively take the path on which, unfortunately, history sees him. Also, two of his other students - K. Planck and Kaestlin, with their views on the origin of Christianity, had their share of influence on his theories regarding the same issue" 124. The essence of Baur's views on Christianity can be summarized as follows. The life of the Christian Church is expressed not in the external facts of its history, but in its basic spirit or idea, which is the driving principle of the entire series of phenomena in which the course of history is expressed. The idea of ​​the church is Christianity itself; and by it we must understand the general church consciousness, manifested in various historical forms. The expression of the Christian consciousness of a certain era is the Christian dogmas that characterize it; hence, the history of church dogmas constitutes the vital nerve of all Christianity, in which the beating of the pulse of its historical life can be heard. In the very history of these dogmas, he recognizes the process of gradual development of the initially united and small, through the meeting and struggle with opposing views and their final unification in one medium-conciliatory current. This process of gradual formation of Christian dogma took place over several centuries, although its main features had already taken shape by the end of the second century of the Christian era. At the initial moment of its history, Christianity represented only the most meager rudiments of future development - as if one dry grain of it, consisting in the only dogma of the first Christians, that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah. In order for all of Christianity to emerge from this seed, a negative dialectical process of development is introduced into its history: basic Christianity, in the very doctrine of the personality of its Founder, contained, in Baur’s view, the germ of two one-sided moments: Judeo-particularistic exclusivity and universalism; and so initially Christianity appears as Ebionite one-sidedness, which, according to the law of reaction, causes the opposite extreme in Paulinism: a struggle inevitably ensues between them, in which both these parties - Judaizing and paganism - deny each other, limit each other and are finally reconciled in the highest new form of the teaching of John, equally alien to both previous extremes. The main phases of this process or stages of developing Christianity were, according to Baur, Ebionism with Petrinism, Paulinism, Gnosticism, John's teaching, Manichaeism, Montanism, etc... In this way, by the middle of the 2nd century, what we call the “Catholic Church” was formed. The subsequent development of the Christian church proceeded in approximately the same spirit, in the history of which he assigns the most important place to the fight against heresies, which contributed to the development of Christian dogma 125. Baur's church-historical scheme, striking in its clarity and harmony, perfectly corresponded to the spirit of the times that dominated contemporary Protestantism, and therefore caused a hitherto unprecedented theological movement. Under the banner of the New Tübingen University, everything that was new and living, fresh and original in Protestant theology was united, which, one way or another, claimed scientific significance in it. It is not surprising, after this, that the number of any outstanding representatives of this school alone was measured in dozens. All of them actively developed the basic principles of their school and gave a wide variety of experiences in their comprehensive application. Some of the adherents of this school focused all their attention on criticizing the sources of revealed religion, that is, the New Testament and Old Testament books of Holy Scripture; others were completely carried away by creating broad historical plans in the spirit of their system, or by private analysis of its details. At the same time, some, directly following Baur, were primarily concerned with the history of Christianity and, in general, the New Testament church, such as, for example. Schrader, Keim, Schwegler, Zeller, Weisecker, Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Harnack, and many others. etc.; others applied the same method to Old Testament history, extending it even to the entire revealed religion: Reis, Vatke, Graf, Wellhausen, Stade and many others. other. Numerous representatives of the critical school in the development of their positive views on the same subject often diverge almost to the point of opposites (an instructive example of this kind is provided by at least the question of the composition of the Pentateuch and its authors); but they all agree in their negative attitude towards orthodox views on religion, as a revealed phenomenon, and on Holy Scripture, as a product of divine inspiration. According to the scientists of this school, Holy Scripture is a completely “ordinary” work of the human mind, written by ordinary mortal people, just as susceptible to human error as anyone else. Therefore, from the point of view of this school, it is strange to seek expressions of immutable eternal truths in something that has an accidental, temporary and local character, expressing the personal views of a famous author or, at most, reflecting the contemporary mood of the era with the prevailing opinions in it and the struggle of these opinions with one or another of its outcomes. The fall of the historical authority of the Bible destroyed the objective side of revealed religion, and finally relegated it to the category of ordinary natural phenomena. The special strength of this new negation lies in the fact that it does not proceed from a priori, philosophical principles, as it was before, but is based on the empirical data of historical criticism, exposing the entire inconsistency of previous views. But this is only apparent; reality is far from corresponding to such an optimistic idea of ​​​​the nature and merits of the historical-critical method of the new Tübingen school. The first shadow of doubt is cast over him by the fact of the extreme diversity of views and opinions expressed by various representatives of this school on the same issues, which involuntarily catches the eye even with a superficial review. Some, for example, relying on an internal analysis of the Apocalypse, consider it a genuine work of St. ap. John (Lange, Guericke); others, based on the same analysis, decisively reject his belonging to this apostle (Baur, Reis). “If we compare only the studies of the Tübingen school or the critics associated with its direction,” says Lange, “then the mass of mutual contradictions here represents, as it were, a forest of thorns... Let us just pay attention to those tangled knots in which the contradictions are intertwined with each other like bushes; let them compare the various results regarding Matthew, Mark, Luke, and especially John. Regarding the “Acts,” these contradictions form a kind of crystallization point. What kind of division exists between Strauss and Gfrer at different points, how many contradictions does Strauss have with himself regarding the Gospel of John?... It is a pity that the only thing missing is a table in which all the confusion of these results of the new criticism would be clearly presented" 126... All this, of course, could not even have arisen if critical theologians had based their conclusions on precise historical facts, in which there is no room for any variety and arbitrariness. It is clear that the critical views of the New Tübingen people are based not on facts, but on their tendentious coverage and subjective interpretation. Indeed, delving deeper into the inner essence of critical theology, we notice that this is the same speculative idealistic philosophy, only transplanted onto church-historical soil. If we compare Baur’s church historical scheme outlined above with Hegel’s system, we will see their complete parallel: the emergence of the unity, its subsequent bifurcation and the struggle of opposites, ending with their reconciliation - what we see in Baur is completely identical with Hegel’s thesis, antithesis and synthesis. It is clear that here they begin to study religion with a pre-drawn plan, they want to force its history into the Procustean bed of philosophy, they use a scheme developed a priori, and not at all taken from actual history. Hence the complete, boundless arbitrariness in the views of the Tübingen school, as devoid of any stable, objective criterion. Hence the extreme paucity of positive results in the theology of this school, so that the destructive tools invented by the Tübingen school, first of all, turn to harm itself. Thus, the critical direction of Protestant theology, being related to philosophical idealism, was a direct product of the basic principles of Protestantism - the beginning of subjectivism and the rejection of all external authorities in the matter of faith. It followed this path to the end, rejecting the divinely inspired meaning of Holy Scripture: in this regard, liberal Protestantism had as its forerunner Luther himself, who, as is known, was the first to reject the authenticity of some of the books of St. canon. But having drawn extreme conclusions from this, rejecting all of Holy Scripture, liberal Protestantism took away the objective historical basis from Christianity and, in essence, destroyed religion in the special sense of the word. 7. The reaction to the above liberal trend, running through the entire history of Protestant theology of the 19th century, is the conservative trend, expressed mainly in two schools: the New Orthodox and the New Lutheran. Its main representatives are: Hengstenberg, Thomasius, Stahl, Harles, Delitzsch, Kanis, Kliphot - in the past, Hess, Luthard, Frank, Tolyuk, Beck, Kübel and others - in our days. Since most of these scientists were professors at the University of Erlangen, this school itself, following the example of the Tübingen school, is also known under the name “Erlangen”. The positive direction serves as a further development of ancient orthodoxy, resurrecting its teachings in an updated form, modified in accordance with the spirit of the times. Characterizing his party, one of its representatives says that this school pours new wine into old wineskins, meaning by the first the ancient Christian teaching, which is still invariably preserved in the church, and by the second - new forms into which this teaching fits, those methods, categories and points of view developed by the exact sciences that are not contrary to ancient, church-biblical Christianity 127. In accordance with this, positive theologians, according to the same scientist, should call all those who, with more or less consistency, defend and defend the position of biblical and church authority in relation to the content of religious teaching 128. They teach about faith as Jesus Christ and the apostles taught, subject at the same time to what is found in the “Formula Concordiae” and to what the Lutheran Church professes in its official definitions of faith. Therefore, the positive direction, with the exception of some extreme opinions of some of its representatives, who, as Kübel puts it, try to smooth out the “roughness of dogma,” is closer to Catholic and even Orthodox views than to the views of the liberal school. The touchstone of every theological movement, characterizing its entire worldview, is the question of the sources of religious faith. Such sources for positive theologians are Holy Scripture and church authority. Their point of view on doctrinal sources is determined by their general view of religion. According to the teachings of positive theologians, religion is the relationship between God and man, in particular, Christian religion - the restoration through the historical appearance of Jesus Christ of man’s previous relationship with God, upset by sin 129 . In accordance with this two-sidedness of religion, its sources are revelation, on the objective side, on the side of God, and faith on the subjective side, on the side of man. In turn, the first of these sources has two types - general revelation, given in the creation of the world, in the industry about it - and private revelation, historical, i.e. the Word of God, contained in the books of Holy Scripture, which they look at as works inspired by God. In the doctrine of inspiration, positive theologians strive to take a middle ground between the old theory of mechanical inspiration, according to which man was interpreted as a passive receiver or conductor of Revelation, and the newest, rationalistic theory of natural, poetic animation, in which there is no objective, supernatural factor. But usually this balance is disturbed, either in the direction of mechanical theory (Kübel), or in the direction of liberal views (Köhler, Frank). Positivist theologians, like the Orthodox, recognize church tradition as a criterion for determining the canonical dignity of Holy Scripture, but they understand it in a rather unique way. “The faith of the church” in the canonical dignity of Holy Scripture, says: for example. Thomasius, - is based not on their apostolic origin (as it is with us), but on the content, and at the same time as a whole composition: for the evaluation of Scripture, the testimony of the spirit, but not the individual, but the spirit of the church, is of primary importance. The spirit of the church is the general experience that the church has had at all times of its existence regarding Holy Scripture.” The completion of church self-awareness, the general voice of the church, are “symbolic books”, which therefore represent the last word in resolving all theological issues. But other theologians of this school approach at this point the teaching of the liberals, adopting a purely subjective criterion for determining the truth of the biblical word, namely, “the experience, sensation or experience of the divine power of the biblical word” (Hess). Depending on the instability and uncertainty of the main criterion, there is disagreement among positivists in determining what exactly should be considered inspired in Holy Scripture? In resolving this issue, there are three main shades: some stand on a strictly ecclesiastical basis and consider the entire composition of the Bible to bear the stamp of inspiration (Beck), others consider the Bible to be inspired only in its entire composition, denying this to many of its private books and sections (Luther, Frank); still others, finally, limit the consensus biblicus to only some particular sections of the Bible concerning the most important points of doctrine, mainly the economy of our salvation (Kübel). In general, the only thing that can be considered generally accepted in the positive school is what Luther himself said long ago: “The Word of God is in Scripture, but Scripture is not the Word of God”... Thus, here too, the same subjective arbitrariness, characteristic of all Protestantism, in relation to Holy Scripture, this main source of faith. The second, subjective source of religion, according to positive theologians, is faith, as such a psychological act through which the revealed word of God, being individualized, becomes the internal property of a person and, as it were, a product of his own consciousness. Although this faith is dependent on the word of God, the first impulse to its awakening is the work of God, so that in this sense faith can be called “the gift of God.” In the psychological process of faith, as it develops in the soul of every person, there are two main moments - negative, heartfelt contrition for sins and consciousness of helplessness (contritio) and positive, the assimilation of the grace-filled gifts of the work of salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ and confirmation of the rights of sonship with God - this is faith (fides) that saves a person. I believe, therefore I am saved - the cornerstone of the entire dogma of Lutheranism. Depending on this view of positive theologians on the sources of religious knowledge - Holy Scripture and faith - their dogma is also based. Recognizing Holy Scripture as divinely inspired, it one way or another accepts all the dogmas that flow from it about God, the world and man; but he does not give equal importance to all of them, highlighting non-dogmas that relate to the second and most important source of our salvation - the justifying faith in the atonement accomplished by Christ. Hence, in the dogma of positive theologians, the image of Christ is placed at the central place, around Whom everything that concerns His person and the work He accomplished is grouped. In the teaching about the Person of Jesus Christ, His earthly life and ministry, positivists try to adhere to biblical soil, recognizing Him as God in essence, but not in dignity, and in general, maintaining the historical image of Christ as outlined in the Gospel. But there is far from complete agreement and unity between them; some of them, rather, approach the theologians of the critical school when they consider Jesus Christ to be only an ethical God-man, or when they deny the personal pre-existence and pre-temporal existence of the Son of God (Beischlag). According to the teaching of positive theology, the work of the historical Christ has universal significance for all humanity; and not only because in His person was given the ideal of spiritual maturity and a living example of moral perfection, but mainly because with His life, death and resurrection Jesus Christ fulfilled the historical mission that was intended for Him to save people by reconciling them with God. The center of gravity in the teaching of positive theologians about salvation lies in the discussion about the substitutionary meaning of the suffering of Christ, about the payment of debt, the forgiveness of sins and the change of God’s wrath to mercy, which saves, a sinner by nature, but forgiven for the sake of the merits of Christ, man. Thus, instead of the spiritual and moral rebirth of man in Christianity, a purely legal theory of justification dominates here 130. Having justified people before God, having received forgiveness of sins for them, Christ thereby defeated the power of death and opened the entrance to heaven, to the kingdom of God, to all who believe in Him. But one can only enter this kingdom through the church founded by Christ on earth: outside the church there is no salvation. She is a treasury of grace-filled gifts of the Spirit of God living in her. The external, visible manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the church are the Word of God and the sacraments, as conductors of grace. In the very doctrine of the composition and functions of the church, there is no uniformity in the views of positive theologians: some consider the church invisible, others - visible, others, finally, keep the middle: the latter opinion can be considered predominant. So, according to modern positivists - Loge, Delitzsch, Mutimeir, Kliphot, Vollmar and others - the division of the church into visible and invisible is completely untenable. Both of these concepts are inseparable from each other, coincide with each other, and what’s more, the second is a derivation from the first. As a union of people living in certain conditions of space and time, and united by the unity of teaching and church government into one external institution, the church, of course, is visible; but, as a society that lives by spiritual interests and has as its goal to prepare for eternal bliss in the kingdom of God, it is spiritual, and its inner life is invisible. Having completed the redemption of all mankind, God, with His redemptive grace, acts on the entire church, as a community of believers, and then, through the church, affects its individual members. The instruments of this mediation are the sacraments, which act on a person ex opere operato, that is, passively and indelibly: hence, in its view of the sacraments, positive theology comes quite close to the Catholic teaching about them. These are the essential points in the teaching of positive theologians. A characteristic feature of this school should be the desire for external authority and a strictly defined, so to speak, tactile, representation of religious objects: hence the recognition of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, the authority of symbolic books and the church with its visible structure. This should especially be said about the party of “New Lutheran theologians”. In the magazine Volksblatt they publish, they openly declare that “the Roman Church is more than our friend, it is our flesh and blood, it is half of ourselves: therefore its shame is our shame, its triumph is our triumph 131. This closeness to the Western Church is noticeable not only in their teachings, but also in church practice itself, where they pay great attention to the external side of worship, approving the decoration of churches with sacred images, the kneeling of worshipers, etc. and elevates the significance of the sacrament before the sermon. “The prodigal son of German Protestantism,” Schaff notes in this regard, “little by little began to be ashamed of the acorns with which he had fed himself for so long, struck his chest with a feeling of repentance and decided to return to his father’s home of the ancient, but at the same time, eternally young faith of the Church” 132. Making a final characteristic of the teaching of positive theology, we must admit that this direction does not have a complete, firmly defined, complete system of doctrine, although it strives in vain for it. Just as there is not a single positive theologian who remains true to himself from beginning to end, it is so difficult to find two positive theologians who would agree with each other on all points. The positive direction in Protestant theology is not a strict, complete system of dogma; it is, conditioned by the spirit of the times and the successes of the unbelieving critical movement, attempts by believers to return from the “country far away” to the bosom of true, Evangelical Christianity, from the unreliable tutelage of reason to the authoritative leadership of the church. But seeking salvation and protection in the church from the all-destructive criticism of negative theologians, positive theologians remain children of their age, faithful to Luther’s behest of personal freedom of inquiry. Hence they constantly deviate in one direction or the other. Thinking to remain positive theologians, they deny either the ontological Trinity, or the pre-eternal existence of the Son of God, or the virgin birth of Christ, or some of his miracles, etc. When positive theology wants to remain true to itself and completely consistent, then it introduces Romanism, disguised in Protestant forms and differing from Catholic Romanism only in that the throne of infallibility is transferred from Rome to another place: and this, as for everyone Obviously, this is tantamount in Protestantism to abandoning its foundations. Despite the fact that the party of positive theologians occupies a prominent place in our modern Protestant world: behind it, to a certain extent, is the present, and perhaps the future, of all Protestantism. In this sign of the times one can foresee one of those outcomes in which decaying Protestantism has to be resolved by returning it to the bosom of renewed Roman Catholicism. 8 The diametric opposition between the above two main directions of Protestant theology (liberal and positive) gave rise to a desire for their reconciliation and unification. As a result, a new school emerged - the so-called school of “intermediate” theology, which counts among its representatives the most prominent Lutheran theologians - Schenkel, Ullmann, Hagenbach, Dorner, Beischlag, Müller, Twesten, Nietzsche, Lücke, Rothe, Lange, Martensen, etc. The concept of the general character of this school is already given by its very name. It occupies a reconciling middle between the orthodox and liberal directions in Protestant theology, smoothing out the harshness and extremes of each of them. And these extremes relate mainly to the question of the relationship between revelation and science, reason and faith. Liberal theology, building religion exclusively on the principles of reason, denies supernatural revelation; positive theology, on the contrary, giving complete preference to revealed truth, is skeptical about the participation of human reason in matters of faith. Mediocre theology, through mutual concessions and restrictions, combines both of these demands into one, setting as its task to clarify theological truth as it is given in revelation, but at the same time in full agreement with the principles of reason and the arguments of modern science. In this regard, the theologians of the intermediate school join Schleiermacher, who also sought to reconcile faith with knowledge, proceeding from the conviction that religion and science are two different areas, each of which operates in its own special sphere and therefore, with the right view of the matter, there can be no conflict between them. Standing on this point of view, mediating theology finds it possible to eliminate those opposites that divide Protestants into parties (the main ones are Lutherans and Reformers), and in this way create a union between them. Consequently, this theology also mediates between different forms of Protestantism, reconciling and uniting them, and thereby again justifying its name “mediating” or “conciliatory.” In this regard, it rightly considers Melanchthon as its ancestor, who, as is known, was the first to try to unite Lutheranism with reformism by reconciling their distinctive features. According to its main task, the “intermediate” school tries to distinguish the sphere of faith from the sphere of knowledge: it recognizes the historical character of the Bible and considers its miraculous events to be valid: but at the same time it asserts that many questions raised by the Bible and revealed by it in the imperfect forms of everyday thinking require scientific illumination for their correct resolution. Without denying in principle the miracles of the New Testament, mediocre theology finds it possible to explain most of them, given the current state of science, in a natural way (phenomena, suggestion and self-hypnosis). Considering Holy Scripture to be inspired, it attributes this inspiration only to the entire Bible as a whole, arbitrarily excluding from here many particular points. In the spirit of similar duality, intermediate theologians interpret all other issues of faith and religion. Together with liberals, they recognize the right of the mind to freedom of research in matters of faith, its independence from the letter of symbols and definitions of faith: in each dogma they distinguish between grain and shell, religious essence and church-traditional form. But with such a fundamentally liberal foundation, some of the intermediate theologians are inclined to join the orthodox party: some of the Christian dogmas, especially those concerning the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ and the so-called facts of salvation, many theologians of the intermediate direction accept in the sense of the orthodox party and, like it, recognize them as inviolable, not subject to criticism. “However,” one of our researchers of modern Protestantism concludes his characterization of the intermediate school, “it is difficult to describe this party with any specific specific features, because there is a great difference between intermediate theologians: some try to narrow the circle of dogmas recognized as necessary, others try to expand, and at the same time transitions to one or the other party and back often occur 133 . This, of course, was to be expected, judging by the duality of the school’s basic principle. The ideal balance that this theology has set as its goal remains only one pium desiderium, but in practice there is always a tendency towards one of the warring sides. It is not surprising that mediating theology, having failed to achieve its goal, only led to an even greater division of parties, which greeted it with equal hostility. It did not satisfy the liberals, because, according to one of them, representatives of this trend “without due courage, with a divided conscience and in outdated forms follow scientific, speculative thinking.” But it did not please the orthodoxies, because, according to the latter, “mediocre theologians do not adhere strictly to Protestantism, not only in those points in which the confessions disagree with each other, but also in its essential teachings” 134 . In general, in the works of theologians of the “intermediate direction, instead of reconciliation, there is some kind of deal where much is not agreed upon, much is weakened and everything is soldered together artificially. Deprived of internal stability, the “mediocre” school has not shown any particular vitality: it belongs more to the past than to the present in the history of Protestant theology, since in later times the number of its adherents gradually becomes less and less. The reason for this lies in the inconsistency of the principle itself - mediation between faith and knowledge, which, with its consistent development, led each of the mediating theologians either to liberalism or to conservatism, depending on which principle - knowledge or faith - took precedence in it. Having failed to fulfill its difficult, or rather, impossible, task of reconciling opposing directions, the “intermediate school” nevertheless rendered a great service to Protestant theology; it was a strong opposition to the destructive effect of critical or scientific rationalism and gave many excellent apologists for religion in general - and Christianity in particular: on the other hand, it brought the spirit of modernity and the light of science into the dead forms of outdated orthodoxy and brought them closer to life. Finally, and this is the most important thing, “intermediate” theology, having drawn a strict boundary between two parallel areas - knowledge and faith, thereby sharply separated two sides in the concept of religion: theoretical or theology from practical or religion, in the strict sense of the word, it placed the first at the disposal of reason, the second subjected to the control of faith. This principle was inherited here from the Pietists and Schleiermacher and has now become the starting point and vital nerve of all the newest trends in modern Protestantism, to the presentation of which we now proceed. Modern trends in German theology. – Ritschl, Biederman, Pfleiderer, Kaftan and Harnack. – The gap between religion and theology. – Degeneration of Christian theology into a moral system. – Turn to traditionalism. – The meaning and essence of this reactionary movement. – General overview of the history of Protestantism in other non-German Protestant states: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland and America. - Conclusion. Starting to characterize the current state of Protestant theology, we find, first of all, it is necessary to state in the words of one Lutheran theologian that “the task of summarizing the current state of Protestant dogmatics is associated with special difficulties, which are determined mainly by the fact that the representatives of Protestant theology have lost everything positive, which is why they have the most unbridled, diverse dispute” 135. Nevertheless, familiarity with the basic principles of Protestantism and with the entire previous history of its development gives us some opportunity to understand the chaos of opinions that represents modern Protestant theology and to trace its main currents. If we exclude inconsistent representatives of the so-called. “intermediate” school, then in the entire theology of Protestantism from Luther to the present day it is easy to notice two main currents - one liberal-rationalist, the other conservative-orthodox. These two main historical types of Protestant theology also characterize its modern state, with the difference that, according to the spirit of the times and the movement of theological thought, each of these directions has received certain changes in the structure of its systems. The author of one of the Protestant monographs on the issue we are studying, dividing all his modern theologians into two camps: positive and liberal, or, following his terminology, into “positive” and “critical”, the first includes: Beck, Philippi and Kübel (biblical-church, strict school): Canis, Lutard and Thomasius (biblical-church, less strict); Dorner (speculative school); Köhler and Frank (empirical school). In his opinion, the second, liberal camp includes: Biederman, Lipsius, Pfleiderer (philosophical or Hegelian school); Ritschl, Hermann, Kaftan, Harnak and others (Richl school). At the same time, he notes that theologians of the same camp not only do not always agree with each other, but often diverge to the point of complete opposition, an example of which in the liberal camp can be the philosophical and anti-philosophical, or Richlev schools 136 . As for the first of the above-mentioned directions of Protestant theology, i.e. “positive” or “positive”, we do not need to dwell on it particularly, since its modern movements do not represent anything original in comparison with its previous forms, which we discussed above. However, in positive theology there is one feature that deserves our special attention - this is the progressive conservatism and, so to speak, the increasing orthodoxy of the direction under consideration. Under the influence of a fierce struggle against theological liberalism, which finally overthrows all the age-old foundations of religion and the church, in contrast, positive theology begins to take on not only the Orthodox Lutheran, but even the Roman Catholic imprint. The majority of modern representatives of positive theology are convinced of the need for Christianity to have a historically positive character, and also recognize spiritual unity and like-mindedness in doctrine as important for the church. For the people, in his opinion, they need a certain banner, something precise and clear, which they consider to be their shrine and with which they are inextricably accustomed to unite their faith. In this regard, Protestant theology with its endless doubts and disputes, instead of providing clear knowledge, can only completely confuse and confuse the religious conscience. Hence, the sympathies of the positive theologians of our days are not on his side: they find the method of the Catholic Church, with its absolutely strict system of teaching, skillful and expedient. Rightly believing that the wide-spreading stream of modern unbelief has its origin in the unlimited freedom of inquiry proclaimed by Protestantism, positive theologians consider it possible to stop this stream by indicating the limits beyond which it should not extend, by recognizing an external authority that would subject the flights of theological thought to the control of faith. Hence, in the positive theology of our time, the attraction to authorities, the desire for a precise formulation of faith and the development of a stable church form are more noticeable than ever. In the view of such theologians, not only St. Scripture, but also the symbolic books of Protestantism, stand very highly in the opinion of, for example, Thomasius, Bonwetsch, Zaberg and others - the latter provide the self-completion of church consciousness and in this sense constitute the last word in resolving all theological issues. Even more noticeable is this growing desire for greater firmness, certainty and stability in the practical sphere, in the area of ​​church and religious life, where the New Lutherans, for example. openly declare their sympathies for the Catholic world. “Previous experiments with church liberalism brought only disappointment, and therefore the turn of the Evangelical Church towards the orthodox direction is quite understandable,” says one of the modern observers of Protestantism 137 . In church life, according to him, a strict legal order (Rechtsordnung), the external inviolability of the symbol of faith and the consolidation of a well-known liturgical ritual prevail. The majority of church newspapers, which include several political ones, are written in the spirit of Catholicism, in complete contradiction with the seventh member of the Augsburg Confession 138. The famous church historian Adolf Harnack especially energetically rebels against such a “catholization” of the church, in which he rightly sees the impending threat of Protestantism, who, among other things, says: “If such a trend in Protestantism continues further, then a second Catholicism will degenerate from Protestantism, only poorer and less serious in religious terms than the first.” 139 All this is more than enough to see that the consistently developed positive direction of Protestantism leads it to final self-denial and complete degeneration into pre-Reformation Catholicism. 2. No matter how strong the positive current of Protestant theology is at the present time, it represents not so much an independent and independent direction of theological thought as a reaction to liberalism, due to its successes. Liberal theology remains the only original and expressive of the true spirit of Protestantism. In modern trends it is noticeable more life and movement than in the state of positive theology. The liberal school, as we have already said, currently forms two main branches - the philosophical movement and Richlian theology. As for the first of them, that is, the philosophical movement, it represents a further development of the previous theological rationalism, serving as a direct continuation of the vulgar, mythical and new Tübingen schools. Thanks to their concerted efforts, Christianity in the minds of many Protestants lost its supernatural character and was relegated to the level of ordinary human beliefs, serving as an expression of the practical side of the human spirit, on the one hand, its freedom, on the other, dependence on the surrounding world. It is on the basis of such views that modern liberal theologians build their religious systems. To get a proper idea of ​​them, it is enough to familiarize yourself with the views of Biederman, Lipsius and Pfleiderer - these luminaries of the latest speculative liberalism. True to its motto that “the Protestant Church is a school of philosophers, a great and sacred community of the search for truth,” the philosophical trend of modern theological liberalism is nothing other than Hegelianism clothed in the forms of Christianity. The starting point of this theology - its teaching about God, the world and man - is entirely pantheistic. Thus, according to the teachings of Biderman, God and the world differ from each other only logically, but in essence they are identical: God is that impersonal world soul that is spread throughout the universe and which only reaches its self-consciousness in man; in every person at all times his unity with God is realized; the will of God and the immanent moral world order are one and the same. Hence, the creation of the world, according to the same Biderman, is not a miraculous historical fact, but a conditional form for expressing the constant process of self-revelation of God in the world that has neither beginning nor end. All the dogmas of revealed religion do not have the objective content that they are usually taught; according to the theologians of this school, they should be understood completely differently, namely, in the spirit of idealistic philosophy. “I cannot hide the fact,” says the author of a special monograph on Protestant theology already known to us, “that the dogma of the Hegelians, and therefore the dogma of Biederman and Lipsius, represents for me something inexpressibly monotonous. This has been going on for a long time, in Biderman, for example. stretched out over a whole thousand paragraphs, the process of gradual transformation of the lower historical “ideas” set out in the biblical-church teaching in abstract form into the highest form of real “ideas”... In the directly felt penetration of the finite spirit by the infinite, or God, in mysticism, man triumphs in his highest bliss, which speculation then helps to achieve the complete truth about himself” 140. More often, developing their general thoughts, theologians of the critical philosophical school write entire treatises on religion and creation, on the goodness and wisdom of God, on redemption and restoration, on eternal bliss and future life, etc.; but all this is only for the “weak in spirit”; in reality, under the cover of church-dogmatic, traditional forms, they mean purely metaphysical processes and concepts that serve as a private revelation of their general pantheistic worldview. The essence of the positive teaching of this school can be briefly described as follows. Since the only real being or supreme idea achieves its self-consciousness only in man, all religious dogmatics should deal with nothing other than the analysis of human nature, the depiction of its moral and psychological processes. Jesus Christ, the head and founder of the religion of His name, was the first and only person of his kind in whom God-consciousness reached the highest degree of its discovery. In view of this, various external historical facts from the life and work of Christ do not seem to have any importance for us, since exclusive interest should be focused not on the external personality of Christ and His historical work, but on the internal growth of His personality, on His divine-human spirit 141. Thus, in liberal theology, the personality of the historical Christ fades into the background; the religious principle, the divine-human spirit, the life of which we, according to Herman, learn not from the Gospel, but from the self-consciousness of society, comes to the fore. It goes without saying that the theologians of this school do not recognize the deity of Jesus Christ, or more precisely, they understand him in a pantheistic sense. According to the presentation, for example. Biderman, Jesus Christ can be called a God-man only in the sense that in His person the idea of ​​sonship with God was first revealed with all clarity 142. If, with such an understanding of religion and a view of Christ, the theologians of this school still talk about the salvation of all mankind by Christ, the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God, then they look at the matter from their point of view, from the point of view of natural religion: in discussing these subjects they take only one subjective side and say, for example. not about the salvation of people by God, but about the self-salvation of humanity (autosoterism), the prototype of which was the historical Christ; His work was only the first, the cornerstone in the building of salvation. As for the various dogmatic concepts - reconciliation, redemption, sanctification - these are not different consequences of God-given salvation, but different degrees of its assimilation by man. The second place, after the person of Christ, is given by theologians of the critical philosophical school to the teachings of the church. What the historical Christ was for His contemporaries, liberal theologians say, for people of subsequent generations, is the church founded by Him. She is, as it were, a collective personality and in this sense is an expression of the life of the religious spirit in the consciousness of the society of believers in Christ. This public self-consciousness is identified by them with the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of God living in the Church 143. As such, the Christian community or church does not constitute an end in itself, but serves as a means to a higher goal, forms a transition to the “Kingdom of God” - this ultimate goal of our entire existence. According to Pfleiderer’s definition, the “Kingdom of God” is “the revelation of the divine-human principle in the general organism of the vital institutions of human society, the highest social good and the ideal of the most perfect communication with God in eternal life” 144. In a word, the “kingdom of God” is the highest, most perfect order of the same earthly life; it is immanent in the world, or this-worldly. This is, in its main points, the latest liberal theology of the philosophical-critical school. It is clear that for its representatives “theology is nothing more than an imperfect, approximate sketch of higher philosophy and that the world of religious thought is like a kind of Plato’s cave, where dogmas like images and shadows change and produce certain abstract concepts” 145. Here you can find anything you want, Hegelian monism and Fichtean solipsism and Schelling's pantheism, but not Christianity or even religion in general. Harmann himself, who, as is known, sympathizes with pantheists, even found that “the point of view of such theologians lies outside of Christianity” 146. “Even in the crudest paganism,” Flügel exclaims bitterly, “there is no less religion than in this pantheism” 147! Thus, the two main schools of modern Protestantism - positive and philosophical-critical - stand opposite each other, like two opposite poles. In their understanding of the essence of religion and theology, they diverge diametrically, and the abyss separating them, according to the authoritative remark of Delitzsch, becomes wider and deeper every year, so that no mediation between them is possible 148. 3. Despite the above-mentioned impossibility of a reconciliatory unification of the two main theological movements of modern Protestantism, an attempt of this kind existed and it gave the experience of theology, which is almost the dominant direction in it. The leader of this movement was the famous Protestant theologian Albrecht Ritschl, who was a professor at the Universities of Bonn and Göttingen (b. 1822 † 1889). The author of the monograph on Protestant theology of the 19th century that we have already mentioned more than once. considers Ritschl to be the most prominent theologian of our century, after Schleiermacher, and admits that if Schleiermacher opened a new era in the history of Protestant theological science, then Ritschl began a new phase in it 149. Our author puts Richl's main merit to the fact that he is fuller and happier than anyone who used the Schleiermacher method. The latter, as we know, chose a new ground for solving the question of religion: he pointed out its source not in knowledge, as was thought before him, but in a completely different area, in feeling as the internal experience of not only an individual person, but an entire historical society. Due to this view of the essence and origin of religion, its dogmatic side loses its paramount importance; The place of the latter in the theology of Richlianism is occupied by a description or depiction of the internal subjective side of religious feeling, its moral nature. At this point, the Richlev school converges with the philosophical one; but it differs significantly from it in another respect. The philosophical school looks at religion as a kind of metaphysical system and therefore creates not a real, but only a mental, or more precisely, a chimerical religion. The Richlev school holds a completely opposite view on this subject. True religion, according to Ritschl himself, has nothing to do with metaphysics. The latter is an attempt to understand and clarify the world around us: but Kant, with his teaching about the impossibility of knowing a thing in itself, finally proved the futility of such attempts. Hence, Ritschl concludes, all questions of a metaphysical nature must once and for all be excluded from the field of theology. Religion and science are two completely different and even opposite areas: if reason dominates in the first, then feeling dominates in the second. However, Ritschl understands this last quite broadly, more broadly than, for example, Schleiermacher; he calls it self-judgment (Selbstbeurtheilung) of the human spirit, since he considers all the powers of the human spirit - mind, heart and will - to have their share of participation in the religious process 150. Deprived of the opportunity and right to resolve metaphysical questions about what God is in himself, how the world came into being, what the historical Christ is by nature? etc., theology, say the Richlists, must engage in the study of what meaning does all this have for us, for our self-aware and self-determining spirit? Only on this basis is true Christian dogma possible. In it, God - the beginning and end of all dogma - can only be thought of as love, because only from this side do we know His attitude towards the world and man. Likewise, exclusively from this point of view, i.e., as the highest manifestation of divine Love for people, we must judge Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity. All the dogmas of the old theology: about God and His properties, about the world and man, about the personality of Christ, His pre-worldly existence, miraculous birth from the Virgin Mary, His redemptive and reconciling death and life-giving rising from the dead, must be rejected by the new theology, or at least radically changed in the spirit of its basic principles. Ritschl and his school have an equally tendentious attitude towards Holy Scripture, which they interpret eclectically, that is, choosing from it only that which is consistent with their views; everything else is either completely rejected or artificially adapted to their opinions 151 . Placing the doctrine of Divine Love at the basis of all their dogma, the theologians of the Ritschl school attach great importance to the doctrine of “justification and salvation” 152. But both of these concepts have a completely unique meaning for them. Based on their basic principle, Richlists say that the history of the world opens with the kingdom of pure love and harmonious unity of God with man. But then man violated this union by his fall, in which he gave triumph to his selfish aspirations; showed a lack of trust in God and expressed cold indifference towards Him. However, in the act of the Fall one should not, in the opinion of these theologians, see any particularly grave insult to God, and from there there is no place or talk about the terrible consequences that original sin allegedly entailed. All this is neither worthy of God nor in accordance with human nature; in reality, sin is more likely a bad habit than a hereditary change in nature; and the punishment for it should be understood not in the form of a divine curse weighing on humanity, but in the sense of a painful feeling felt by a person of his own guilt before God and a painful consciousness of his alienation from God. 153 To return divine love to us and restore the normal order of life again, our Lord Jesus Christ appeared on earth. He, according to the view of the theologians in question, was an ideal person in whom good and evil were harmoniously balanced. At the same time, He is a revelation of God’s love for us, that love in which there is an eternal world goal. With His life, I. Christ fulfilled His historical calling, and through his suffering and death he imprinted the vitality and power of the great principle of love that he proclaimed to the world. “Since, further, Jesus Christ, bringing satisfaction to God, was the guarantor for all humanity as a single whole, hence the forgiveness of sins or the assimilation of justification can be achieved by a Christian only as a member of a single whole, or otherwise, as a member of the community of Christ, due to the exchange between his personal moral freedom and the moral influence of society. Belonging to the church, as a visible society, is, according to Ritschl, the guarantee of justification and salvation” 154. The Church, as a well-known external institution, is identical with the Christian community, and the spirit of Christ that animates it is identical with the religious consciousness of the entire community. Inextricably linked with the doctrine of the church in Ritschl’s theology is the idea of ​​the “kingdom of God,” which constitutes the final goal of all aspirations. Ritschl himself defines it as a gathering of believers in Christ, insofar as they act in accordance with the principle of love. It, therefore, is the ideal of happiness achievable on earth, realized through the moral activity of all members of society, animated by the beginning of mutual love. “Representing a necessary tendency of divine love, the kingdom of God is at the same time realized by man; and with this introduction of the human personality, Ritschl avoids pantheism" 155. This kingdom of God, internally experienced by man, in the collective union of all believers, forms the church. Strictly speaking, the church, according to Ritschl, as a manifestation of the inner, invisible side of the spirit, should be invisible. However, contrary to all expectations, he is a strong defender of the visible church with its external organization and liturgical cult, which includes prayer, the word of God, preaching and sacraments. Thus, at the conclusion of Ritschl’s system, a conclusion is obtained that contradicts not only the basic principles of Lutheranism, but also its own principles. However, this is far from the only example of the self-contradictions, ambiguities and confusion with which Ritschl’s theological system is so rich. “His teaching is extremely confusing; it is even said that in order to make his teaching more confusing, he consciously and deliberately resorted to the most obscure methods of expression, as a kind of theological tactic. Despite this, or perhaps precisely because of this, Ritschl’s teaching is so popular at the present time that, according to the remark of one direct witness to his successes, “all Lutheran theology, not without reason, is now divided into Richlists and non-Richlists” 157 . Among the adherents of this “newfangled theology” are the majority of modern Protestant theologians, led by such outstanding scholars as Kaftan and Harnack. As often happens, Ritschl’s students went even further than their teacher in developing his basic views. Having reduced the entire essence of religion to ethics, in Christian dogma they saw only unsuccessful attempts by the human mind to achieve objective knowledge of religious subjects. Ritschl's followers even come to the idea that the dogma of Christianity was created under the influence of pagan philosophy, that it, therefore, is a product of paganism 158. In his special monograph on this, one of the zealous Richlians derives, through long historical excursions, almost all Christian dogma from philosophical pagan views. Most of all, for such a pagan understanding of Christianity, he blames the Eastern Church, where from time immemorial the philosophical and contemplative direction of theology dominated. From here this direction moved, according to him, to the west, and in scholastic theology, which took on the solution of the most difficult metaphysical questions, it reached its fullest flowering. The first decisive blow to this speculative theology was dealt by Protestantism, which put forward the practical side of Christianity; the other, final one, was made by church rationalism, which grew on the basis of the same Protestantism. Kaftan attributes to this rationalism not the undermining or destruction of faith, but, on the contrary, the purification and restoration of true Christianity; in him, in his negative attitude towards orthodox dogma, was reflected, in the words of Kaftan, “the verdict of history itself on this teaching.” In destructive work aimed at undermining Christian dogma, perhaps the most outstanding of our modern Protestant theologians, Adolf Harnack, went especially far. “His scholarship is enormous, his research bears traces of impartiality, his authority as a historian is indisputable 159. That is why its influence is especially strong and harmful. Thus, the “newfangled, Richlean theology” of Protestantism is the same liberal rationalism, only donning the guise of faith and therefore even more dangerous. Entering under the protection of the zealots of the true religion, they unwittingly win over all who seek faith; but only in order to steal from them the last remnants of it, filling the soul, instead of positive religious content, with skeptical criticism and elusive ghosts! But next to this, the highest religious knowledge, the elastic theology of the Richlists also allows for another, more crude and imperfect faith for the “weak in spirit,” and even recognizes its pedagogical significance to a certain extent; this is faith in the inspiration of Holy Scripture and recognition of the most important Christian dogmas, the decisive denial of which would be too tempting for many. In view of this, Protestant orthodox theologians are deeply right when, indignant at the methods of Richlian theology, they exclaim: “This is a false counterfeit of theology, this is hypocrisy!..” 160. Giving a final verdict on the Ritschl school, we must attribute it to the liberal camp and recognize in it the dominance of the same theological rationalism that reigns in the philosophical-critical school. Only the rationalism of the Richlev school is less consistent and decisive in its conclusions than critical rationalism: but for that it is more consistent with the basic spirit of Lutheranism, distinguished by the same properties of inconsistency and contradiction; so from this side, Ritschl is Luther’s most faithful son, which is the main reason for the unprecedented success of his school. This is a sad picture of the contemporary state of theology of German Protestantism. “The phenomenon is painful, the calamity is terrible!” – as Prof. rightly exclaims. Beischlag 161. “If Protestantism continues to move in this direction, then the last hour will strike for the church,” one believing pastor from Essen declared no less rightly 162 . There is no little bitter truth in Hartmann’s review, who called Protestantism “the gravedigger of Christianity, a transitional step from it to the “religion of the future” 163. He attacks liberal Protestant theologians especially harshly, although deservedly so, by denouncing them that the “Christianity of Christ” they preach, in essence, has very little in common with real Christianity; These theologians are more concerned about sending a few of their pathetic homemade ideas into the world “under the brand of Christianity” and floating freely “under the Christian flag.” In fact, they, rejecting all the dogmatic foundations of the Old and New Testaments, act like the Roman augurs of the Augustan era, who deceived the people in the name of religion, but in their hearts they believed nothing and smiled cynically when they met each other. An example of the degree to which the liberalism of Protestant pastors reaches can be seen in the activities of one Weimar pastor, who openly preached complete atheism from the church pulpit. When the superintendent wanted to remove such a pastor from office, the latter appealed to the court, proved there the supposed justice of his convictions, was acquitted in court and remained in his place 164. Thus, Lutheran theology, following the path of consistent development of its basic principles throughout the nineteenth century, came at the end to conclusions that were negative not only for Lutheranism itself as a religious system, but also for all of Christianity, even for religion in general. That this is indeed the case, it is enough to point out various pathological phenomena observed in all areas of thought and life: Dreyer’s “Christianity without dogmas”, the “liberal antinomianism” of various societies of ethical culture, the “social-communist” movement of Stokker and Naumann - all these and similar bitter “fruits of Western enlightenment” grew on the rotten soil of Protestantism and threaten a destructive catastrophe 165. “We rejected everything objective,” Neander noted sadly; we thought that only subjective religion was possible and we were cruelly deceived.” It is not surprising that the result of such a religious-historical process is not only the fall of religion, but often its complete disappearance, evidence of which is the gradually increasing percentage of those leaving the church in Germany: “The number of those leaving the church in one current year,” states the author of one of the modern descriptions of Protestant Germany, “extends up to a thousand people” 166. Despite the matter from a higher, providential point of view, one can see even in this extremely negative outcome some positive result. “A seed will not live unless it dies,” says the apostle (1 Cor. 15:36). Thought through self-negation comes to affirmation. Therefore, Protestantism must reach the end of the plane on which it stands in order to feel and realize all the lies of the position (personal freedom of research) that it places at the forefront of its theology, all the harmfulness and toxicity of those vital juices (rationalism) on which it feeds. And as soon as he realizes and feels all this, he will voluntarily renounce his destructive errors and, like the prodigal son of the Gospel parable, return to his father’s home - to the bosom of the one true Catholic Church. At present, Protestantism is experiencing a decisive crisis, the path of denial has been completed to the end, it stands on the edge of an open abyss, at the bottom of which lie the formidable ghosts of complete religious-moral and state-political anarchism; Protestantism has only to dot the letter and look into the yawning abyss, and while there is still time, recoil from it in horror. Some indications of such a favorable outcome of this crisis are the desire of almost the entire half of the Protestants (orthodox school) to return to the fold of Catholicism. In this reactionary movement one can see a clear consciousness of the deep lies of Protestantism and a living expression of an intense thirst for religion, understood in the sense of a solid, stable system. But a return to Catholicism is only a sign of the times, as a recognition of one’s own powerlessness: in fact, it is possible only for a few individuals, and not for an entire religion. “Centuries of fierce struggle have managed to put too deep a line of separation or alienation between these two religious systems for them to once again merge into one whole” 167. But besides Roman Catholicism, which has stained itself with numerous and hateful errors in the eyes of Protestants, there is another Catholicism, in the name of which the German reformer himself once raised a protest, this is the Catholicism of the ancient undivided church. And the teaching of this church in all its integrity and purity, even according to the admission of well-meaning Protestants themselves, was preserved only in one Greek-Eastern church 168. It is here, in the bosom of the ancient mother church, that Protestantism must ultimately return, after it has completely outlived all its foundations, is tired of wandering through the crossroads of the world and has buried its errors!.. The history of German Protestantism, which developed on the native soil of the Reformation and therefore represents its purest and most efficient type, strictly speaking, can exhaust the entire history of Protestantism of the nineteenth century. However, in the interests of completeness and completeness, it is necessary to touch upon, at least in the most cursory outline, the position of Protestants in other, non-German states. Here we will say a few words only about those countries where Protestantism is the dominant state religion and note only what is most typical in its history for the specified period. The first place in the number of Protestant confessors among all Protestant countries is occupied by the states of Northern Europe - Sweden, Norway and Denmark, where the number of Protestants is 99⁒ of the total population. The rights of the state religion in all these states are enjoyed by the Evangelical Lutheran confession, which here has a strong church organization in the spirit of a territorial system, that is, with complete subordination of the church to the state. The king and the ministry of confessions are the main guardians of ecclesiastical interests there. As for other Protestant denominations, according to the laws in force there, they are placed under strict state control, which prohibits aggressive activity by church dissidents 169 . But, in fact, due to the extensibility of these laws, the Lutheran Church of Sweden and even Denmark is constantly flooded with various sectarian propagandists - Baptists, Adventists, Parkerians, Swedenborgians, Mormons and positivists, not to mention secret separatists imbued with rationalist-Socinian views. All these societies, although nominally remaining in the popular church, in reality are often far removed not only from Protestantism, but also from Christianity and religion in general. Another important point of European Protestantism is the Dutch state or the Dutch Republic. Holland and its universities serve as the preeminent breeding grounds of Protestant freethinking scholarship; so that in this respect it is hardly inferior to Germany itself. “German theological development over the past decades is more noticeable than ever before and anywhere in Holland, where there is a lively struggle between all kinds of parties and trends of Protestantism. The numerous shades of orthodox groups can be opposed by no less diverse movements of free schools - from ancient supranaturalism to the latest critical rationalism" 170. In the foreground here is the ancient Calvinist movement, which has taken deep roots, especially among the common people. This direction appropriates the name “ethical” or “ethical-conciliatory” because, ignoring dogmatic disputes, it cares about the moral and practical side of the life of Christians, trying to arrange it in the spirit of the Gospel requirements. The special task of mediating between the extreme parties of Calvinists and Lutherans was taken on by another group of theologians, known under the name “evangelical”. Although it has many famous figures in its ranks, it can hardly have a future. Deprived of a definite foundation of faith, she is constantly condemned to experience the ecclesiastical and theological instability of her eclectic teaching. Even now, this party is for the most part taking the side of the “newest” in resolving the most important issues. This is the name of the dominant Protestant party in the Netherlands - the representative of science, the bearer of progress and the plenipotentiary leader of church and state 171. From this party a Protestant Union was formed, which, although independent of the German Protestant Union, is completely in solidarity with it. Among the outstanding Dutch theologians one can name the following names: Reville, Pearson, B. Hue, G. Prinsterer, Scholten and others. In addition to the main branches of Protestantism, there is no shortage of various private sects. In The Hague and Amsterdam there are, for example, entire communities of Irvingians, Methodists, followers of Lord Restock, ancient Sabbatarians, even Mormons, etc. 172. In general, Holland, along with Scotland, serves as a predominant place for the development on the Protestant soil of Europe of the so-called “free churches” (Freikirchen), the center of which is the University of Amsterdam 173. Protestantism reached its greatest development, in the sense of complete decay, in America 174. A country of progress and freedom - from the democratic-republican system of government to women's emancipation inclusive - America represents especially favorable soil for the comprehensive development of Protestantism. The dominant Protestant movement in America is Methodism. Under this name, a religious movement similar in spirit to German Pietism is known in England and America; their starting points are different: pietism is a product of Lutheranism, methodism is a product of Calvinism. In addition to Methodism, Baptistism, Unitarianism, Irvingianism and various socio-ethical societies flourish in Protestant America. In this regard, especially remarkable is the so-called “Society of Ethical Culture,” which preaches natural-humanitarian morality instead of Christian. It served as a prototype for the formation of similar societies on the basis of European Protestantism, in the kind of communities of Baron Egidi, Jodl, etc. 175. Finally, in America there are several sects that have degenerated from Protestantism, which already completely go beyond the boundaries of Christianity, but also beyond the boundaries of religion in general, for example, Mormonism, the community of humanism, the religion of positivism, etc. 176. Along with the perversion of the basic religious principle, church-practical life was also perverted. Thus, by Americans’ own admission, their churches or houses of worship often turn into a kind of entertainment clubs where they can spend time comfortably and pleasantly. The very furnishings of these churches speak more of refined, whimsical taste than religious feeling: here are Brussels lace and magnificent sconces, and soft embroidered pillows, and movable armchairs and many elegant trinkets. In the same spirit, a program of church meetings in such churches is drawn up. In it, along with numbers of spiritual content - short chants and prayers - secular activities and entertainment occupy a prominent place. In some, for example churches in New England, while the father of the family is studying the Gospel, the mother and her friends are practicing playing the piano in the next room, and the young people, left to themselves, spend time in pleasant conversations. In order to entice and attract the public to visit the church, its pastors went even further: they began to offer their visitors free treats, which included cheese, ham and various delicacies 177 . These are the ugly forms in which the church life of Protestantism in America is expressed! In conclusion of our concise outline of Protestantism in other non-German states, we can with even greater right repeat what has been said more than once regarding German Protestantism. The religious history of the 19th century of all the major Protestant states gives us convincing and eloquent proof of the complete failure of Protestantism. Thanks to the principle of decentralization rooted in the very spirit of Protestantism, it turned out to be powerless to create a single, integral church organism and disintegrated into separate elements, which, as devoid of internal vitality, were inevitably doomed to death. And those main currents, which, as we have seen, run through the entire history of Protestantism, outline for us the two main outcomes into which expressive Protestantism will resolve; namely: the critical-rationalist or liberal direction of Protestantism leads, in the end, to atheism, and the conservative-orthodox one leads to Roman Catholicism, or, at best, even to Orthodoxy. So, there is no need for us to get carried away by the tinsel splendor of Protestantism, to chase it along the crossroads of the world. This is not a religion of strength and spirit, not a thing of the future, but a religion of the past, which has played its historical role and is now leaving the active stage. We, living in the true Church of Christ, possessing all the fullness of grace-filled powers and means of salvation, must firmly and steadfastly adhere to our truly universal Orthodoxy, before the truth of which, sooner or later, the heterodox West will bow. A. I. Lopukhin “We will modernize, Protestantism”, 23 pp., St. Petersburg 1865 Lopukhin - “Let's modernize. The West in religious law attitude” page 24. A. Lebedev “Essays on development.” protest. church historical science in Germany". 1 page, M., 1881. Grenkov "The main directions of German theology of the 19th century." I, 6, Kazan 1882. “Brief history. an outline of rationalism in its relation to faith." "Proceedings Kyiv. Spirit. Akad." 1883. III 440. Zaitsev “Sovrtv. religious parties in protest." Ave. Review 1860. III, 84 pp. Giesler, "Lehrb. der Kirchengeschichte", V, s. 7. Khrisan, “The character of Protestantism and its historical development”, 22 pp. St. Petersburg. 1868. Nippold, Handbucb der neuesten Kirchengeschichite, III, s. 321. Nene Evangel. Kirchen-Zeitung, 1867. N. 30. Schenkel Die gegenwartige Lage der protestantischen Kirche in Preussen und Deutschland. 1867, s. 35. Pisarevsky, Fourth Ordinary Protestant General Synod, “Theologian. Messenger". 1898 July, 101 pp. N. Markov, Parish in the Evangelical Church of Prussia, “The Wanderer”, 1887, III, 64–65 pp. Schwartz, Geschichte der ueuesteen Théologie,” V. II, Schlussbetrachtung. Grenkov. German theology 178 pp. Giesler, Kirschengeschichte, V. V. s. 213. "Zeitschrift fur Protestantismus und Kirche". The organs of the latter are the Volksblatt, published in Halle, and specially the Neue Evangel Kirchen-Zeitung, edited by Hengstenberg. Zeitschrift fur Protestantismus und Kirche 1867, no. IV. Evangehsche Kirchen-Zeitung, 1867, no. 78. Nene Evangel. Kircbcn-Zeitung, 1867, no. 11. Evaug. Kirch. Zeitung, 1867, .'é-V 2S5 und 231. Neue Evangel Kirchen-Zeitung, no. 12. In Germany the organs of this trend are the Protestantieche Kirchen-Zeitung and especially the famous Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Théologie, published by Hilgenfeld. A more detailed description of this, the most typical of Protestant schools, with a disclosure of the private views of its most prominent representatives, will be given in the next chapter, when we will talk about the internal development of Protestant theology. Allgemeine Kirchen. Zeitschrift, 1860, 5 Η. s. 9. This society has its own special body - “Bote des Evangel. Verein des Gustav-Adolf" and another, also serving his interests - "Fliegende Blatter". Róhm, Der Protestantismus unserer Tage, München, 1897. s. 14. Pisarevsky, Fourth Ordinary Protestant General Synod, "Theologian. Bulletin", 1898. July, 75 pp. See the translation of this “note” in “Orthodox Review”, 1868, I, 188 pp. Brockhaus and Efron, “Encyclopedic. words.”, XI, 404, 1898. op. pp., 11–12 p.m. Their presentation can be seen in Róhm. Róhm – 13 s., Reichbote vom 10 Novem. 1893. Rumyantsev, Essays and news from modern life of protest, sectarianism and separatism in Germany “Christ. Reading", 1883, II, 113. Funk, Lohrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, 2 Auf., 1890, s. 572. The organ of the “Protestant Union” is Schenkel’s journal “Allgemeine kirchliche Zeitschrift”, which is distinguished by its completeness and comprehensiveness of judgments on issues of state and church life in Germany. Voronov. Protestant Diet in Altenburg. "Proceedings Kyiv. Spiritual Academy", 1865, II, 40 pp. “The Brotherhood of the People of God” is a direct echo of the collegia pietatis of Jacob Speper, Franke and other leaders of pietism. Your Stundist societies most closely resemble the German Theegesellschaft (tea society, evening meeting), that is, pious, religious and moral meetings that arose in the revived pietism of your century. The malicious nature of the Stunda attracted the attention of the highest authorities and prompted it to issue a decree of September 15, 1894, by which the Stunda was recognized as a dangerous sect not only in church, but also politically, and was subjected to legal persecution. See P. Nechaev “Pietism”, 809 pp. Rules of the Ob, 1873, I, Rohm op p., a. 383. Banhaus, Pietismus und Christentum in Spiegel ausseren Mission Leipzig. 1864, 1. N. Pisarevsky, A year and a half in Berlin, "Theologian. Bulletin", March 1897, 520 pp. Schenkel, see Zaitsev “Let’s lie, religious. parties in protest.”, in Rights. Review 1860, 3, 83 pp. Kerensky "Church. rosl. let's lie, Lutheranism"; 1899. 214 pp. February – Orthodox. Interview... E. Simons „Freikirche, Volkskirche, Lanàeskircbe“, s. 4, Freib. und Leipzig. 1895 Kerensky "Church. once. let's lie, protest."; Orthodox Interlocutor, 1899, February, 214 pp. Kerensky Or. With. 228 pp. A. Harnack, Zur gegenwirtigen Lage d.es Protestantismus. Leipzig 1896. s 11 sqq. Harnack decree op. pp. 16–17… Kerensky, decree. op. 216 pp. Nippold, Neuesce Kirchengeschichte, 3, 2, ss. 48–52. See Kerensky, Let's lie, fiercely. in its impact on society. life: “Orthodox. Conversation", 1899, April, 471 pp. A. S. Khomyakov, Complete collection. works, vol. II. 44 pp. 1880. A. L. Kataksky, Characteristics of Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. "Christian. Reading", 1875 I, 18 pp. St. Petersburg. A. L. Katansky, ibid., 19 p. Grenkov, Main directions of German theology of the 19th century, vol. I, 18 pp. Kazan, 1382. Voronov, Protestant, theology on the question of God's Spirit. Holy Scripture: “Works of the Kyiv Spirit. Academician", 1864, 3 pp. M. Baumgarteny Auberlen'a "Schleiermacher, ein Caracterbild", s. 7, 1359. Kerensky. To the West, “Right. Sob." 1898, I, 377. Zaitsev, “Let’s make it up. religious parties in Protestantism”, Rights. Review, 1860, 3. Fr. Katienbusch “Von Schleiermacher zu Hitachi”, Giessen, 1893, p. 11. Voronov, Protestant, theology on the question of God's Spirit. Holy Scriptures: “Works of K. Spirit. Acad.", 1864, III, 4 pp. Fr. Sch1eeermacher, Die Reden uber Religion an die Gebddeten unter ihrer Verâchtern, 1799, I Aufl. s. 49, 2 Anfl. s. 47. Schleiermacher, ibid., 246 pp., note. Those interested can find a more detailed explanation of these views in Kattenbusch’s “Von Scbleiormaclier zu Ritschl”, 1893; Grenkov’s “German Theology of the 19th Century”, Ornatsky’s “Schleiermacher’s Teaching on Religion” - Works of K. D. Ak. 1883, 1. Kattenbush. op. pp., 23 pp. Grenkov, German Theology. XIX century; 203 pp. "New Tübingen School" Works of K. Spirit. Academician 1863, II, 173 pp. Vozdvizhensky. A few words about modern times. state of Protestantism: “Right. Review", 1879, I, 300 pp. Of the popularizers of Strauss's views, the most talented, and therefore the most harmful, was the French writer Renan, whose "Vie de Jesus", thanks to the liveliness and captivating presentation, positively eclipsed the glory of its prototype - Strauss's "Leben Jesu". See about him above, pp. 29 et seq. Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum. For a more detailed development of the views of Feuerbach and his disciples, see Pfleiderer, “The development of Theology in Germany since Kant,” 184–136 pp., London, I896. The unsuccessful experience of creating a religion on the basis of materialist positivism is presented in the work of the same Strauss - “The Old and New Faith”, published by him in 1372 and written by him under the noticeable influence of Feuerbach. It represents an attempt to reconcile idealism with positivism, in particular, to transplant religion onto completely alien soil and, as untenable in principle, it is full of inconsistency and contradiction in its development. A. P. Lebedev, Essays on the development of protest, church historical science, 157–158 pp.: Moscow, 1881. For a more detailed development of Baur’s views on the history of the Christian Church, see Lebedev’s work Essays on Protest, Church Historical Sciences, 164–191 pp. and in the article by Vinogradov, New Tübingen School “Tr. K. D. Acad.", 1868. 2 and 3. Vinogradov, Novo-tyubiv. school; 332 pp. “Tr. K. D. Ak" 1863, 2. R. Kubel, Heber den Unterschied zwischen der positiven und der liberalen Bichtung in der modernen Théologie, 6 s. Munich, 1893. Kahler, Wissenschaft der Christche Lehre, 181 s. For more details, see Archim. Sergius (Stragorodsky), Orthodox teaching on salvation. Sergiev Pos. 1895, 18 p. See Art. Zaitsev “Modern. religious parties in Protestantism"; 105 pp., “Right. Review". 1860, 3. Schaff, Geschichte der apostol. Kirche, 86 s., Leipzig, 1854. Vozdvizhensky, On the current state of Protestantism “Prav. Review,” 1879, I, 304 pp. Zaitsev, Modern religious parties in Protestantism; “Right. Review", 1860, 3. Katteubusch, Von Schleiermacher zu Ritscbl, Zur Orientirung liber den gegenwârtigen Stand der Dogmatic" – Giesen 1893. Kübel, Ueber Unterschied zwischen der Posihven und der Liberalen Théologie 18–19 München 1893. Pisarevsky, Fourth Ordinary General Synod. "God. West." 100 pp. February 1898. Him, a year and a half in Berlin. "God West." May, 1897 261 pages. A. Harnack, “Zur gegenwàrtig. Lage der Protestant."16 s. Leipzig 1896. Kattenbusch, Zum gegenwartig Stand der Dogmatik 34 s. Giessen 1835. See Kübe1. "Op. cit." 132 s. Pfleiderer, Grundnss des christl. Glaubens und Sittenlehre, 266 s. Pavlovich. "Movements of Theological Thought in Modern Germany". “Chr. Thu." 1897, 1, 131 pp. A.P. Lopukhin, “Modern Protestantism” “Chronicle. Thu." 1894, II, 385 pp. Kattenbusch "Op cit." 73 s. Arendt “Die Entwickelnng der Théologie in den letzten 75 Jahren” 14 s. Leipzig - 1893 This is the title of, for example, the main work. Ritschl himself, his three-volume monograph. Die christliche Lehre von Rechtfertigung und Versohnung. I–III 4 Anf. 1896. Kerensky, In the West, “Prospect. Interview." 1898, II, 201 pp. Pavlovich, Theological Movements. thoughts in modern times Germany, “Chron. Thu." 1897, I, 139 pp. In the west, "Ave. Interview." 1898, II, 197 pp. Kaftan. "Die Warheit der Christian Religion", Basel 1889. See Pavlovich - Cited. article 143 p. E. Hartmann, "Die Selbstzersetzung des Chnstenthums und die Religion der Zukunft", Berlin, 1874. Pisarevsky, A year and a half in Berlin, “God. Vesti”, 1897, May, 251 pp. That such an example is far from an exception can be judged by the chronicle of church life abroad in the journal “Church Herald”. Most of these fashionable destructive movements echoed loudly in our Russian life. It is remarkable that Western scientists themselves even recognize Russian “nihilism” as a direct product of Protestantism. See eg. Hoff, Die Revolution seit dem seebzenten Jahr-hundert, 637 s. Freiburg, 1887. Pisarevsky - “God. Bulletin" 1897 251. Lopukhin, Modern Protestantism “Chron. Thu." 1894 II, 345 pp. Thiersch, Vorlesungen ùber Kathol. und Protestautismus" I. 214 s. the entire population. These are the Swedish laws of 1868 and 1873; laws of Denmark from July 28, 1866, etc. In ό h m “Der Protestantismus unserer Tage” 242–240 ss. Munich 1897. Nippoid "Neueste Kirchengeschichte" III, II, 116 s. 3 Auf Hamburg 1896. No less curious in this regard is the history of English Protestantism, where, along with the dominant Episcopal Church, there are many different Protestant societies, among them the newest sectarian movement of the “Salvation Army” is especially prominent - this strange mixture of religious animation with soldier despotism and social democracy. gusts. But in view of the fact that the history of the English church is the subject of a special study, we dismiss it in the present case. Nippold Op. cit. 87–88 s. See about this in detail in A. P. Lopukhin “Religious life in America” St. Petersburg 1882 Bishop John “From the history of religious sects in America” Reading Ob. L. Spiritual Enlightenment 1880–1882 To illustrate what has been said, let us quote the following announcement, printed on behalf of a Protestant pastor in one of the United States newspapers on March 26, 1896: “The ladies of the Baptist church are invited to the church for a public meeting, on the eve of the Divine Heel. The program is short. Ice cream and cake will be offered. This is how American Baptists celebrate the great day of Holy Heel! See Rohm – 269 s.