Англиканская церковь в XIX веке

The sad state of the Anglican Church at the end of the 18th century: Methodism and Calvinism. - Beginning of independence of the American Church. - New bishoprics in the colonies. The first thirty years of the 19th century: the predominant influence of the evangelicals. – The Liberal Party and its attack on the church. – The Anglican Church is a field of dead bones. As soon as the morning of March 4, 1791 dawned, huge crowds of people hurried towards the church in London's City Road. A funeral service was taking place in the church. In the middle of the church lay silently a man who had shaken the hearts of the people with his words for sixty-five years. His numb hands were still clutching his beloved eternal book and handkerchief, but the Bible remained closed and the white handkerchief did not wipe his forever closed eyes as before. When the moment came to pronounce the last words of the funeral rite: “Because Almighty God was pleased to call to himself the soul of our beloved brother,” Richardson’s voice trembled and he said “father” instead of “brother.” Seventy years ago this “father,” then a 17-year-old young man, John Wesley, entered Oxford. Endowed by nature with a tender and loving heart, he soon gathered a circle of young people around him. They were united by strict piety: they fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays, received communion every Sunday, and visited the sick and poor during the week. They joked and laughed at them, called them “enthusiasts,” “Sacramentarians,” “the holy club,” and most often “Methodists”; but hardly anyone thought that this “holy club” was destined to produce a whole revolution in the religious life of the country. In 1735, the “father” of this club, John Wesley, together with his brother Charles, went to one of the colonies for missionary work, but was not successful. Three years later, the ship carried him to America, and here he accidentally encounters the Moravian preacher Peter Beler, who, with his conversation, awakens in him the bitter realization that “he was never a Christian.” Moravianism captivates him only for a while, although its doctrine of “conversion” and “personal faith” leaves a deep imprint on his soul forever. The kindled fire could not be extinguished in Wesley's soul, and on May 2, 1739, he preached his first sermon, in the open air near Bristol, on the text: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,” in the presence of three thousand people. His listeners were amazed by the power of the preacher's gospel love and many fell to the ground in hysterical sobs. From this point on, religious history often accompanied Wesley's preaching. The number of his adherents grew unusually quickly, but his activities did not meet with sympathy among the clergy. The latter closed its churches to him. Wesley was not embarrassed by this and did not stop halfway: “If the bishops give me help and support, he thought, things will go more successfully; if not, then I will act without them.” There was no assistance, and Wesley, without the permission of the bishop, laid the foundation of his first preaching house in Briefol, on Horse Fair Street, in 1839. Similar houses soon began to appear in other places. At first, Anglican priests who sympathized with Wesley preached in them, and then laymen were also admitted. Soon the houses turned into churches, and Wesley allowed the laity to worship in them themselves. Wesley was opposed to separation from the church. “I contain all the teachings of the Church of England; I love her liturgy; I approve of her discipline plan; I do not dare to separate from the church, because I consider this separation to be a sin,” he preached three years after his death. Unfortunately, he was not a deep theologian, and was distinguished by his peculiar ideas about the church. This was the reason for the approaching split. For Wesley, the gracious gifts of episcopacy and priesthood seemed equal in strength, the external organization of the church with its hierarchical levels was a secondary thing. Once the need for living Christian teaching arose and guides for the latter were required, the question of hierarchical divisions receded into the background for him. Proceeding from this principle, he ordained and appointed two superintendents - (or what is the same, bishops) for his adherents in America in 1784 and three (1787) sent to preach in Scotland. He did not see schism in such actions, but it was already established and growing. Wesley's followers, cut off from the shore, continued to float with the flow, and little by little moved away from the church, not only in organization, but also in doctrine. Wesley himself boiled down his preaching to two points: the doctrine of the new birth and Christian perfection. But in both cases he was faithful to the teachings of his church. His followers went further: for them, the new birth was not a rebirth in baptism, but an independent beginning of spiritual life, putting a person in the right relationship with God. The further time passed, the more obvious and clear the difference between the teachings of Methodism and the dogmas of the church became. It was in vain that Wesley warned his friends against Calvinism: the wave surged too powerfully and defeated his efforts. The Wesleyans soon became a powerful and extensive sect. A certain organization was required and Wesley showed here the strength and talents of his organizational abilities. He divided his flock into “districts,” appointed “superintendents” over them, and himself became nothing less than a pope. Dying, he bequeathed to his followers to stick firmly together, but those who had gone astray could no longer follow the same path, and wandered along different paths. At the time of Wesley's death, there were 313 Methodist preachers in Great Britain and at least 76 thousand people joined the movement that had begun. A split among the Methodists themselves was caused by Wesley's closest friend Whitfield, who became interested in Calvinism. Whitfield was born in 1714 in Gloucester, at the Bell Inn, which his father maintained. A “pickpocket” as a child, Whitfield soon discovered his abilities at school, taking part in dramatic plays, where he always performed in female roles. Not hoping, due to his poverty, to enter the university, he asked his mother to take him out of school, and at the age of fifteen he became his mother’s active assistant in the household: he cleaned rooms, washed dishes and floors in the hotel, and only in his free moments shared his leisure time with a book. Chance, however, helped him get out of this situation: thanks to the help of his friends, he entered Oxford, and here he immediately joined the Wesleyan circle. Thanks to his outstanding talents, he quickly moved forward and attracted the attention of Bishop Benson of Gloucester, who ordained him a deacon at the age of 21. Whitfield was naturally endowed with the gifts of an outstanding orator: his noble bearing, highly mobile voice, conveying all shades of spiritual movements, extraordinary resourcefulness in words and, richness of language, natural instinct of an actor, while complete penetration of love for God, enthusiasm and inspiration had an irresistible effect on his listeners. During his open-air sermons, ten to twenty thousand people listened to him with bated breath, and he controlled their will with the same ease with which the elder Pitt ruled Parliament. Even the most cynical people could not resist and fight the charm he produced. By the power of his influence on others, he resembles the hermit Peter of Amiens and, like him, preached a campaign against the world, the flesh and the devil. But his knowledge was not wide, his logical power of judgment was comparatively weak and many of his judgments were extreme and erroneous 178 . The very circumstances of his life may have contributed to his belief in the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional predestination. Looking back and remembering his early life, he found nothing pleasant in it, and considered himself a victim of condemnation if “the Almighty had not preserved him by His grace.” He said about himself that “God loved him with eternal love, and destined him from his mother’s womb to the work to which He later called him” 179. Hence the doctrine of unconditional predestination became the thread of all his sermons. It is not surprising that disagreement and division soon arose between him, a supporter of Calvinism, and Wesley, an ardent opponent of the latter. In 1841 the difference in their opinions was so great that they could not walk together and Methodism split into two parties, one of which fell under the leadership of Wesley, and the other under Whitfield. Whitfield's patron and assistant was Countess Selina of Gantindon, "a famous and chosen lady." Undoubtedly, a woman of noble character and zealous in fulfilling the commandment of love for one's neighbor, the Countess of Gantindon had little knowledge of dogmatics. She built many churches in all parts of England, and initially appointed Anglican priests to them, and when the latter began to refuse, she placed her churches at the disposal of the laity. Hence, everything directly or indirectly connected with her began to be called by her name, and the preachers in her churches received the nickname “preachers in the union of the Lady of Gantindon.” In 1768, she founded the "Dissident Academy", whose students were supported at her expense, and were prepared to take positions as preachers in her churches 180. An admirer of Whitfield, she became a fierce Calvinist and a breeding ground for Calvinism in England. Whitfield died in America in 1770. The Calvinism he sowed quickly grew in England, and found fertile soil in Wallis. What explains such rapid growth of Methodism and Calvinism? What did the Anglican Church do when it saw the masses of people falling away from it? Methodism for the Church of England was, in a certain respect, the same problem that Pope Alexander VI had so clumsily solved in the case of Savanarrola, or Leo X in the case of Martin Luther. In order for this movement not to disturb the peace of the church, not to create division in it, special wisdom and prudence on the part of the rulers of the church, and a relatively high level of religious life and knowledge among the people were necessary. The last condition, in turn, was completely dependent on one or another activity of the Anglican clergy, on its efforts and desire to teach the people the fundamental truths of their church, and in this way protect their flocks from falling into extremes and being carried away by preaching “those who deceive from elsewhere.” Let's see: did the church satisfy these conditions? From the very beginning of the Reformation in England, three parties in the church did not cease to exist: the so-called high, broad and low churches. By the end of the 18th century, the first party, which always defended and preserved Catholic principles, almost died out, the second was relatively numerous, but the third was almost dominant. It goes without saying that with the freedom of opinions and views that dominated both the clergy and the people, it was difficult to expect uniformity in church practice, worship and discipline. Since the prevailing low-church party was a direct product of Puritanism, the general negative attitude towards external expressions of piety and liturgical forms that we see at the end of the 18th century becomes clear to us. First of all, the churches remained in complete neglect and the church architecture was in its most primitive state. “To this apathy,” says one writer, we owe a lot; people cared only that buildings did not fall to the ground; but if they had done anything more, they would probably have done even worse." 181 Thanks to this indifference, most of the parish churches, which look so welcoming now, have never been repaired or cleaned: the glass was not wiped, and mushrooms and burrs grew quietly on the outer eaves of the walls. “Why aren’t the pews in the church cleaned and washed?” One visitor asked the wife of one of the Scottish priests. “Clean and wash! My husband would consider this obvious papacy!” answered the latter. One might think that the people shared similar views. The benches in churches, which came into use since the 17th century, were arranged in the form of deep boxes and were very convenient for sleeping and dozing during a bad sermon 182 . Since the population was growing rapidly, and no one was building new churches, the benches became an item of trade. The poor were forced out of churches and were left without worship. The baptismal fonts were completely neglected. So in 1779, when Westminster Abbey needed space for a new monument, the font was moved away, and then calmly carried into an adjacent room, where it lay upside down. Thrones were almost never decorated; two lit candles on them were rare; altars fell out of use, crucifixes and crosses were considered an imitation of the papacy, and people who had them in their churches were suspected of “touching the church.” Church bells were often sold to cover church expenses. If new ones were hanged, then instead of consecration, the celebration was accompanied by drunkenness: the bell was unscrewed and filled with wine, from which everyone drew and drank, sometimes to the point of death. Tombstones were decorated with the most absurd epitaphs 183. Daily worship was performed in a few churches, and even the very idea of ​​the need for daily worship almost died out among the people. Only the most pious priests served on Wednesdays and Fridays. Days dedicated to the remembrance of saints were forgotten. Pentecost and Ascension were celebrated only in cities! There was no monotony in the churches during the performance of the divine service itself. Prescribed by the Book of Societies. prayers” rules were not followed. Priests often performed services without putting on clothes; the people sat almost all the time “like spectators in theaters” 184. Turning to the east during the reading of the creed was considered a papal or pagan superstition. The prayers laid down in the “book of common. prayers,” were often completely omitted or shortened at the discretion of the minister. “The divine service,” says one writer, “was so cut off that it seemed that the people received from the priest only a tithe for the tithes that the priest received from them” 185. Symbol of St. Athanasius especially did not enjoy the favor of the low-church people, and since the reading of this symbol by George III was prohibited in the royal church, the bishops could not force it to be read on the days established by the church. The Eucharist was celebrated once a month, and in many churches only four times a year, and the number of communicants was very small. In 1800, Bishop Tomlin visited St. Paul on the first day of Easter and in the “vast and famous cathedral there were no more than 6 communicants.” The custom of taking communion on one's knees has disappeared. The mixing of water with wine during the Eucharist was observed in few churches, and even then by accident. The chopping, which took place in the first half of the 18th century, disappeared at the end. The most insignificant pretext was enough to put it out of use. The prebendary of the Ili Cathedral (1779), Thomas Grenin, “objected to censing on the pretext that it gave him a headache” 186, and that was enough. Preaching has fallen everywhere. Southay says that "bad preaching contributed to the weakening of the Church of England"; Alexander Knox complained that "the clergy have lost the art of preaching"; Smith called Anglican preaching “dull and full of moral commonplaces” 187. If this was the position of the Anglican Church and the activities of its representatives, then the success of Methodism becomes quite understandable. Wesley and Whitfield found a prepared and ripe field among the people, and successfully sowed the seeds and reaped a rich harvest. One of the most important events in the history of the Anglican Church at the end of the 18th century was the unification of the Anglican and Irish churches. During the last six years of the 18th century, Ireland was in open rebellion. In July 1800, only an agreement was reached and the drafted act of union declared that the churches of England and Ireland, as established by law, should be united into one and called the “united church of England and Ireland.” At the end of the 18th century, the Anglican Church was forced to recognize the independence of the American Church, which was hitherto considered a diocese of the London diocese. In 1775, the American Civil War for its independence broke out, and in 1787, two bishops for America were consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and from this year the American Church began to appoint its own bishops, while remaining in communion with the Anglican Church. Given its sad internal state, the Anglican Church could not claim to be widespread outside England. In 1787, a bishopric was founded in the colony of New Scotland and in 1793 in Quebec. The growth of its episcopate in the colonies is limited to these two dioceses. As the 19th century dawned, the Church of England lay in a peaceful sleep. It took another thirty years to awaken her from her apathy and call her to action. It was only when the mighty school of Anglo-Catholics was born that it awoke and showed such energy and strength that we will look in vain in the history of previous centuries, if we take into account that the activity of the Anglican Church in our century was free and flowed from the consciousness of truths long forgotten by it. The dawn of the 19th century flared with bloody wars in Europe. Napoleon's troops marched victoriously and threatened the well-being of England. The approaching danger forced peoples to seek means of self-defense, and for fifteen years of the new century the people's mind in England was entirely occupied with the war with France and the French Revolution. When Alexander's victorious troops finally entered Paris and secured the peace of Europe, England's attention began to focus on the new state of affairs that followed that peace. Even when France was experiencing all the horrors of revolutionary upheavals, which so easily shook the country's centuries-old institutions, the best minds of England, knowing that the ideas of the neighboring revolution arose on their native soil 188, began to fear their influence on England. In order to protect the people from being carried away by the charlatan preaching of equality, slavery and freedom, a kind of national institution was required that would be able to counteract this preaching and give the people firm principles. The only such institution was the church, and the gaze of England begins to turn to it. And since such requests were presented to the church, it naturally should have felt a strong push for awakening. The awakening began among people who were usually called “evangelicals.” The beginning of the evangelical party, which became dominant in the first thirty years of the 19th century, dates back to the middle of the 18th century. Around this time there was a small circle of priests scattered in different corners of the country. For the most part, these were deeply religious, active and hardworking people. They could not be called Methodists, but in their high spirits, in their way of acting and thinking, they were akin to dissidents. Comparing them with the majority of other clergy, the people called them “serious” 189. At the beginning of the 19th century, the first leaders of evangelicalism left the scene. Few of their school remained alive: John Newton, who was originally a slave trader and a man of, by his own admission, an immoral life, and then, thanks to his salvation from a strong storm at sea, changed his lifestyle and finally became a zealous priest in 1764. Richard Cecil (1748–1810), the more widely educated and capable man of his party, “who never forgot that he was a priest,” continued to live in London. His associate Thomas Scott (1747–1821), famous for his writings “The Power of Truth” and “Commentaries on the Bible.” The last work was the best of all evangelical exegetical literature. The famous Cardinal Newman ascribes to these comments an enormous influence on his mentality, and speaks of Scott himself as a man to whom he "owed his soul." The center and place of prosperity of evangelicalism was Cambridge. At the beginning of the 19th century we see here: Milner, president of the Royal College, professors: Jowett, Farish. Rangel and Charles Simon. Simon was the leading figure among these evangelicals. He attributed his spiritual rebirth to an accidental circumstance, namely his obligatory presence at the Eucharist during his student years at King's College in Cambridge. Two high churchmen had a significant influence on him: Bishop Wilson and a certain Cattlewell, so that Simon himself was considered more of a churchman than an evangelical. He firmly adhered to one rule: “first the Bible, then the Book of Societies, prayers, and all other books and matters in subordination to them.” At the beginning of the 19th century he occupied a prominent position in Cambridge. Uneven in character, impatient and passionate, proud and enthusiastic, he was at the same time a zealous worker for the benefit of his church and with his energy caused surprise among his contemporaries and those around him. His influence on the clergy was stronger than that of any of the bishops. It extended to the remote corners of England, where he knew how to send his students, despite the prevailing system of patronage. The Evangelicals themselves were often called by his name. No less prominent among the evangelicals was the figure of William Wilberforce (1759–1833). Endowed by nature with extraordinary power of eloquence, Wilberforce occupied a prominent position in parliament. They looked upon him here as a real force, and in outbursts of worship they placed him even above the famous minister Pitt. His wealth, a third of which he devoted to charity, created an independent position for him. He founded a society for the purpose of fighting against vices and debauchery, and gained respect equally in all classes of society. In 1789, he was the first to speak out against the slave trade and demanded the destruction of this shameful occupation. According to his religious convictions, he was an ardent opponent of Calvinism and a defender of the equality of Roman Catholics. His work, A Practical View of the Established Christian System, was highly influential and an expression of the views of his party. Such were the main leaders of the evangelical party. Their services to the Church of England are beyond any doubt. Thanks to their efforts and energy, a church missionary society was founded in 1799, which took upon itself the task of spreading Christianity among the pagans. The founders of the society were led by those mentioned by us: Scott, Simon, Newton, Wilberforce. Before the establishment of this society, there had been no properly organized attempts to spread Christianity in England. In 1801, a religious-literary society was opened with the goal of distributing evangelical literature among the people, and in 1804, a Bible Society, which set itself the task of translating Holy Scripture into various languages ​​and dialects, and selling its publications at the lowest possible price. The most important merit of the evangelicals was in awakening the conscience of the English people, in explaining to the latter the whole baseness of engaging in the slave trade. Having destroyed the slave trade in 1807, and having achieved the emancipation of blacks, in 1833 the evangelicals reached the zenith of their glory, and their lucky star begins to fade and give way to people of a new direction, stronger in its inner truth. Since 1833, the influence of the Evangelicals on the people has been declining, and among the people of their party, history does not see more outstanding and remarkable characters and figures. The reasons for the fall of the evangelical school lie in evangelicalism itself, in its internal contradictions, in the weakness and extreme uncertainty of the system itself from its logical side. To the very first and most important question: what is the church? The evangelicals answered vaguely. It seemed to them that every society that professes Christ and is imbued with evangelical love is already a church. Therefore, they were favorable and even close to the dissidents. The idea of ​​the church as a visible society possessing the teachings of the apostles, grace-filled sacraments and a continuous hierarchy never interested them and was not the subject of their preaching. In their eyes, religion was identified with a person's personal relationship with God. They gave first place to these personal relationships and feelings and considered church organization a secondary matter. The Anglican Church was for them one of many forms of Protestantism, and they dated its beginning to the time of the Reformation. They respected bishops, but did not think that episcopacy was anything significant in the church. Their opinions were more negative than positive. In church laws they looked only for what could justify their views, but they never tried to interpret these laws necessarily in their favor. Therefore, they did not create a schism in the church, although they sympathized with the nonconformists. They loved the Book of Commons. prayers for her biblical and sublime language, but did not pay attention to the rituals prescribed by her and did not carry out her instructions. Concentrating all their attention on preaching, they cared little about prayer and the sacraments. And since the sermon was given only on Sunday, from Monday to Saturday the churches remained closed, and the people were without worship. The weak side of the moral system of evangelicalism lay in the pedigree of the evangelicals, whose ancestors were the Puritans. The evangelicals did not give themselves a clear understanding of what was permitted and prohibited; they were confused and could not establish normal relations with the world with its benefits and pleasures. Wilberforce always lived “under the continuously shining sun” 191, and from the point of view of the evangelicals he was not subject to condemnation: they thought that a rich table, a luxurious life, pleasant evenings and conversations were within the realm of what was permitted. But once a person read novels, danced, attended concerts or theaters, he was, according to their concepts, close to spiritual death and on the road to hell. Zechariah Macaulay, the father of the famous historian, did not approve of his son's literary pursuits. Elizabeth Charlotte felt like she was committing a mortal sin by reading Shakespeare 192. Painting and the arts were interpreted as sinful entertainment. Such condemnation of things that are innocent and indifferent in themselves, although not directly, led to sin: the children of evangelicals, hearing in school that the things condemned by their parents were not so bad in reality, were forced to hide a lot from their fathers, avoiding unnecessary scenes and troubles 193 . As soon as evangelicalism became popular in the country, unworthy people began to enter its midst and contributed to the downfall of the school itself. They reduced the entire system to occasional church attendance, support of religious societies with money, rare reading of a few prayers, leaving aside all church-religious discipline. The loss of a clear understanding of historical Christianity and disregard for the laws and discipline of the church led to the fact that many of the evangelicals became dissidents and carried away their listeners with them. The fruits of this abnormal state of affairs were soon felt. First of all, with the disrespect for religion that has spread in society, and the disdain for the church and worship by the evangelicals, the religious element in education both in lower and especially in secondary schools has become weak. “It seems scarcely probable,” said the historian of Eton College, that there should ever have been a complete absence of religious instruction in the greatest schools of Christian England, and yet from all accounts it appears that such was the case at Eton fifty years ago.” A church at a school was something of a rarity, as was the case at the public school in Wragby. Things were no better in Garrow. Bishop Wordsworth, who was brought up at this school, says that he came to confirmation completely unprepared. “All my tutor asked was: do I know the catechism? In no case, as far as I remember, was confirmation accompanied by communion, as if at school this was an unknown thing." 195 Let us not forget that the schools at Eton, Wragley and Garrow have always been first-class in England, and if things were so sad in the best schools, then it is easy to understand what happened in the second-rank schools. In higher and elementary schools the situation was even sadder. The so-called Lancastrian system of education, which quickly spread at the beginning of the 19th century, threatened to completely expel religion from the school. Fortunately, circumstances developed in such a way that the question of religious instruction in lower schools was raised head on, and awakened the activity of friends of the church. In 1787, a certain Dr. Andrew Bell went to Madras - India. The schools that were opened here were overcrowded with children, and Bell was unable to cope with his task. One day, passing by one of the schools, he saw that the boys were sitting on the ground and drawing the alphabet in the sand. He introduced a similar system of open-air education in his school, but this method did not find approval among his closest assistants. Then Bell forced the older pupils to study with the younger ones and the result was comforting. In 1791, Bell published his system in England, but here it turned out that here it was no longer a discovery. In 1798, poor Quaker Joseph Lancaster opened a school in London for poor children. Since the school was soon overcrowded, and Lancaster did not have the opportunity to hire assistants, he came to the same idea as Bell, that is, he made the senior students of his school his assistants. Lancaster avoided religious interpretations and explanations in his school and accepted the children of all sectarians together, hence religious instruction in Lancastrian schools disappeared. This phenomenon was noticed by a strong pedagogical authority of the time, the writer Timmer, and the issue was discussed. The result of the disputes was the founding of two societies: the "British and Foreign School Society", which attracted adherents of Lancaster, and the "National Society", supported by advocates of religious instruction in schools. The clergy also joined this latter, and all the bishops took their places in the open committee ex officio. The schools of this society grew rapidly: in 1812 there were 50, in 1813–240; in 1818–9249 with 180,000 children 196. Paying main attention to the inner side of Christianity, devoting themselves to more practical activities in the form of charity and missionary work, the Evangelicals could not satisfy the literary demands of their time, and the era of the Evangelical movement was not a period of prosperity for theological science in England. Atheism, which penetrated from France, first of all attracted the attention of Anglican churchmen, and caused the appearance of apologetic works. William Van'Mildert, in his work "On the Growth and Progress of Unbelief," gives us a description of this evil of his time. He sees in this kind of facts the fulfillment of the prophecy “thou shalt bruise him in the heel,” and proves that the evil that spread was not some news, reminding readers of the hostility to Christianity in the period before Constantine the Great, the unbelief in the medieval era and in the age of the Reformation, and the beginning and development of deism in France. William Pauley (1743-1805) publishes his Natural Theology, and Daniel Wilson gives popular lectures in the London parish church on the evidence of Christianity in the years 1827-30. If we add to this the work of Midalton, “The Doctrine of the Greek Member, Applied to the Criticism and Exposition of the New Testament,” in which he argues against the translation of the Gospel from the Greek with by the omission of a certain member before "υιός θεού πνεύμα "Αγιον, as a result of which it turned out that the Savior was one of the many Sons of God, and the Holy Spirit one of the many holy spirits, then apologetic literature will, it seems, be exhausted in its most important works. In the field of biblical literature, Herbert Marth’s translation of Michels’s “Introduction to the New Testament,” which Marth provided with his notes, is distinguished by its destructive character. In 1818, Thomas Hertvel Horn’s essay “Introduction to the Critical Study of Holy Scripture” was published, which was considered one of the best of its time. Only since 1825, when a translation of Schleiermacher's works first appeared, did biblical criticism and scholarship begin to make progress in England. The most outstanding work during the first thirty years of the 19th century was William Palmer's "Origines Liturglcae", which remains a classic to this day. By examining in detail the sources on the basis of which the “Book of Public Prayer” was written and compiled, Palmer gave a completely new idea of ​​the latter, and with his work prepared the ground for the further tractarian movement. In Palmer's work one can most clearly see that the Anglican Church did not begin its life in the age of reformation, as many thought at the beginning of the 19th century, but has a close connection with the ancient Catholic Church, and in no case can be identified with continental Protestantism. Since most of the low-church people and many of the evangelicals were Calvinistic. views, the high-church party entered into polemics in order to refute such views. The main point in these disputes was the doctrine of regeneration. This question was especially raised by Mant (later bishop) in 1811 in his Bumpton Lectures, where he defended baptismal regeneration, and argued that some of the clergy rejected this doctrine solely due to ignorance. These lectures aroused unrest among the low-church people who saw here a direct attack on their party, but with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, Mant's opinion triumphed and remained dominant. The historical literature of the time described is almost not worthy of attention. Spiritual periodical literature first saw the light at the beginning of the 19th century, but before this time not a single church newspaper existed. "Armed Scientist; " was the first periodical, but did not last long, and its place was taken by the "British Critic", which was the organ of all the outstanding figures of the first half of our century. The first issue of the Christian Observer was published in 1801 and owed its existence mainly to Zechariah Macaulay, the father of the famous historian. The Christian Reminder served as the body for the rural clergy. If we add here “Chronicle” - a magazine that still exists today, then the circle of periodicals of the described era will be complete. Since theological literature was not at the proper level, since the people who stood at the head of church leaders could not answer the question: what is the church? what is its nature, what are its rights and advantages - it is not surprising that among the thinkers themselves a special party of liberals began to emerge, promising to become dominant in England. The people of this party belonged neither to high churchmen nor to evangelicals. They sought broader activities and did not want to limit themselves to party views on Christianity and religion. They did not agree with the teaching of the old high churchmen about the existence of a visible, properly organized church, possessing hierarchy, sacraments and discipline, and they also refused to understand the Gospel in the special sense in which the evangelicals interpreted it. The only thing that united all liberals was Erastianism, or the principle of the need to subordinate the church to the state. A typical representative of this party was Dr. Arnold, rector of the public school at Wragby, one of the founders of the modern broad-ecclesiastical party. Thomas Arnold was born on the 13th June 1795 on the Isle of Wight, and in 1815 became a fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. He owed his liberal views primarily to his acquaintance with German literature. Reading Niebuhr's history of Rome, in his own words, "opened his eyes to his ignorance" 197 . Going in this direction, he developed for himself a completely special idea of ​​Christianity: “I would be glad,” he writes in 1822, “to see sincerely Christian activity that would be neither highly ecclesiastical nor what is called evangelicalism” 198 . This desire was destined to come true when he was chosen for the position of rector at Wragby. One of his closest friends predicted that if Arnold received an appointment at Rugby, he would “change the physiognomy of education in all the public schools of England” 199. The prophecy, although not completely, came true. Possessing a naturally strong character, a deep understanding of children's nature, always honest in the performance of his duty, skillful in reconciling severity with tenderness in his relations with children, accessible and sociable with his subordinates, able to inspire in them an interest in business and life, he became the subject of general adoration, and his views were spread by his students far beyond the boundaries of the school. These views were striking in their originality and independence. Arnold always stood aloof from all church parties. “Teaching as a purely religious theory, as it is formulated in scientific (theological) systems and symbols, was never his goal” 200. He looked at the church as a living society of all Christians and considered the caste position of the clergy abnormal, spoke out against any restriction of opinions and liturgical forms, which, in his opinion, produced sectarianism, and did not want to recognize the division of the church into clergy and laity. He insisted on the need for closer and closer communication between members of the church, and for this purpose recommended the restoration of the diaconate as a mediating institution between the hierarchy and the people, defended the union of the people with spiritual councils, the clergy with civil legislation, and finally believed that the celebration of not only baptism, but also the Eucharist should be allowed to the laity, in the absence of a priest. He did not pay special attention to the doctrine of the church as a divinely established society, looked at the apostolic succession and the sacraments as extremes preached by an ignorant or selfish clergy, did not value the formal definition of the doctrine of justification and good works, and wanted to borrow from the teaching of the church only those points on which all Christians would agree, giving them complete freedom in the external expressions of this teaching. Hence the state became the decisive factor in church matters, ordinations became identified with bureaucratic appointments, the House of Commons turned into a meeting of dissidents, and Anglican churches became the place of liturgical meetings of all sects, with only a certain queue observed. Arnold was not alone. His views found refuge even in Oxford, that pillar of Anglican Catholicism, and spread among the people. A similar liberalism quickly penetrated society and made itself felt in parliament. In 1828, the Corporation and Test Acts were repealed, and dissidents took seats in Parliament on an equal basis with Churchmen. In 1829, the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act was passed, and Roman Catholics also received the right of access to Parliament, as well as the army and navy. In 1830, the Whig party became dominant and did not promise to be the defender of the interests of the church. The view has taken root in society and the people that the Anglican Church was created by the state in the age of the Reformation, and that the state, having endowed the church with wealth, has the right to dispose of the latter at its own discretion and for its own purposes. In 1832 Parliament confiscated the property of ten Irish bishoprics, and a strong attack was made on the Book of Public Prayer. Parliament ceased to be the representative of the laity in the church. The novelists, rationalists, deists, Quakers, Unitarians, Baptists and Methodists who sat here were ready to cooperate with anything that could cause damage and harm to the church. They did not like, for example, the symbol of St. Athanasius and raised the question of his destruction and removal from the Book of Commons. prayers. True, the king still remained the protector of the church, but his ministers, who in fact appointed bishops, could be the worst enemies of the church. To resist the liberalism that had spread in society, the church had to stand at the height of its calling, and its bishops and clergy had to have energy, love for the cause and be animated by faith in their work. Was this the real state of affairs? We have seen the sad state of the Church of England at the end of the 18th century. Did it make progress in the first thirty years of the 19th century? The surviving documents answer this question more negatively than positively. Thus, a report from the clergy of one of the districts of the diocese of Lincoln in 1800 gives a picture of complete indifference to religion. In the preface to the lectures given by Bishop Porteous of London during the three years from 1798 to 1801, it is explained that these lectures were undertaken because “the state of the kingdom, political, moral and religious, was so disappointing as to arouse the gravest alarm in the mind of every thinking person. Bishop Gorsley, in his letter to the Rochester clergy in 1800, complained of “the general indifference to Christian doctrine and neglect of Christian duties 11 . The famous William Wilberforce, in 1796, found no service on Sunday in the whole city of Brigg; He recalled Stamford as the most carefree place in religious terms: “in the church it’s a pity: in Sunday school there are only eight children.” Daniel Wilson, who visited Wharton in 1804, found everything here in complete disdain: “the vicar of the parish was a passionate sportsman and kept hunters. The neighboring clergy shared similar tastes, and conversations at pastoral meetings revolved mainly around village sports. Very few attended church." When Bishop Burgess was appointed to the See of St. David in 1803, “the Church and the Church. the buildings were in the most deplorable condition. Many of the clergy were poorly educated and degraded their position by drunkenness and other corrupting vices" 201 . The Canterbury see was occupied by Dr. Moore (1783–1805), who was not distinguished by his thirst for activity. They said about him that “he did nothing that could inflame the minds of dissidents, on the one hand, and frighten the friends of orthodoxy on the other 202. It is not surprising that the clergy subordinate to him, led by bishops, imitated the example of the archbishop. Neglect of one's duties reached the point of ridiculousness: for example. one of the bishops examined candidates for the priesthood while playing cricket, another while shaving, etc. 203. Another unforgivable evil was pluralism, or the occupation by one person of several parishes at once. In 1832, out of 26 bishops, twenty were pluralists! In this state of affairs, they were bad leaders of the lower brethren. So Bishop Goadlay, who for seven years was listed as the bishop of the Bangor diocese, never once honored the latter with a visit. Bishop Watson of Landaf lived in his picturesque villa on the shores of Lake Windermere, not caring at all about his flock. The best of the bishops were not distinguished by such extremes, but the spirit of zeal for God did not disturb their souls. They preferred to lead a calm and serene life, doing scientific research in their offices, carefully appearing in parliament to draw up a loyal address to the crown, and only occasionally trudged along country roads to the most important cities of their dioceses to perform confirmation. The bishops for the most part belonged to aristocratic families, and out of 26, as many as 18 owed their rank to friends and connections. It is clear that they could not be particularly strong persecutors of the patronage system, and strict examiners of candidates for ordination. Perhaps at this time a proverb was created that “if there is nowhere, then go to the priests,” and more mediocre sons in families began to fill the pastoral ranks. The unpopularity of the bishops in the eyes of the people was so extreme that when in 1832 some of them objected to the Bill of Conversion in Parliament, the mob burned the palace of the Bishop of Bristol, besieged the Archbishop of Canterbury in his cathedral city, and held in fear for the life of the Bishop of London. If these were the people placed on the candlestick, then all the more so the smaller lamps could no longer shine for the people and preferred to flicker and play the role of the moon, reflecting the light of the sun - the episcopate. The high-church party almost died out, and although there were respectable persons among it, their views were not common and did not bring practical significance to the people. They defended the church, but in this defense they used negative methods, pointing out what the church should not be and leaving its positive definition unclear. The financial situation of the lower clergy was almost disastrous. More than half of the parishes did not bring even five hundred rubles to the clergy. At the same time, not wanting to work themselves, the abbots hired young priests for themselves, paying them a trifle, and leaving the lion's share for themselves. The people nicknamed these unwitting unmercenaries “curates” because, indeed, they alone cared about the souls of the parishioners. The rural clergy loved to play sports, kept hunters and dogs, played cards with neighboring landowners on foggy and dark evenings, and in some districts of England and Wallis indulged in drunkenness. When Sunday came, the priests muttered the service somehow, sometimes in a duet with one of the clerks, and, often occupying several parishes, ran from one to another, inventing a sermon along the way. The theological horizon of the majority was narrow: they were content with Calvinism, feared Rome, confessed the Pope as the Antichrist, and could not tolerate any kind of religious enthusiasm, considering the latter to be fanaticism, sinfully disturbing the peace of their neighbor. At a time when godlessness and indifference in religion, which had managed to penetrate from France, were spreading more and more strongly in the country, when Methodism and dissidents carried away thousands of people, when people of a new generation presented new requests and demands, when the need was felt for a comprehensive clarification of the teachings of the church, the shepherds of the latter found themselves, like Larin in the village, “a whole century late.” They were still thinking of following in the footsteps of their fathers when the church was happy, peaceful and dormant, and suddenly they found themselves the subject of mockery and ridicule by their flock. In 1820, the “Black Book” appeared, calling the catechism a “harmful teaching” and its priest teacher “a political demon, a greedy, lazy and wasteful human being who does not know the fear of God” 204. In parliament, one of the speakers in the House of Commons compared the church with the East India Company and found it difficult to say which of them was more useful to the people 205 . Thus, by the end of the thirties, lifeless within, inactive without, besieged by enemies and hatred, the Anglican Church seemed to be dragging out the last days of its existence and close to the threshold of spiritual death. When the surrounding life was in full swing, bringing with it more and more new demands and interests, the church turned out to be decrepit and lost the spirit of life. She began to fall silent and her meager field turned into a field of dry bones. If someone, walking along the border of this field, suddenly stopped in bewilderment and asked: “Will these bones come to life?” There was only one answer: “Lord, You weigh this!” The beginning of the revival of the Church of England: the great Oxford Movement (1833–45). – Results of the movement: the extreme ones go to Rome; ritualists and their struggle with low-church people. – Resumption of convocation activities. – Church congresses, All Anglican cathedrals and church schools. The bones came to life. Who poured the spirit of life into them? This life-giver was John Keble. The son of a serious and educated rural priest, he was sent by his father to study at Oxford, where he soon received all the honors and became a member of Oriel College. Modest and moderate in character, Keble knew how to be unusually firm at the right moments. Poetic nature and love of nature did not reconcile with city life, and Keble moved to the village, where he took a modest position as his father’s assistant. According to his convictions, he was the most devoted son of his church: everything that transgressed the limits of its instructions aroused in him a feeling of pain and displeasure, and on the contrary, everyone who served her easily won his tender affection. He was a Tory, and it seemed that nothing foreshadowed in him the future leader of the great movement. Alien to any ambition, he did not seek or run after popularity, but, as often happens, she herself followed on his heels. Born a poet, he hid his works for a long time, and only in 1827 the book “The Christian Year” appeared without a signature, which soon became a favorite reading in English families. Living far from political centers, she vigilantly followed the course of people's life and, among her friends, spoke out sharply against reforms aimed at subordinating the church to the state. Of the few friends there was one who became a preacher of Keble's ideas and principles. Richard Garrel Froud spent the 1823 vacation with Keble, preparing for his degree examination. Possessing a logical mind that was not satisfied with omissions and compromises, always ready to enter into an argument and get carried away to extremes, Froud borrowed from his teacher all his beliefs, moral rules, and shared with him both fears and hopes. At the same time, active and courageous by nature, he could not limit himself and be satisfied with the secluded life of Keble. In 1827, Froud became a tutor or tutor at Oriel, Oxford. Here he met a man who was destined to play a leading role in the entire Tractarian movement. It was Newman. Constant clashes in college brought Froud closer to Newman and they soon became friends. This friendship with Froud naturally brought Newman closer to Keble, who became their common leader. Inspired by Keble. Froud gave life and movement to the ideas and feelings of his teacher, but the work of further developing Keble's principles belonged to Newman. This was the attitude of these three leaders of the nascent movement. Unfortunately, Froud's poor health distracted him from direct participation in the new movement, but, nevertheless, the latter owes to him its character, definiteness of purpose and direction in the first stage of its development. Having adopted the idea of ​​a historical church, without separating the pre-Reformation period in the life of the Anglican Church from the contemporary one, Froud, naturally, looked with indignation at the aspirations among the people for church reforms in the spirit of Arnold. Seeing the intentions of the enemies of his church to turn it into a simple department of the state, he was the first to insist on the need to actively defend the church and save it from destruction. (He understood the church as it appeared in the age of the Carolinian theologians 206. When the spirit of reform blew through the church, the question: what is the Church of England? answered differently. The Church is a state institution, the Whigs and Tories thought. She is an invisible and mysterious body, the evangelicals said. This is a collection of separate communities, said the nonconformists. She is a parliamentary creation of the time of reformation, the Erastians said. The true church is communion with the pope, the Roman Catholics said. Whately's idea that "the church is a divinely established religious society, distinct from every other in its origin and existence and in its attributes" died out until Froud and his friends revived it again. Whately looked upon the church as a great self-assembled body, and demanded the right for its existence, and if necessary, independent of the state, self-government. But what should be the inner life of the church, what should be its doctrine and organic system, and what should be its standard and evidence, he left unsaid. On this point Froud complements Whately. Froud initially belonged to the camp of extreme rationalists, but his critical mind quickly noticed the weak side of this system. He realized that reason is only a formal force and ability, but not creative in the sense of discovering immutable truth. This truth, in his opinion, lies elsewhere. Where? Froud answered: in the church, as a divine institution possessing the fullness of revealed truth. All that remained was to find this Church of Christ in order to receive the very truth from it. Having devoted himself to the study of the historical destinies of the church, Froud came to the conclusion that the English church does not meet the basic principle that determines the Catholicism of one or another church, namely the principle: quod semper, quod ubique quod ab omnibus. It seemed to him that in the age of Reformation she had lost the character of a divine institution, and had submitted too much to rationalism. Fraud followed the path that the Book of Commons showed him. prayers, and turned to those times and sources from which it came to him, that is, to the primitive church. The ideal of this latter dominated his soul so much that he insisted on the need to restore not only its spirit, but also all external forms: observing fasts, holidays, veneration of icons and relics, prayers for the dead, monasticism and even ancient church terminology and language. In essence, his answer to the question: what is the church? was the same as what the Anglicans give now. But to this he added two points, completely new for his time: 1) that there were errors in the English Church, for most of which the Reformation was responsible, and 2) that the Roman Church was in many respects more right than people usually thought about it, and that the struggle with the new Church of England in these points was due to prejudice and ignorance. Naturally, these provisions seemed scandalous to people who considered Protestantism to be the truth and Rome to be the Antichrist. Froud's criticism also touched upon the modern state of affairs and especially the lack of discipline in the church, without which discipline the church itself seemed to him non-existent. The improvement of the church was his cherished desire, which he expressed until his death 207, which One of Keble's and Frau's closest friends was Isaac Williams, born in Valliss in 1802, a year after Newman and ten after Keble. Williams attracted attention at Oxford for his knowledge of Latin, in which he expressed himself more easily than in his native language. Together with Froud, he spent the 1823 vacation under the leadership of Keble, and here the direction of his future activities was determined. Ambitious by nature and flattered by success at Oxford, he learned from Keble to be a strict critic of his thoughts and actions and cultivated in himself the character of a man - alien to self-delusion, attachment to the vanity of the world, and submission in all things to the will of God. The influence of the same Keble was also reflected in his religious views: he valued respect for authority and piety in religion, and sound scholarship and wisdom of the best and great English theologians in science, disapproving of the narrow views of evangelicals and Methodists. Elected tutor of his college at Oxford, he became close to Newman, and at his suggestion took the position of vicar at St. Mary in Oxford in 1830. The high moral character and loftiness of the goals of the first leaders of the Tractarian movement attracted Charles Marriott to the latter, a man with outstanding abilities for abstract thinking and a metaphysical mindset. Brought up initially under the guidance of his father, an outstanding scientist for his time and a friend of Walter Scott, religious without bigotry and eclectic in the sense of striving to take the best from everywhere, he was elected a member in 1832 Oriel College. The desire to inspire the church and his interest in the crisis the latter was experiencing brought him closer to Newman, from whom he differed in all other respects in character. Good-natured and ready to help everyone, hospitable by nature, gathering many students for breakfast in his rooms, always hardworking, he brought faith into the beginning movement and, with his optimistic views, supported the mood of those around him. He was not a prolific writer, but his work in publishing the works of St. fathers were one of the best gifts to the movement, to which he devoted himself with complete dedication. On July 14th, 1833, John Keble preached his famous sermon on "national apostasy" from the university pulpit. In this speech, he pointed out that the new rulers of the country were ready to destroy the rights of the church, change its structure and organization, and even the documents belonging to it. “I have always considered this day to be the beginning of the religious movement of 1833,” 208 says Newman. And the movement really took off. Two weeks later, at the church house of Hugh James Rose, in Hadley parish in Suffodke, a small meeting of friends was held, who decided to take decisive action and fight the disasters that threatened to befall the church. In addition to the owner himself, there were Palmer, Froud and Percival. Hugo James Rose was without a doubt the founder of the 209 movement. As early as 1826 he vigorously defended the doctrine of apostolic succession in the church, and published four sermons on the duties of the clergy, which brought him the fame and praise of Keble. He was the first to understand the need to awaken the energy and activity of the clergy, and to unite its scattered ranks into a harmonious squad. He considered the means for this purpose to be a spiritual periodical magazine that would lift the spirit of the clergy who had fallen into apathy. His dream came true on March 1, 1832, when the first issue of the British Store was published. As a collaborator, Rose brought in Palmer, the author of the Origines Eiturgicae, who spoke of him as “a thorough scholar, an eloquent speaker, a deep thinker and a rare theologian”; Keble, who published an article on “Church Reform”, Newman, who published his works here from the “Apostolic Lyre”, Froud and Percival. Thus, before their meeting in the Rose house, all these faces were familiar with each other, sharing the same way of thinking. Hugo Rose was an ardent opponent of everything that could directly or indirectly attract his supporters to Rome, and probably, thanks to his authority, Roman Catholicism would not have counted many people who were carried away by Tractarian ideas if death had not snatched Rose from among the new fighters in 1839. From Oxford, only Froud was present at the Hadley meeting. Keble and Newman were ready to assist their friends in writing. They all saw that the time called for action, but what exactly needed to be done and where to start was difficult to say and opinions were divided. The project to form an association in defense of the church, rejected by Froud, did not materialize, and instead an address to the Archbishop of Canterbury, written by Palmer, was drawn up. This address was signed by 7,000 clergy, and it was presented to the archbishop in February 1834. It was followed by another address, signed by 230,000 heads of families. Such success inspired the friends of the church, but it was obvious that this step could not end the latter’s defense. It was necessary to find out or repeat long-forgotten truths about the character of the true church, to give a clear concept of it as a society based on its own principles and principles. This is how the famous “Treats for Time” arose, and Newman took the lead. These treatises were a short, clear statement of the case on one issue or another, and were published at the cheapest price. The treatises had different contents, but were mainly devoted to the following questions: 1) about apostolic succession in the church (1, 4, 7, 10, 17, 24, 33, 35, 42, 44, 46, 74 (catena patrum = or a body of evidence from later Anglican theologians in defense of the doctrine of apostolic succession) 2) the doctrine of the church (2, 5, 11, 20,23,29, 30); 3) history of the church (15, 31, 36, 38, 41) extracts from the ancient church fathers (I–XVIII); 4) church regulations (14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34); 5) polemics with Roman Catholicism (71), 6) prayer for the dead (No. 72); then in the treatises we find information: about rationalism in theology (73), about the Roman missal (75), the testimony of the English. theologians about baptismal rebirth (catena patrum No. 11), about the Antichrist (83), about morning and evening prayers (84), about the preservation of the Book of Commons. prayers (86), about religious knowledge (87) and about English. church and Roman (90) (See Tracts for the Times London 1834, 36 and 40). The first three treatises were published on September 9, 1833, and were written by Newman. “Comrades - co-workers,” he wrote, “I am only one of you - an elder: and if I hide my name, it is only because I would take on too much, speaking on my own behalf. Still, I must speak, because times are evil, and yet no one speaks against them.” Thus begins the first treatise on the question of apostolic succession and church hierarchy. Despite their extremeness, subsequent treatises clarified the true nature of the church, its relationship to the primitive church, its authority and governance, provided extracts from the best English theologians and translations from the ancient church fathers: Ignatius, Justin, Chrysostom and others. All these truths were a kind of revelation for the younger generation. Even one of the bishops, having read the treatise on apostolic succession in the church, could not give himself an account of whether he adhered to this teaching or not? The nasty extreme Protestant party soon raised cries against the Tractarians, accusing them of wanting to return to Rome. Wanting to prove the groundlessness of these accusations. Newman wrote a famous treatise on the "Via media" (middle path), in which he argued that true Anglicanism is a religion that follows the "middle path" between the extreme paths of Reformation and Catholicism. The whole year after the Hadley meeting passed without any particularly outstanding events. Treatises continued to be published, and the labor of compiling them was shared with Newman - Perceval, Froud, Keble, Bowden; younger theologians worked on translating the ancient church fathers. It soon turned out, however, that treatises alone were not enough, and a sermon from the church pulpit was added to them. Sermons were preached by Newman in the Church of St. Mary in Oxford and, pursuing the same goal with the tracts, helped to clarify the latter, and created a special kind of atmosphere that all the friends of the church began to breathe. Written in beautiful language, which Newman mastered perfectly, the sermons made a strong impression. They sometimes lasted more than an hour, but no one complained of fatigue. In 1834, an authority joined the movement that had no equal in Oxford. This was Pusey, whom Newman called μέγας - (the great) 210 and the movement itself later became known as “Puseyism.” Before Pusey's entry, the movement itself, supported mostly by young theological forces that did not have any authority in the eyes of society, could not be particularly fruitful and successful in the fight against the liberal party. The situation changed when Pusey joined the ranks of the Tractarians. “He gave us a position and a name at once,” says Newman in his apology. He was a broad-minded man, had a reliable, agile mind and was not afraid of others. If faith in one's position is the first essential condition for the leader of a party, then Dr. Pusey possessed it,” 211 and his influence was immediately felt. Instead of short and sometimes crude treatises, serious studies fully armed with theological knowledge began to be published. The 67th, 68th and 69th treatises on baptism, written by Pusey, “were the heavy artillery on a field where the battle had previously been fought with rifles and muskets” 212. Pusey envisioned a church regenerate and knowledgeable, serious in purpose and austere in life. He entrusted the task of disseminating true theological knowledge to universities. To this end, he undertook the publication of the “library of the Fathers of St. Catholic Church before the division of the East from the West,” which included Keble, Newman and Marriott. As the treatises came out, people, hearing the doctrine preached to them with “strange tongues, strange commandments,” were amazed at the novelty of their content. Evangelicals saw in them a defeat of their views on justification and good works; liberals could not stand their strict dogmatism. “It is clear to me,” wrote Dr. Arnold, “that Newman and his party are idolaters; They put the Church of Christ, the sacraments of Christ, the hierarchy in the place of Christ himself. I have looked through the treatises, which serve as proof to me of their idolatry." 213 On the other hand, young people became more and more captivated by new ideas and unwittingly submitted to the influence of their preachers. Newman did not like to stop at crossroads. Not content with personal conversations with students flocking from everywhere, he undertook a whole course of lectures: “about Romanism and the people, Protestantism,” about “the prophetic character of the church,” about “justification and the Antichrist,” about “rationalism and the canon of Holy Scripture.” The whole movement went in two directions; on the one hand, it was purely theological, scientific and speculative, and on the other – active and practical. Here the questions raised by time were resolved: what is the church, does it have a real existence, what are its foundations, is it knowable, and how does it differ from societies that have the appearance of a church, what is its essential structure, what does it teach, and if it is imperfect, then what should be its reform? In resolving these purely theological issues, the leaders of the movement tried to give the people examples of practical religious and Christian life, borrowing examples from the times of the primitive church. Newman preached the necessity of holiness for future happiness. Because of this, the movement had a moral character. Instead of studying mostly new things. messages for the purpose of self-justification among Methodists, Evangelicals, etc., the Gospel, the study of the life of Christ and His divine character, were brought to the fore. Christ became a living example to follow in life, and those who joined the movement felt the need for stricter personal discipline, self-examination and greater simplicity and sincerity in the feelings of life 214. Solving the question: what is the true church and proving that the Anglican Church is part of the Catholic Church, the leaders of Tractarianism inevitably encountered the Roman Church, which declared itself one, true and catholic. The centuries-old controversy could not be ignored, since the question was posed in principle and in essence. The Pope is the Antichrist was a common belief among Anglicans. Starting the polemic, Newman himself started from this same view, and since the Roman church was headed by the Antichrist, it seemed that the question of its teaching and church discipline was predetermined by itself and did not deserve research. But the very circumstances of the time forced us not to stop only at the popular view. The shortcomings in the Anglican Church itself were clear to everyone, and even less did they want to defend it as Catholic. The thought itself suggested itself: would it be correct to conclude from the undoubted shortcomings of the Roman Church that its heretical character as a whole? Studying this question, Newman naturally came to the conclusion that the usual accusations were based on ignorance, and that the dispute between Anglicanism and Romanism should be decided on more serious and scientific principles. When Newman took this road, he came to a completely unexpected conclusion. The first seven years of the movement, despite opposition from outside, misunderstandings and mistakes within, were years of prosperity. But after 1840, another period begins - unrest and anxiety. The difference between the party members began to show up more clearly: on the one hand, there were people who were cautious, thoughtful, slowly moving forward, not breaking away from what was familiar and familiar, and on the other, more fearless, narrow-minded and impatient. The new generation, not having the experience of the previous one, set off from the point to which the old one had reached, and sought to move on with a haste that neglected everything that seemed to them, like our liberals of the 60s, who had become decrepit and did not progress on the new path. When the controversy with Rome moved forward, differences in points of view emerged among party members. Some continued to follow the old path, defend the old Anglican church principles and try to apply them to life with the goal of improving the church, others raised a troubling, and at first glance even strange question: is the Anglican Church a true church, and a living branch of the one, continuous Catholic Church of Christ? This question occupied the mind of the leader of the movement himself. Newman began to experience that inner, spiritual tragedy that only a whole nature can survive, a deep, sober mind, overwhelmed by religious doubts, never calmed down by the question that once appeared: where is the truth? has not yet been found, if not she herself, then at least her appearance, her ghost 215. This ghost turned out to be Rome for him, as we will see below. Until 1839, Newman was a firm believer in Anglicanism. Only this year, while studying Monophysitism, “doubt about the validity of Anglicanism,” he says, “crept into me for the first time. I saw the shadow of a hand on the wall... Anyone who has once seen a ghost can no longer live as if he had never seen one. The heavens opened and closed again. For a moment the thought flashed through me: “in the end, the Roman Church will be right” - and then it disappeared. The spirit appeared again when Newman was exploring the question of Arianism 216 . But he also polemicized, defending the Catholicism of the Anglican Church. However, doubts about the latter did not leave him now. He began to experience an internal struggle. The realization that he had to announce to all his followers their mutual mistake was one of the most painful. He was initially afraid not of the victory of Rome, but of the disruption of peace in England, the emergence of a schism in his church. He had not yet turned to Rome, but felt it was impossible to remain in Anglicanism. He began to prepare to leave Oxford, and decided to move to Littlemore, near the university, in order to indulge in solitude. He was not yet sure of the correctness of Romanism, could not identify the Roman Church with the apostolic and primitive church, and at the same time could not refuse respect for his church, which sought to cleanse itself of growths and become a primitive church. Still, it became clear to him that the Roman Church had retained and preserved much from the primitive church that the Anglican Church had lost. He did not identify the Rome of his time with the Rome of the apostolic martyrs, but when he wanted to see the Catholic Church tangibly, in a concrete and not abstract form, it seemed to him that this was the Roman Church. It was connected equally with both the times of the apostles and the era of councils, the Middle Ages, and remained vital to this day. He thought that the prophecy about the invincibility of the church applied to it, and with this idea, its shortcomings, inherent in other churches, were hidden, as it were, in the shadows. But on the other hand, he could not immediately move away from the church, which was his “mother,” even if it had vices and shortcomings. As long as there was hope for her reformation, he thought, he should remain in her womb. The deeper he looked into the matter, the more undeniable the claims to the cathotic nature of Rome seemed to him. At the same time, the contradiction that Anglican thinkers expressed when explaining the teachings of their church was not hidden from his eyes. He saw that the bishops were armed against him, public opinion and the zealots condemned the principles he put forward. He involuntarily had a question: who understands the Anglican Church better - he with his thoughts and his own mind, or the rest of its members and organs. In 1843, Newman made it clear that he could no longer remain in Anglicanism. But he still hesitated in his renunciation of her, and the world around him knew nothing more about him except that he was busy resolving intricate and complex issues. Not wanting to be a proselyte, Newman wanted to remain alone, and was in no hurry to reveal the decision that was brewing in him. He knew that behind him stood people impatient in their desires, also confused by doubts, but already ready to cross to the other side without delay. Among them were people of rich imagination and eloquence, like Faber, strong intellect and sensitive to theological problems, like Dalgairn, of a metaphysical direction, but not rich enough in knowledge, like Ward. Newman kept them in Anglicanism while he remained. They asked him difficult questions, pointed out events and facts that contradicted his ideas about Catholicism, and were ready to jump over the barrier that separated them from Rome. The tone of their speech became harsher and ruder towards Anglicanism and the bile began to pour out with all its force. “How I hate these Anglicans!” exclaimed one of this circle of people, who were increasingly separating themselves from the general party. But this was not Newman's own language 217 . From almost the beginning of the movement, the officials at the head of the university, or as they are called - "heads of houses", were hostile to the new current of theological thought at Oxford. They did not want to understand the lofty goals of the Tractarians, did not try to delve into the feelings and motives that guided them, did not see in the movement a revival of the beliefs of the old Anglo-Catholics, but instinctively guessed only about the danger for routine Protestantism, and at the same time did not want to condescend to protect ardent people with their leadership from falling into the extremes of Romanism. The church authorities - the bishops - were indifferent. They wisely chose a wait-and-see policy and felt in an awkward position. On the one hand, they knew that no one supported their authority so much, no one was so crucified for giving them freedom of action, no one elevated their position in society as much as the Tractarians, but on the other hand, seasoned by experience, they saw that by siding with the new leaders, they aroused hatred towards themselves in the old people, pushing away the evangelicals. Only a few of the bishops took up arms against the Tractarians, and, giving vent to their passions, in the heat of the moment and passion went to extremes, calling them like bishop. Chester Sumner, the whole movement is “the work of Satan.” In the spring of 1839, Newman's position in the Church of England was at its height. He was given complete trust and respect. But from this very moment his final turn towards Rome begins. This year he published his article on “the state of the religious parties” in the Briton Critique, and this article, as he later understood, was “the last words that he spoke as an Anglican to the Anglicans,” it was a “farewell address” to his friends (Apolog. 181, 82). “From the end of 1841,” he writes, “I was already on my deathbed regarding my communication with the English. Church." But before finally dying for his church, Newman made a final effort, gathered all his strength and decided to show that “XXXIX members of religion,” Book of Commons. prayers, the book of homilies - these symbolic books of his church not only do not contradict, but can also be consistent with the definitions of the Council of Trent and the teachings of Rome, and only reject those errors that “Romanism” (Roman Catholicism) does not insist on. On Saturday morning, February 27, 1841, Campbell Tait, the future Archbishop of Canterbury, sat quietly in his room at Balliol College. “Here,” exclaimed Ward, running excitedly into the room, “there is something worth reading here!” - and with these words he threw the newly printed brochure 218 onto the table. This was Newman's famous 90th treatise, in which he argued that 32 members of the Anglican Confession condemned the Roman doctrine of purgatory, but did not condemn the doctrine of purgatory in general, as a place of gradual purification after death, which the Anglican. the church condemns the “sacrifices of the Roman masses”, but does not deny the doctrine of sacrifice in the Eucharist, and so on. This treatise caused a storm at the university. It was published on February 27, and on March 8, four senior tutors addressed its publisher with a statement that the 90th treatise did not agree with the statutes of the university. On March 15th, the treatise was also condemned by the heads of the university. The further history of the movement, without a doubt, was to become a continuous struggle between two camps. The desire for Rome of one part of the Tractarian party became undeniable. But the Oxford and ecclesiastical authorities took a one-sided view of the matter: they neglected the moral force of the movement, which sought to uplift the life of Oxford and protect the church from oppression by the extreme Protestant party, and showed an inexcusable ignorance of the knowledge of the established orthodox theologians on which the Tractarians were based. The first excitement caused by the 90th treatise soon subsided and things went as usual. In the summer of 1841, Newman lived quietly at Littlemore, translating the works of Athanasius of Alexandria. On October 29, Keble gave his last lecture at Oxford. In his place, Isaac Williams was nominated, whom Pusey also supported, but the suspicion now cast on the Tractarians was an obstacle, and Williams' candidacy was rejected. Another event of the same year that struck the Tractarians unpleasantly was the founding of an Anglican episcopal see in Jerusalem in alliance with the Prussian Protestant Church. It seemed impossible to Newman that he could be an Englishman. the church entered into an alliance with Protestantism and Calvinism in Prussia, and declared its open protest 219. The latter was not taken into account, despite the support of Newman's like-minded people, and Newman lost even more faith in the English. church. On May 24, 1843, Pusey preached on the Eucharist. A week later Prof. Fausset accused this sermon as heretical before the vice-chancellor of the university. The latter, in accordance with the statute, gathered the father-in-law of theology professors and on June 2, Pusey was convicted of preaching teachings contrary to the Church of England and he was forbidden to preach for two years. The case was carried out in secret and Pusey was denied protection. The conviction of such a person caused a stir not only in Oxford, but also beyond its walls. Here, undoubtedly, hatred of the Tractarians was already expressed, which even crossed the boundaries of all justice. For all those elected to membership in one or another college, Oxford began to offer the most severe test in those points 90 of the treatise, which seemed to be papal teaching, regarding the infallibility of ecumenical councils, purgatory, veneration of icons and appeals in prayer to saints. This attitude of the Oxford authorities towards the movement did not stop the courage of the Tractarians. On the contrary, the more extreme of them, with even greater courage, continued to move forward in the accepted direction. If Newman, in his 90th treatise, tried to show that there was a lot in common between England and Rome, then Ward went further and argued that there was no difference in dogmatic teaching. Ward was distinguished by his extraordinary dialectical abilities. Newman's influence was irresistible to him and he became his zealous student. Ward joined the movement much later than his leader, and did not feel particularly deep affection for the Anglicans. churches. From Newman he borrowed the basic idea of ​​Catholic theology as a deep and true religious philosophy that satisfies both the mind and the heart. From here he also borrowed the idea of ​​the Catholic Church, with which the Anglican Church, as isolated from the rest of Christianity, differing in doctrine from other churches, allowing freedom of opinion, which was sometimes heretical in nature, did not agree. Entering into controversy when the 90th treatise appeared, he argued that the Anglican members were written in such a way that they did not affect the indisputably Catholic doctrine, that their compilers did not want to break the connection with the ancient Catholic fathers of the church, but that in their nature they were a compromise between extreme parties, and in themselves, taken separately, were not Catholic. He refused to recognize as Catholic the members' doctrine of justification, as based purely on Lutheran theory. According to his ideas, religious knowledge was based on morality, on the harmony of faith with the heart, hence the Lutheran separation of faith from morality seemed to him worse than atheism. Ward was not alone in insisting on the harmony of morality with religious knowledge. The moral side of religion occupied the minds of the Tractarians no less than other issues. The life of the first Christians, the asceticism and asceticism of their fathers became objects of veneration and imitation. It is not surprising that the forms in which similar feelings were embodied in Roman Catholicism attracted the special attention of the Tractarians. Of these, celibacy or celibacy of the clergy, which was looked upon as a feat and self-sacrifice of the clergy, with the aim of more devoted service to the cause of shepherding, especially aroused attention in Oxford. Without a doubt, the idea of ​​a celibate life in itself was the same both religious and utilitarian and did not necessarily combine with it ideas of self-sacrifice, but at Oxford it took on a purely Roman Catholic form, and was one of those impulses that attracted the more extreme to Rome. Oakley, a priest in London, especially worked in this direction. The organ of such ideas was the "British Critic", which was soon condemned as preaching "novelism" even by Palmer (Worgester), and ceased its publication. In 1844, Ward published a book: “The Ideal of the Christian Church,” in which the Roman Church was recognized as the ideal church and the Anglican Church was condemned. In the same year, Dr. Simons, an ardent opponent of the movement, was elected to the seat of Vice-Chancellor at Oxford, and this election was a new defeat for Pusey's party. The book was immediately condemned and Ward was stripped of all his university degrees. The most heated accusations were heard against the Tractarians, suspicions were mixed with hatred and slander turned into cheap and dirty pamphlets. Retiring to Littlemore, Newman was as silent as a statue. He seemed to take no part in the events of Oxford. However, no one doubted that his final step was already a foregone conclusion; it remained only a matter of time. On the 3rd October 1845 Newman petitioned to be removed from the rolls of Oriel College and University and was admitted to the Roman Catholic Church on the 8th. In the same year, Ward, Faber, Oaklay, Dalgairn, and many others left Anglicanism. But having lost its leader, the movement did not end and did not stop. Pusey was still here. Keble was faithful to him, Palmer, Motzley and others, no less outstanding people than those who hastened to take refuge in Roman Catholicism, did not leave him. Their faith in the Church of England remained unshaken, their hopes for its improvement and prosperity were not lost. Respect for these leaders and the Catholic principles of the movement continued to arouse enthusiasm among the clergy, and they hastened to popularize the ideas of the church movement in all possible ways: preaching, forming societies, and worshiping. Instead of the “British Critic,” the English “Churchman” and “Guardian” arose, which began to serve as conductors of Catholic ideas. The movement ceased to be exclusively scientific and spread beyond the walls of Oxford, in London and the provinces. Pusey's popularity and views spread widely in England, and Keble became closer to his friends in London, Winchester and the country towns. Under his influence, new leaders were raised who gave the movement their special character, and the latter moved from the field of abstract theology into life and became practical. The “golden mean” developed by Newman could not satisfy both himself and those who shared his way of thinking. They found it impossible to be content with a compromise between two extremes and switched to Roman Catholicism, which seemed to them a solid logical system. Other adherents of Tractarian ideas, without going to such an extreme, directed their energy towards the practical application of these ideas, and moved from the field of abstract theology to the sphere of direct living activity. Soon after Newman converted to Catholicism, another party began to emerge in Oxford. The people of this party looked rather indifferently at the spread of Orthodoxy in the country, and were not filled with indignation at the sight of the rituals and liturgical ceremonies introduced by the high-church people. In the spirit of their convictions, they stood closer to Arnold's school, succumbing only further to the influence of German Protestantism of the negative and skeptical school. The book Essays and Reviews, published in 1860, can be considered an expression of their direction and way of thinking. Under this title, seven treatises were published, written by various authors, independently of one another. During the period of the decline of the church and the spread of liberal and Calvinistic ideas, this book and its compilers would hardly have paid much attention. But after the Tractarian or Anglo-Catholic movement, when the ideas of orthodoxy had spread widely among the clergy and found adherents and defenders in the latter, such a work raised a whole storm of indignation. "Experiments and Reviews" were written by seven Anglican priests and dealt with various subjects. The first of the "experiments" - "Education of the World" belonged to Dr. Church (now Archbishop of Canterbury). Church did not express anything heretical, although the entire treatise shows complete indifference to the dogmatic teachings of Christianity. He pursued the idea that progress is only possible on an individual basis and does not extend to society and the world as a whole. It seemed to him an indisputable fact that moral progress does not exist in the world, as well as in philosophy: the ancient Romans were better than the later ones, the ancient Jews were better than the later Jews, and the first Christians were better than the modern ones. Philosophy knows no higher than Socrates, and all world progress consists only in greater refinement of the external forms of civilized life. The author of the second experiment, Dr. Roland Williams, tried to reproduce Bunsen's destructive criticism of the Old Testament. While presenting the theory and principles of Bunsen's criticism in lively and clear language, Williams himself expresses in many places his disagreement with these principles, but at the same time presents them as plausible and worthwhile considerations. He writes as a believer in the Old Testament, but at the same time he defends explanations of the Old Testament that are not consistent with the generally accepted interpretation of the Old Testament, and such comments from the latter were difficult for the average reader to cope with. In directing his whole attention to the preaching of skepticism, Williams showed a lack of familiarity and even a misunderstanding of the English writers to whom he referred. The third experiment, written by Powell, treated the external evidence of Christianity in order to show their inconsistency. Powell mainly refuted miracles as inconsistent with the immutable laws of nature, although he admitted some miraculous facts, understanding them in a spiritual - figurative sense. Like Williams, Powell did not insist so much on denial as he tried to arouse doubt in the reader. Wilson's fourth treatise recommended an ideological method of explaining Scripture, showed contempt for all accepted opinions and established formulas and ecclesiastical definitions, and therefore advocated a weakening of the form of oath to the symbolic teaching of the Church of England, which oath was required of the clergy. Goodwin's fifth treatise proved the scientific inconsistency of Moses' account of the creation of the world. Patisson's sixth was a survey of the trends of religious thought in England from 1688 to 1720. Replete with quotations from various writers, this treatise was not united by one common idea, and like others, it only aroused skepticism and disbelief in the reader. Jowett's seventh was devoted to the issue of apparent contradictions found in Holy Scripture, and advised to explain and understand Scripture as ordinary books. All these treatises were not distinguished by particular scholarship and evidence. They could easily be refuted by criticism, but the evil they could bring to the public was undeniable. Naturally, the book and its authors aroused a feeling of indignation among the clergy, and the matter of condemning the treatises was raised in a formal way. Ten thousand clergy presented an address to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which they condemned the book and asked about the measures that the bishops intended to take. The Church presented a similar petition. union 220. After the issue was examined in the convoy of 1861, a process was raised against Williams and Wilson in the Court Arches, the decision of which was appealed to the Privy Council. The Privy Council in February 1864 refused to condemn the book as contrary to the symbolic books of the Church of England, and its decision aroused even greater indignation among the public and clergy. Eleven thousand of the latter signed the declaration drawn up in Oxford, in which they expressed their firm belief in the inspiration of Holy Scripture. The matter was again raised at the Canterbury convocation in April 1864 and, after long debate, the book was condemned by the synod as “containing teaching contrary to the teaching accepted by the united church of England and Ireland in agreement with the whole Catholic Church of Christ 221. Bishop Colenzo’s writings “Comments on the Epistle of St. ap. Paul to the Romans" and about the "Pentateuch" 222. Colenzo was appointed bishop of Natal (a colony in South Africa) in 1853 and published his studies in 1861 and 1863. The book on the Pentateuch was distinguished by its extreme rationalistic character. “The Bible is not in itself the word of God,” Colenzo wrote, “but, of course, the word of God can be found in it. He pointed out the legendary nature of the early books of the Bible, and the contradictions and improbability of the contents of the book of Exodus, then denied and so on. Since Colenzo was subordinate to the Metropolitan of Cape Town, the matter was raised in the metropolitanate, and the Metropolitan, Dr. Gray, deprived him of his chair and subjected him to excommunication. This decision was approved by both convocations, which received petitions from the clergy and Churches. Union 223, a council of American bishops, a Scottish council, a Canadian council, and finally at the first Lambest Conference of Anglican bishops. Dr. Macrorie was ordained in his place, and Colenzo himself died in June 1883. The new rationalist movement was only a reactive outburst against the Anglo-Catholic Tractarian movement. It could no longer suppress the principles put forward by the Taktarians. On the contrary, the defenders of the latter tried to zealously put them into practice and brought against themselves a whole series of processes that opened sad pages in the history of the Anglican Church. The reason for the beginning of these processes was initially a purely external circumstance, which was not in direct connection with the movement, but aroused indignation among the people in general and especially among the low-church people. It was when many of the Tractarians converted to Roman Catholicism and attracted many Anglican parishioners with them that in Rome they considered this to be a new restoration of Catholicism in England. In October 1850, a papal bull was published, proposing the opening of a new Archdiocese of Westminster, and the division of all of England into 12 dioceses, under the control of prelates appointed by the pope. This bull greatly, although unfoundedly, agitated public opinion. The prime minister of the kingdom, Lord Roussel, spoke out for the need for open measures against the papal invasion. The protest was signed by people of various classes and estates. However, no external measures were taken. But the bull damaged the Church of England in the following respects. Those Catholic ideas and principles that were carried out by the Tractarians soon found expression in worship and ritual. Church services began to be accompanied by greater solemnity, churches were decorated with paintings and sculpture. After the Puritan simplicity of the previous time, such a change began to be especially striking. In their sermons, the clergy began to insist on the importance of the sacraments, to advise going to confession and receiving absolution from sins from the priest, arguing that these were things that were essential for believers, and thus elevated their hierarchical position. Crucifixions in churches, the sign of the cross, prayers for the dead and observing saints' days have become commonplace. It was also recommended to use Roman Catholic liturgical books. Naturally, all this aroused indignation in the extreme Protestant party, which, referring to the bull, raised cries: “Down with papacy.” Soon trials began against high-church members for allegedly violating the laws of the Church of England. This is the case that was brought against Bennett, the priest of the Church of St. Paul in London. In 1850, Bennett built a new church in the poorest part of his parish, which was consecrated by the Bishop of London. Here choral singing was introduced, a special lattice was installed that separated the altar from the middle part of the church, and the altar was decorated with an image of the crucifixion. Bennett was attacked by the crowd, but, having a strong character, continued to maintain the introduced rituals. However, on the advice of the bishop, he abandoned the parish. His successor Lidbel did not make any changes and a formal case was raised against him. The accusers demanded the removal of the crucifix, gilded candlesticks and candles, the altar and the multi-colored altar covers. The matter came to the Privy Council, and it was decided rather in favor of the ritualists. The Privy Council declared that all decorations permitted by the first Book of Commons. Edward VI's prayers are legitimate. Consequently, those who wished were allowed to wear the Eucharistic vestments mentioned in this book. The answer given by the council was expressed in such a way that it affirmed the principle: “omission is not prohibition,” which later high-church leaders began to rely on against objections that the things they introduced were not mentioned in the Book of Commons. prayers. By allowing the use of the cross and altar clothes, as well as everything that could help clarify the meaning of the service, the Privy Council made it possible for the high-church party to take a step forward. Based on this decision of the Privy Council, the high churchmen began to expand the liturgical ceremony and soon introduced incense, mixing water with wine during the Eucharist and other rituals. All these rituals, indifferent in themselves, aroused indignation in the Puritan party, accustomed to the simplicity of worship. In 1867, Lord Shaffesbury decided to introduce a bill into Parliament with the goal of establishing uniformity in worship by one parliamentary decision, without consultation with convocation. The bishops, besieged by complaints from extreme Protestants, were for the most part ready to agree with Lord Chafebury's project. The defender of the independence of the church was the Oxford Bishop Wilberforce, who found support in Gladstone. When the bill was introduced into parliament and the majority of the bishops were in favor, Wilberforce proved the inconsistency of this measure, and instead of voting in parliament, it was decided to form a commission. The latter, consisting of 14 clergy and 15 laity, began its meetings in the Jerusalem House at Westminster on June 17, 1867. During the meetings of the new commission, another case was raised against McConochie, a priest at Golborne in London, and against Simpson, accused of introducing an illegal ritual in their churches. The highest church court (Arches Court) gave the following decision in this case: 1) the raising of the cup and paten after the consecration of gifts is illegal: 2) prostration and kneeling during the prayer of consecration are among the matters decided by the bishop; 3) censing during the celebration of the Eucharist is illegal; 4) mixing water with wine should be done before the service, and not ceremoniously; 6) two candles on the throne during the Eucharist - should be lit to commemorate that Christ is the light of the world. This decision was published on March 28. On April 30, a commission appointed by Parliament and sitting in Westminster made a report in which it spoke in favor of eliminating the lighting of candles during the Eucharist and incense. She proposed the following rules to guide parishioners' disputes regarding ritual: 1) the three-hundred-year-old custom of the church should be considered law; 2) five parishioners from a parish of a thousand souls and three from smaller parishes can appeal against the priest to the bishop, and in case of difficulty, the latter to the archbishop. The opinion of the archbishop must be considered decisive. The third report of the commission concerned a more expedient distribution of the readings of the Old Testament and the New during church services and was accepted. Following the McConochie case, a similar accusation followed against another priest, Weeks, who was forbidden to use incense and lighted candles. In 1870, the case of the priest John Porches (in Brighton) was heard at Arches Court. The judge ruled that the use of clothing prescribed by the 1st book of Edward VI was legal, but condemned processions with crosses, banners, censing, as well as the sprinkling of St. water, and recognized as permissible the use of unleavened bread, and turning to the east during the consecration of gifts. This case was referred to the judicial committee, which declared illegal any use of clothing in parish churches except for the serplis (a type of surplice made of linen), and established that the priest should stand so during the consecration so that the people could see the breaking of bread he was performing. The court declared the use of unleavened bread, as well as the beret (a four-cornered cap usually used by the Catholic clergy), illegal. The excitement among the high churchmen themselves was so strong that the Bishop of Winchester wrote to Archbishop Tate of Canterbury: “Now is a very troubled time and if God does not hear our prayers, the matter will end in a great schism” 224. 4,700 people from among the Anglican clergy protested against the decision of the privy council and issued this protest to the archbishop and bishops. The archbishop answered evasively, agreeing that unsatisfactory legislation could be protested, once a discrepancy between the legislation and the requirements of life was proven, but considered protest against a private matter illegal, and pointed out that questions about rituals should not create any special excitement, as questions of secondary importance and not affecting the teachings of the Gospel and the teachings of the church on the sacraments. The extreme Protestant party did not look at things this way. It seemed to her that by introducing rituals, high-church people were distorting the teachings of the Gospel and the church. This party was especially indignant at the ritual with which the Tractarians began to surround the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The zealots stubbornly insisted that putting on clothes during the performance of this sacrament, kneeling, mixing water with wine, unleavened bread and incense was nothing more than a return to the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, which, in their opinion, was so disastrous for Christian souls. These people decided to declare a crusade against the cross itself and formed a special society in 1865: the Church Association 225, which took upon itself the task of persecuting high-church people, or as they were now called “ritualists.” But the latter were not defenseless. They united among themselves and formed the “English Church Union 226. This union was essentially a unification of pre-existing church societies. Initially, she set herself three tasks: 1) to raise people’s interest in the church; 2) to protect persons who have suffered from wrong decisions in spiritual matters and 3) to strengthen the Catholic teaching of the church and church discipline. The following means were recommended: 1) communication with other similar societies: 2) the formation of parish associations; 3) annual meeting of all members; 4) publication of a newspaper; 5) petitions and 6) funds. The condition for admission was communication with the church; therefore, only those who received communion (communicants) at least three times a year could become members. In 1861, the 1st issue of Tserkovnoye Obozreniye, which was the original organ of the union, was published, and the activities of the society went the right way 227. In essence, all the so-called “crises” in the Anglican Church are nothing more than the struggle of these two societies among themselves, and the church association has always revealed “jealousy beyond reason.” In all these disputes, the central issue is the Eucharist and other sacraments brought forward by the Oxford leaders. Some of the followers of Tractarianism came up with the idea of ​​the need for a more definite and clear presentation of the doctrine of the sacraments for the people in the spirit of “treatises for the times.” This attempt was also prompted by examples of distorted church teaching on the sacraments, such as Gorham's teaching on baptism. George Cornelius Gorgam was a priest in the diocese of Bishop Philpott of Exeter. The bishop refused to transfer him to another parish on the grounds that Torgham held incorrect opinions and distorted the teachings of the church. On December 17, 1847, the bishop subjected him to a test, during which it turned out that Torgam denied spiritual unconditional rebirth in baptism, and pursued the idea of ​​​​communicating grace before baptism and recognized the rebirth itself in this sacrament as conditional. He referred to the XXIX articles, which teach that the sacraments impart grace only to those who “rightly, worthily and with faith receive them, therefore conditionally.” Wanting to defend himself, Gorgham took the case to the highest court (Court Arches), which recognized his teaching as false, but the restless Gorgham was not satisfied and filed an appeal to the secret council, which consisted of six secular persons and three clergy. The issue raised created excitement among all adherents of the church, who feared for a false decision in the privy council. This fear turned out to be justified. Having considered the Gorgam case, the Privy Council expressed itself in the sense that the Anglican Church does not provide such a clear and definite doctrine of unconditional regeneration in the sacrament of baptism as to exclude any possibility of holding the opinion expressed by Gorgam, and considering the latter an obstacle to the appointment of Gorgam himself to the parish. The Bishop of Exeter protested this decision. He published his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he defended the doctrine of unconditional regeneration in baptism and decided to assemble a council of the clergy of his diocese. The Bishop of London introduced a proposal to the House of Lords that questions of heresy should be decided in the upper house of convocation, in the presence of representatives from the crown, but this bill was rejected. The decision of the Bishop of Exeter to convene a synod caused natural displeasure to the liberals, and on May 2, 1851, the question was raised in the House of Commons: is such a council legal? The first minister and the state prosecutor replied that diocesan councils were not contrary to the laws of the constitution. On June 25, 1851, a council was held, approving the teachings of Bishop Philpott and condemning the teachings of Gorham. Thus, the teaching of the church about the first sacrament triumphed, but here the strict teaching about the Eucharist still remained unclear. Archdeacon Denison took it upon himself to try to find out the latter, and incurred persecution from the Church Association. Denison was an examiner for the Bishop of Bath and Wales, Bagot. During the illness of this bishop, Bishop Spencer was in charge of the affairs of the diocese, with whom Denison entered into a dispute over the issue of the Eucharist. Assuming that Bishop Bagot did not share his opinions, Denison refused the position of examiner. In August and November 1853, he preached two sermons on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist at the Welsh Cathedral. The views he pursued here gave rise to trials. The dying Bagot could no longer resolve the matter, and the Archbishop of Canterbury at first wanted not to make the dispute public, but the process took its course. The Provincial Court required Denison to renounce two provisions: 1) that both those who approach the sacrament worthily and unworthily receive the body and blood of Christ, and 2) that worship befits the real, although invisible, presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist under the form of bread and wine. Denison refused to agree to this proposal and was deprived of his archdeaconry. The case went first to the court of final appeal, and then to the privy council, where it ended in 1858, not in Denison’s favor. In expressing the doctrine that Christ is actually present in the sacrament of the Eucharist by His glorified body, that bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, Archdeacon Denison was not a lonely preacher of this doctrine. It managed to spread significantly in England and did not arouse much protest even in Oxford. We have already seen that in 1843 Pusey was condemned by the Oxford authorities for his preaching on the Eucharist. Ten years later, however, in 1853, Pusey again preached the same doctrine and the university did not find it possible to condemn him. Some pursued their views even more clearly. Thus, in his letter to Dr. Pusey, the priest W. E. Bennett spoke of the "real, true and visible presence of our Lord on the altars of churches," and that he himself worshiped and taught the people to worship the consecrated elements. This letter in the form of a treatise was published in the second edition in 1867. In the third edition, Bennett, on the advice of Pusey, replaced the word “visible” (presence) with the expression “under the form of bread and wine” and instead of “veneration of the consecrated elements” - “veneration of Christ present in the sacrament under the form of bread and wine.” Extreme Protestants took up a case against Bennett, and in 1870, on July 23, the Court of Arches ruled that the doctrine of the visible presence of God on altars and the worship of consecrated elements was illegal. When the matter came to the Privy Council, the latter, although recognizing the language of Bennett's book as “intemperate,” nevertheless refused to condemn it as completely contradictory and inconsistent with the teachings of the Church of England. No less excitement was caused by the question of confession, which ritualists began to introduce in their churches and parishes. They looked at regular confession as one of the most powerful means in a person’s spiritual life, and as one of the surest ways to raise the moral level of the people. How widely confession has spread is evident from a letter from Dr. Pusey, who defended the benefits of hearing confession before the Archbishop of Canterbury. Pusey pointed to one of the public schools in which more than 100 boys regularly went to confession, and the moral atmosphere of the school rose to unprecedented heights. About five hundred clergymen who shared a similar view presented a petition to Archbishop Tait of Canterbury during the convocation sessions on May 9, 1873. The Archbishop read this petition in the upper house of convocation. Those who signed the petition asked the bishops, “in view of the widespread dissemination” of sacramental confession, to discuss the issue of choosing and training priest-confessors in accordance with canonical laws. This petition aroused great indignation among the extreme Protestants, and Lord Chefsbury wrote to the archbishop, asking him what the bishops intended to do. The archbishop replied that the episcopal decision would be announced after the next convocation. On June 30, 1873, Lord Shefsbury called a meeting, and the issue was raised in the House of Lords. On July 23, the bishops issued a declaration in which they condemned regular confession as contrary to the word of God and the laws of the church, and allowed only priests to give spiritual advice and absolution if anyone, troubled by remorse, asked for the latter. A similar absolution from sins should be given to dying people if they express a persistent desire. The question of confession was raised again by Lord Redsdale in the 1877 Parliament. The reason for this was the famous book “Priest in Absolution”, which gave advice on how to accept and make confession. The questions mentioned here about sins in accordance with the commandments (reminiscent of the pages of our old missals) especially aroused indignation, as they analyzed the nature of sin too subtly. This book was published by the St. The cross was intended for the clergy, but not for the public. The Archbishop responded in the House of Lords with ignorance of this book, and referred to the convocation of 1874 as having already decided the issue of confession. Both chambers of convocation confirmed the previous decision and recognized the society of St. Cross, responsible for the publication of the book “Priest in Absolution”. Despite protests from high church members, the decision to convoke remained in force. The discontent of the Protestant party was always aroused by the so-called symbol of Athanasius. During the first half of the 19th century, due to the negligence of the clergy, the people lost the habit of hearing the reading of the Athanasian Symbol in churches, since the Book of Common. prayers prescribes the reading of the latter only on special holidays and days. Not paying attention to these instructions and shortening the service, the clergy omitted the reading of this symbol. Naturally, when the Oxford movement increased the attention of the clergy to the Book of Vol. prayers, reading the symbol aroused alarm in the old generation, which no longer understood the language of the symbol. Among the low-church people, a desire began to be expressed to remove the Phanasian symbol from the Book of Commons. prayers. The Ritualistic Commission of 1870 proposed to add the following note to the symbol: “The condemnations mentioned in this confession are to be understood in no other way than in the sense of a solemn warning of the destruction of those who voluntarily reject the Catholic faith.” The Archbishop, along with the other 16 members of the commission, spoke against this note. When the matter came to the discussion of the bishops, opinions were divided. Finally, it was decided to give a new translation of the symbol, entrusting the task to the bishops and professors of both universities. The Oxford professors opposed any change, and in the case of the latter, Pusey and Lyddon decided to depose themselves. After a heated debate, an agreement took place in the convocation of 1873, which formulated its judgment about the Athanasian symbol as follows: 1) that the confession does not add anything to the faith contained in the Holy Scriptures, but warns against errors: 2) that, just as the Holy Scripture in various places promises life to believers and declares condemnation to unbelievers, so the church in this symbol declares it necessary to firmly adhere to the Catholic faith to all who wish achieve salvation and great destruction for those who reject faith. The warnings in this symbol should be understood in the same sense as the warnings of Holy Scripture. The Church does not condemn anyone or individuals here, for the Judge of all is God. In 1875, three parishioners of the parish of St. Peter's in Foloxton brought proceedings against their priest, Charles Riddale, accusing him of 1) using lighted candles during daylight services; 2) in mixing water with wine in the Eucharist; 3) in the use of unleavened bread; 4) in turning to the east during the consecration of gifts; 5) kneeling during the prayer of consecration; 6) in the singing of the Agnus Dei hymn after the consecration: 7) in religious processions with crosses, banners and music; 8) in celebrating the Eucharist in vestments; 9) in the celebration of the Eucharist, when there was only one communicant; 10) in the room of the crucifix on the partition between the altar and the church with candlesticks on the sides, and in decorating the church with paintings depicting the passion of Christ. The case was decided at Arches Court in 1876 and all the charges were found to be valid. The judge advised Riddale to abandon these rites, but Riddale took the case to the Court of Final Appeals, where the decision of the Arches Court was found to be correct. The church association, which directed its blows against the high-church members, in its positive actions reached absurd extremes and even cruelties, which are difficult to reconcile with the notorious English freedom. Adherents of Tractarian ideas tried to implement these ideas visually, and for this purpose they used the ancient customs of their church. Working mostly among the poorest population, in which the vicious life had built a strong nest for itself, they had in mind to attract the people to the church and keep them from dirty street and rough entertainments. It is not surprising that such activities aroused sympathy among the people for the high-church people. These sympathies increased even more when the church association, not limiting itself to litigation alone, began to subject high-church members to imprisonment. So in 1877 the priest A. Tuus was imprisoned, in 1880 - Pelgam Dale, and Enraat, in 1881 - Faithhorn Green and others. When not only the lower clergy, but also some of the bishops began to introduce and adhere to the same rituals, the church association decided to protest against them. In 1887, she brought a lawsuit against one of the bishops especially respected and loved by the people - Bishop Dr. King of Lincoln. When the case was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the latter at first refused to judge the bishop alone, but at the request of the Privy Council in 1888 he was forced to consider the charges, and in 1890, in community with the bishops of London, Oxford, Rochester, Salusbury and Hereford, he made the following decision: 1) mixing water with wine is allowed before the service, but not during her; 2) turning to the east during the Eucharist is legal, but the consecration of gifts must be visible to the people; 3) singing the hymn Agnus Dai after the prayer of consecration is legal; 4) two lit candles in the altar during the Eucharist are permissible; 5) blessing the people with the sign of the cross is illegal. The Church Association was not satisfied with this decision and appealed to the Privy Council, demanding a review of the case. This time the Privy Council agreed with the archbishop's decision, and thus the Bishop of Lincoln was not convicted, although he was forced to pay legal costs of about 50 thousand rubles. In this case, the high-church party won a victory for the first time, although not completely. We have already seen that the decisions of the Privy Council did not always coincide with each other: one judge did not agree with the decision of another. From this it is clear that the authority of the Privy Council was not placed highly by the highly ecclesiastical party, which relied in its actions on the principles of the ancient Catholic undivided church, although the forms they introduced in liturgical practice were close and sometimes identical to the Roman Catholic ones. Since, by its very nature, the privy council as a secular court cannot be considered an expression of the voice of the church, it was natural for dissatisfaction to arise among church adherents with this state of affairs. The idea of ​​the need for greater freedom for the church in purely religious matters began to be expressed more and more strongly in society. The exponent of this idea is the Anglo-Church Union with its chairman, Lord Halifax. The high-church clergy, not satisfied with the verdicts of the Privy Council, continued to follow the direction they had once accepted and did not weaken in their energy. It insisted on the need for a sacramental system and introduced confession in many parishes as the best means of Christian discipline, continuing to adhere to those very rites that were more than once condemned by the Privy Council. Censing, lit candles, the communion of the sick with spare gifts, the sign of the cross, the arrangement of confessionals, prayers for the dead, and so on became, as it were, integral objects in the high churches. Naturally, the extreme Protestant party could not feel calm at the sight of idolatry and papacy that seemed to them. Lord Halifax's attempt to enter into relations with Rome with the aim of uniting Catholicism and Anglicanism aroused even greater discontent. On this undoubtedly old leaven and soil arose the last crisis of 1899, which has not yet ended. This time the matter took a slightly different form and a different turn. The Church Association did not initiate formal proceedings against individuals, because it saw that such measures were unsuccessful. She found a man who, possessing a quick pen, published at her expense a book with an extremely tempting title: The Secret History of the Oxford Movement. The book was imbued with one idea: high-church papists, their goals are to destroy the Reformation Church and introduce the Catholic Church, and then, under the authority of the infallible, seize power over the people. Without a doubt, progress in England has not yet reached the point where the public has a critical view of things and more or less impartially. A lover of all sorts of secrets, she bought up the secret history in tens of thousands and became worried, seeing herself entangled in the networks of Jesuitism. William Harcourt, a prominent man in society, a good writer and undoubtedly a remarkable thinker, and, moreover, an influential figure in Parliament, burst out with a whole series of letters in the leading organ of The Times, accusing the Church of lawlessness, however, not so much out of love for the latter, but out of a certain kind of political and party interests, which we do not need to touch on. The owner of a dirty store, Kensit, wanting to perhaps perpetuate his memory in history, although he did not reach the feat of Herostratus, he opened protests of the most vulgar nature: he broke into the churches of high-church people and stopped worship in the name of the law, he himself performed services on the steps of the Cathedral of St. Paul, organized exhibitions, showing instruments of torture of high-church monks and so on. The goal was achieved: the intelligent public paid attention and filled the newspapers with letters, the ignorant crowd simply began to besiege the high-church clergy, resorting to rotten potatoes (rightly saving the good ones for such a rotten cause) and in other ways expressed their protest, gathering ten thousand rallies in the Albert Hall. The subjects of accusations were mainly the bishops, as condoners and indulgers of the ritualists. When parliamentary sessions opened last year, the issue of ritualism and especially confession came under consideration here. The bishops, however, did not turn out to be martyrs of ideas: the Archbishop of York spoke out directly against private confession as a national evil. Others followed the example of the primate, and thus the Zealots received satisfaction. The proposal of some of the members of parliament to end the issue of ritualism by a parliamentary decision, without paying attention to the bishops, however, did not pass, and the matter of the high-church party was transferred to the discretion and decision of the prelates. The English Church Union did not remain inactive during these disputes. On March 1st, 1899, she issued a declaration which stated: “We have maintained and maintain that the Church of England, while adhering to its principles, cannot free itself from the obligations imposed upon it by its relations with the rest of the Catholic Church, that the doctrine and discipline and rites of the Church of England, as prescribed by the whole of its history, remain in force and effect, with such exceptions as they have been modified by its own authority. We denied and deny again that a new religious institution was established in England in the 16th century. We deny the right of Crown or Parliament to determine the doctrine, discipline and rites of the English Church." 228 The Chairman of the Church Union, Lord Halifax, pointed out that appeals against the decision of the archbishop's court to the privy council do not agree with the historical fate of the Anglican Church, since the right of appeal of the archbishop's court to the crown arose as a result of the desire to destroy appeals to the pope. But on questions regarding doctrine and church rites, the archbishop's court has always been final, and history does not know of appeals against its decision to Rome, therefore, even now, the decision of the archbishop should be considered the final authority in the proceedings of the same cases. Lord Halifax expressed these thoughts in his letter to the Bishop of Winchester on March 26, and found support in other persons (“Nineteenth Century” April 1899, article 518 and “Sovrem. Obzor.” April, article 457). Instead of such an abnormal order of conducting and resolving affairs, the church union insists that 1) the supreme power over the diocese belongs entirely to the bishop, 2) power in the metropolis - to the archbishop; c 3) power over the entire national church - to the council of bishops, which judges the archbishop, and 4) power over the national council - to the ecumenical council. Defending this order of resolving church issues, some of the high church leaders turned to Lambeth Palace with a request to listen to their reasons on which they rely, allowing incense in their churches, lighted candles, communion with the sick with spare gifts, and not performing every time what is laid down in the Book of Commons. prayers for the communion of the sick and dying. The Lambeth meetings were attended by both archbishops, several bishops, many of the lower clergy and specialists and experts in church history (Prof. Colmans) and liturgical practice of the Eastern Church (Mr. Birkbeck). In some ways, these meetings are reminiscent of the “Debate on Faith” in the Moscow Faceted Chamber, with the only difference being that the palace was guarded not by archers, but by ordinary policemen. Defenders of incense relied mainly on the fact that this is a biblical custom and rite and has always been observed, and is observed now, throughout the entire Catholic Church, both in the East and in the West. Based on the fact that the Book of Societies and Prayers does not deny the practice of the entire Catholic Church, the censers insisted on the permissibility of this rite in Anglicanism. At the same time, making references to the history of their church, they indicated that this ritual was observed in the 17th and 18th centuries, as for example in the Ili Cathedral. Considering church laws from the other side, they pointed out that incense is not prohibited by the latter, although it is not mentioned in them. Consequently, they returned to the same principle - “omission is not prohibition”, on which, as we have seen, the high churchmen relied earlier. They were guided by the same considerations when they defended the practice of giving communion to the sick with spare gifts, citing the testimony of doctors and purely external conditions that did not allow them to perform what was prescribed by the Book of Communion. The prayer order is complete. The archbishops, referring to the letter of the law, replied on July 31st that incense was not in accordance with the statutes of the Church of England and, therefore, should be destroyed. They did not deny the meaning behind incense that was attributed to it by its defenders, and expressed the hope that in more favorable times incense could be introduced into the Anglican Church, but that now the clergy were required to submit to this decision. On March 1, 1900, the archbishops made their decision regarding the communion of the sick with spare gifts. Based on the Book of Commons. prayers and members of the faith, they recognized this practice as illegal and invited the clergy to abstain from it until it was introduced by legal authority. The archbishop's decision, as coming directly from church authority, had a greater influence than the decision of the privy council. It was easier for the high-church members to come to terms with this decision, although undesirable, than with the veto of the secular judges of the secret council they hated. But despite all this, the crisis cannot be considered completely resolved, since the question of the relationship of the state to the church and the church to the state has not been finally resolved in the sense of greater freedom for the church. The Tractarian movement, as we have seen, put forward with particular force the idea of ​​the church as a divinely established society, possessing its own laws, headed by a hierarchy and possessing grace-filled means of salvation. This idea involuntarily led to the conclusion about the need for a living voice in the church, the best expression of which was to be church councils. The Exeter Synod has already clearly demonstrated how important the voice of the church is in the struggle for true teaching. The idea of ​​the need to restore the activities of convocations of both provinces increasingly entered the consciousness of the “Churchmen” and found support in the Church Union. When the Canterbury Convocation met in November 1847 to draft an address of thanks to the Queen, one member posed the direct question: What had the Crown done for the Church to thank her? From the debate that arose, it became clear that the assembly of convocations and its activities were not entirely dependent on the crown, and the inactivity of the convocations in previous years was due only to bad custom, but not to the law. Here the decision matured to resume the living activity of convocations, as expressions of the church itself, and for this purpose a special society was formed. After long debates in the House of Lords in 1851 and discussions in the press for and against convocations, in November 1852 at St. Paul, the full synod of the Canterbury province met, and on November 12 a meeting of the upper and lower houses of convocation took place in Westminster. The activities of the Canterbury Convocation were virtually restored. Explanations, resolutions, appointment of committees followed, and correct communication between the upper and lower houses was restored; that is, the machine that had remained inactive for 130 years, thanks to the carelessness of the clergy, was set in motion. Somewhat later, the York convocations were resumed. In 1856, the convocation resolved the issue of church services and the more expedient distribution of the Gospel and Apostolic readings. In 1857, the Archbishop of Canterb. Sumner, who had not previously sympathized with the revival of convocation activities, went over to the side of its defenders, and in 1860 a resolution from the crown followed, declaring convocation activities free. In 1861, the convocation established a canon that allowed parents to be the adopters of their children, but this canon was not passed into law. In 1865, the subscription formula required of each member of the Anglican Church was changed, according to which the subscriber promised to adhere to XXXIX members and use only the forms of the Book of Commons during worship. prayers. In 1872, the convocation carried out an “act of uniformity in worship” and in 1873 determined the hours for marriages from 12 to 3 days. In 1870, a proposal was made to the convocation to correct the text of the Bible. The convocation consisted of two committees, and the revision of the New Testament was completed in 1880 and the Old Testament in 1884. In September 1892, at the proposal of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a new Clergy Discipline Act was passed, which provides for better measures to strengthen discipline among the clergy in cases of crimes committed by the latter. Although this act concerned mainly the interests of the church, and was discussed by convocation, it was finally approved by parliament. This is one of those anomalies that characterizes the truly unsatisfactory relationship between church and state." 229 In connection with the revival of convocation activity is the establishment of church congresses and the meeting of synods of each diocese. Church congresses arose as an attempt to attract the attention and interest of the people to the affairs and issues of the church and to mutually unite the activities of the clergy and laity for the benefit of the church. In the previous period, the separation between the clergy and the people was complete, and between the priests themselves, connections and intercourse were only casual, based on personal acquaintances. When the liberal party decided to strike a blow at the national church, the clergy could not fight back, as they were divided in themselves. The first attempt to convene a church congress was made in Cambridge in 1861 and was so successful that it was repeated in Oxford the following year. From this time on, church congresses began to meet annually in various places. By holding evening meetings for the working class, the congresses raised the authority of the church and respect for it high among the people. It goes without saying that church congresses could not be considered the full expression of the voice of the church. The idea of ​​the need for councils of representatives of the clergy and laity from each diocese or diocese was put forward in 1863 in the lower house of Canterb. convocations. Initially, this proposal did not meet with sympathy among the bishops, who did not want interference in their affairs in managing the diocese. In fact, diocesan councils began their life in 1871, when Bishop Wordsworth held a synod at Lincoln, which was attended by about 500 members of the clergy of his diocese. Here it was decided to establish an annual meeting of such councils and their organization was developed. When similar councils began to meet in each diocese, the idea arose of the need to give some kind of system and unity to their activities. For this purpose, it was decided to organize meetings of deputies from each diocesan council in London, which could systematize the decisions of individual councils. Such a central council was established in London in 1881. When the idea of ​​conciliar government began to enter more and more clearly into the consciousness of the clergy, the idea arose of a meeting of all the Anglican bishops scattered in the colonies and America, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1867 the latter sent out invitations far and wide, urging bishops to meet at Lambeth Palace to discuss the interests and needs of the church. This invitation aroused keen interest and found a response everywhere. Before the meeting, a special program of activities was published. The meeting was attended by 76 bishops and was opened with the celebration of the Eucharist and a sermon by one of the American bishops. The Chairman outlined the following issues for resolution: 1) the best way to achieve the reunification of Christianity; 2) information about the establishment of new dioceses; 3) letters of recommendation for priests and laity traveling to various dioceses; 4) subordination of the colonial church to the metropolises; 5) discipline practiced by metropolitans; 6) metropolitan court; 7) the question of appeals: 8) the conditions of communication with the church at home; 9) a message about the proposed missionary bishoprics and 10) about the subordination of the missionaries. These questions and subjects were discussed by the council for several days. In 1878, a second similar council of 100 bishops took place, in 1888 of 145 and in 1897 of 150, thus repeating itself every ten years. The bishops declared that the Church of England holds firmly to the purity of the faith as conveyed in Holy Scripture, preserved in the primitive church, expressed in symbols and confirmed by ecumenical councils. Along with the progress of the internal life of the Anglican Church, there was the development of its colonial episcopate. We have already seen that at the end of the 18th century only two colonial bishoprics were established. With the rapid growth of the colonies, the need for new bishoprics became undeniable. In 1840, Bishop Blomfield published his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he pointed out this need, and the result of the letter was the formation of a special fund for the needs of the colonial churches. After discussing the issue at the Lambeth meetings, dioceses were opened in New Zealand, to which Bishop Selwyn was consecrated in 1841, in South Africa (1847), in Tasmania and Gibraltar (1842), in 1845 New Brunswick was allocated, and in 1847 Cape Town, Adelaide, Melbourne and Newcastel received their bishops, and the number of colonial bishops reached up to 80. In 1849, an episcopal see was established in China in Hong Kong, and in 1883 in Japan. In England itself, the Liverpool diocese was established in 1880, the New Castle diocese in 1882, the South Welsh diocese in 1884, and the Bristol diocese was separated from the Gloucester diocese. Along with the growth of bishoprics, schooling under the direction of the church also progressed. Until 1833, both societies - the National and the British - carried on the work of public education without the help of the state. This year, the state allocated about 200 thousand rubles from public funds to support both church and dissident schools. In the six years before 1838, the National Society founded 690 schools. In 1839, the government increased its subsidy by 100 thousand rubles and introduced a system of inspection of schools. Without permission from the inspectorate, no school could now receive benefits. By introducing this measure, the government apparently wanted to extend its supervision over church schools. But out of 204 of these schools, 169 refused government assistance, asserting their independence. To eliminate this division and discord, it was decreed in 1840 that the appointment of an inspector of church schools should be made with the consent and approval of the archbishop of one or another province. In 1858, the state subsidy to church schools reached one and a half million rubles, but from 1859 this amount began to decrease and in 1865 fell to 190 thousand rubles. In all church schools, religious instruction was included as necessary and compulsory until 1870. With the spread of the influence of the Liberal Party, this arrangement was criticized, and the resulting National League demanded that all schools supported by public funds should be free from compulsory religious instruction. In 1870, compulsory education was introduced, and the so-called “ministerial schools” (Board schools) were founded, in which religious education was optional. This measure tended to drop church schools, but did not achieve its goal. On the contrary, the number of students in church schools doubled, and education in them became more accessible to the people than in newly founded schools. For middle school children, a school system was developed by the priest Woodard (canon of Manchester Cathedral since 1870), which required compulsory religious education. These schools educate the daughters of the clergy and professional people. From 1816 to 1881, 16 theological colleges were opened in various places, and several specifically missionary ones. In Oxford, in memory of Keble, a college named after him was opened in 1870, and in memory of Pusey - “Pusey House” in 1884. A missionary college was founded in Cambridge in 1881. Search for allies. - Failure in relations with the Vatican. Bull offensive to the Church of England. – Revitalization of relations with the Orthodox East and the desire to become acquainted with the Russian Church. - Difficult question. The Great Oxford Movement, as we have already seen, resurrected the image of a single, undivided Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity. In elucidating the idea of ​​the universal church, the Tractarians naturally had to resolve the question: in what relation does the Anglican Church stand to this universal church? Understanding this issue, some denied the character of the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church and, in pursuit of the ideal, became carried away by its ghost, i.e. Rome: others, on the contrary, but denying the shortcomings of their church, saw in it a living branch of the universal church, and were waiting only for reforms and renewal. A direct appeal to Rome by the former aroused displeasure in the latter. From here the thought began to incline towards searching for other means of rapprochement with the Christian churches, and the desire to enter into a union with the latter revived in the best minds. Since the entire movement was based mainly on ancient church history, used historical methods, and at the same time did not want to see the Anglican Church of the 19th century divorced from the pre-Reformation church, and the past of Anglicanism was inextricably linked with Roman Catholicism, the gaze of the high churchmen was directed, first of all, to Rome, which had already managed to hide behind its walls many Anglicans who slavishly submitted to the Vatican governor Christ's. It is clear that such submission was undesirable for people who were proud of their freedom. They saw that the new slavery could not be better than the old and threatened to turn the Anglican Church back into the old lush papal farm. They wanted unity not on the basis of Jesuit politics, but on the foundations of Christian truth and on the terms of mutual agreements. Lord Halifax was a persistent promoter of such a union in the 90s of our century. He met the Roman Catholic abbot Fernand Portal, who shared his desire for reconciliation between the Anglican Church and the Roman Church. Pursuing this goal, they decided, first of all, to spread the desire for union everywhere, and then to indicate a point that would force it to enter into the explanations and communications of the highest ecclesiastical authorities of both churches. The question of the Anglican priesthood served as such a point. To this end, Abbot Portal published in France his work “Anglican Dedications,” 230 written in a conciliatory spirit and clarifying historical facts in a light favorable to the Anglicans. This book aroused wide interest in France, and in 1895 the rector of the archaeological school in Rome, Abbé Duchesne, in the journal Critical Bulletin, gave his review of the book and spoke out for the validity of Anglican dedications. The year before, in 1894, Abbot Portal came in person to England. Lord Halifax immediately made a request to Archbishop Benson to receive the abbot. Halifax reported at the same time that the Portal could acquaint the archbishop with opinions about Anglicanism abroad, and convey the hopes of Leo XIII that the Anglicans would express their desire to enter into a union with Rome. The archbishop agreed and the meeting took place. However, nothing was definitely decided here. Portal visited the Archbishop of York, the bishops of Peterborough and Lincoln, and was present at several churches for services. Since at that time it was given to him to know about Cardinal Rampolla’s desire to see him in the Vatican, he immediately left England and went to Rome, where he was received by Rampolla and the pope. It was initially assumed that Pope Leo XIII would address a message to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which would result in a conference of theologians from both sides to clarify the issue of Anglican ordinations, and then other disagreements between the churches. However, this plan, out of fair fears that the message might be criticized in England, was changed, and instead of the pope, Cardinal Rampolla himself addressed a private letter to Portal, in which he expressed pleasure at the latter’s composition, and the hope of convening a conference. This letter was supposed to serve as an indirect step towards entering into relations with Archbishop Benson. Abbot Portal went again to England, and Lord Halifax wrote to the archbishop that he had received very important news from Abbot Portal, which, in his opinion, should greatly please and surprise the primate, and asked for a new meeting. On September 27, 1894, Archbishop Benson had a second meeting with Abbot Portal, during which the archbishop spoke out that on the question of union, not only the primacy and infallibility of the pope, but there were other difficulties and obstacles. He also insisted that the step towards communication should be taken by the pope himself, and not by England, and did not attach any special significance to Cardinal Rampolla's letter. The archbishop's behavior disappointed Portal. In October of the same year, Lord Halifax again made a proposal to the archbishop. Benson, asking him, together with the Archbishop of York, to write to him a letter expressing a strong desire to unite with Rome, and a readiness to use all possible efforts for the latter goal. This letter, published in the press, could, in his opinion, give Pope Leo a reason to address his message to the archbishops. But even before the archbishop’s meeting with Abbot Portal and Halifax, Cardinal Vaughan, the Roman Catholic Archbishop in England, delivered a speech in Preston, in which he expressed that the union of the Anglican Church with the Roman Church is possible only with the complete subordination of the former to the latter. In his letter to the Archbishop of Toledo, Vaughan denied any validity of Anglican ordinations. It goes without saying that the kind proposals and sympathies expressed by Cardinal Rampolla and Vaughan's speech were poorly reconciled with each other, and at the same time it was difficult to believe that both of them spoke and acted without any communication with each other. Accordingly, Archbishop Benson wrote to Lord Halifax that union is possible only on the principles of truth, which cannot be sacrificed in favor of any policy. He rejected any private relations with Rome, on which Abbot Portal so insisted, and pointed out the above-mentioned contradictions in the speeches of Rampolla and Vaughan, and in conclusion added that any relations on the issue of union are impossible if the Roman Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican ordinations. On October 22, 1894, Halifax again asked Archbishop Benson to discuss the matter with the Archbishop of York, and the Archbishop responded with a letter in which he asserted that the Church of England is always ready to take the path of reconciliation with other churches, but cannot sacrifice any truth, and always insists on quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. Lord Halifax compiled one general statement from the archbishop's letters, but Archbishop Benson did not find it possible to give the latter his approval. After this, Lord Halifax read the address at Bristol on the question of union, and sent copies of this address to the bishops, asking them what the answer should be if he were asked in Rome about the attitude of the bishops on this question. The Archbishop replied in March of the same year that he could not give answers to questions that were only assumed, but not actually proposed. In April, Lord Halifax went to Rome, had an audience with the pope, and saw many cardinals. In the meantime, a division occurred in the Roman Catholic world: the English Roman Catholics stood against the validity of Anglican ordinations, while the French sided with Abbot Portal. On April 22, the pope issued the message “Ad Anglos,” addressed to “the English people seeking the kingdom of God,” presenting here the Roman Church as the only owner of the ways to this kingdom. The following month the pope appointed a commission to examine the question of Anglican ordinations. The members of this commission were exclusively Roman theologians, and only two of the Anglican scholars, Pullar and Lacey, without the knowledge of Archbishop Benson, went to Rome for the purpose of offering possible explanations. The meetings of the commission ended in June 1896, and in September the notorious bull of Pope Leo XIII “Apostolicae Curae” was issued, declaring Anglican ordinations invalid. Soon after the bull, the Anglo-Roman Review, a magazine published in 1895 with the aim of introducing Anglicanism, also ceased. Apparently, the gates of the eternal city have closed for the Anglicans forever, and in order to penetrate them, the alterius orbis papa, as the Anglicans like to call the Archbishop of Canterbury, must either shed tears of repentance before the primo, like Henry at Canossa, or wait for the second Avignon captivity of the popes, hoping that the latter will be worse than the first. One day in 1839, the arrival of the Russian Grand Duke Alexander was expected in Oxford. Deacon William Palmer, after a long conference with Dr. Roo, President of St. Magdalene, prepared a petition to be presented to the distinguished visitor. In this petition, Palmer asked the Grand Duke to send one of the Russian theologians to Oxford to study and study Anglicanism, promised to teach the messenger the English language himself, so that the latter would communicate in Russia the content of the best theological works of England, and asked for similar assistance in the event of his, Palmer, coming to Russia 231. Unfortunately, Palmer's wish did not come true. But from this very petition it is clear that the rapprochement of the Anglican Church with the Eastern and in particular the Russian Church, according to the best minds, should have begun with mutual literary acquaintance. The need for the latter arose from the extremely weak ideas of the Anglicans about the teaching and state of the Eastern Church at the beginning of the 19th century. On the other hand, the Anglican Church in the east and in Russia was hardly well known, and in most cases was simply identified with the Protestantism of the continent. When the Tractarian movement revived the ideal of the ancient undivided Catholic Church, the Vincentian principle of quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus became the basis, theological thought involuntarily turned towards the East, since Rome, even if infallible in its head, could make, and even then not entirely, a claim only to that quod semper, but not to that quod ubique and quod ab omnibus. Since the forties of our century, the literary acquaintance of Anglicans with Orthodoxy begins. Blank pages in English catalogs on the history of the Eastern Church are filled with the names of Blackmore, Palmer, Peel, Badger, Stanley, Williams, Overbeck, Young (American), Gore, Birkbeck, etc. If we remember that until the end of the first half of the 19th century, the information of the Anglicans was limited to old Le-Kyon 232 and the outdated works of Kovel, Rickout and Smith, then progress in In this regard, it becomes undeniable, although still far from the desired completeness, clarity and thoroughness. Blackmore made an attempt to reconcile the teachings of the Orthodox Church with the teachings of the Anglican Church, and Palmer always dreamed of being able to prove the identity in the basic principles of Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. This idea, with its further dissemination, led to the opening in England of the “Association of the Eastern Church”, which set itself the task of entering into closer relations with the Orthodox East through literature, meetings and monetary funds. From the middle of the 19th century, Anglicans began traveling to Russia and Greece with the aim of getting directly acquainted with Orthodoxy. The personality of the ever-memorable Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret has become widely known and respected among Anglicans. At the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in 1867, it was decided to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to express feelings of sympathy to the Russian Church on behalf of the English confession on the occasion of the death of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. When the American Episcopal Church decided to enter into closer relations with the Orthodox Eastern Church, the lower house of the Canterbury convocation of 1863 proposed the following petition to the upper house: “Petitioners with great interest! learned that in the present synod or meeting of bishops and clergy of the North American States, measures were taken to achieve mutual communication between the Russian-Greek and Anglican churches. Therefore, they humbly ask your most honorable assembly to use their efforts to achieve such mutual communication.” The petition was signed by all prominent members of the convocation of the lower house, numbering 48 people. It was introduced into the upper house by the Bishop of Oxford, who, after an inspired speech, proposed a resolution: to establish a committee for relations on this matter with the North American Episcopal Church 233. In 1869, the committee on the matter of restoring mutual communion between the Orthodox and Anglican churches asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to enter into communication with the Eastern Church and discuss the possibility of mutual participation of members of both churches in the sacraments and worship. The result of this petition was correspondence between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople in 1869 and 1870 234 . The death of the Anglican Bishop Berkeley in 1881, who was the representative of the Anglican Church in Jerusalem, gave rise to Archbishop Benson's correspondence with the Eastern patriarchs. The Anglican Episcopal See was opened in Jerusalem in 1841. Project for opening this department in the union with German Protestants, and half of the expenses fell on the German crown, and the other on England, from the funds of the missionary church society, greatly outraged the high-church party, which denied any connection with German Protestantism. We have already seen that this plan was one of the reasons for Newman’s disappointment in Anglicanism and his move to Rome. Pusey also expressed a desire to destroy the Jerusalem Anglican see, considering proselytism a black spot for the Anglican Church. “We cannot,” he wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, “consider the Orthodox Greek Church as a true believer and as an unbeliever, that is, we cannot seek unity with it as a true believer, and at the same time kidnap its children from it, as from an unbeliever, because only recognizing it as heretical could justify the alienation of members from it and their seduction (into Anglicanism) When the first Anglican bishop in Alexander died in Jerusalem in 1845, Pusey insisted on the destruction of the Anglican see in Jerusalem and wrote to Gladstone about this 235. All the prominent high-church leaders joined Pusey: Marriott, Church, Motzley and others, but their protest was unsuccessful 236 . To all these persons it seemed impossible to reconcile the desire for communion with the Eastern Church with the proselytism practiced by the Anglicans in the East. Such an outstanding personality as Dr. Lyddon, returning from a trip to the East, heatedly complained about the missionaries of the English Church Missionary Society, saying that under Bishops Gobat and Berkeley, they seduced the Greeks and aroused discontent in the Greek Church, and wrote about this to Archbishop Benson. “Lyddon spoke out in the newspapers against the appointment of a bishop to Jerusalem,” Benson writes in his diary on February 6, 1877. 237 On February 16, the high-church organ Guardian declared the Anglican bishopric of Jerusalem a dead diocese. The desire of the high churchmen to destroy this bishopric, however, did not come true, but they succeeded in their struggle against proselytism. Two days after the Gardena article, the archbishops and the Bishop of London announced the resumption of the Anglican bishopric in Jerusalem, but spoke out against all proselytism, insisted that the Anglican bishop of Jerusalem should be called “not in the proper sense, as having no diocese,” and referred to the message of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who expressed the desire to see an Anglican bishop in Jerusalem for the purpose of closer communion between the churches. Sending the newly ordained bishop to Jerusalem, Archbishop Benson wrote to all the eastern patriarchs, asking to receive and assist the newly ordained bishop, and offering possible services to help Christians in the east. The patriarchs responded with similar friendly messages in 1887. In 1888 the third conference of Anglican bishops met at Lambeth Palace. By her seventeenth resolution she expressed her feelings of pleasure at the friendly relations between the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican bishops and the Eastern patriarchs and bishops, and her hope that the obstacles to the full communion of Orthodoxy with Anglicanism would be destroyed in the course of time by closer relations and mutual intimate acquaintance. The committee appointed by the conference to clarify the relationship of the Anglican confession to the Eastern Church reported to the meeting of bishops that it did not find such an obstacle to mutual communication as there was for communication with the Roman Catholic Church, which declared the dogmas of the infallibility of the Pope and the immaculate conception of St. Virgos, and other innovations. Focusing on the differences between the Anglican and Orthodox churches, the committee pointed out: 1) the Filioque, 2) the Eastern Church's omission of the laying on of hands at confirmation and limiting it only to anointing, the latter being performed on unconscious infants, and 3) the use of icons, the invocation of saints and the cultus of St. Virgins, although the Greek Church denies idolatry. But the Anglican Church, relying on the fact that the decrees of the 2nd Council of Nicaea were rejected by the Council of Frankfurt (794) and were not accepted by the Latin Church for 200 years, does not consider these decrees binding 238 . The Committee insisted on the need for fraternal assistance to Christians in the east, beyond any proselytism, and recommended striving to implement the words: “may they all be one” 239 . Also in 1888, Archbishop Benson greeted the Russian Church on behalf of the Anglican Church on the occasion of the celebration of the 900th anniversary of the baptism of Rus'. In this message, he already points out that “the Anglican and Russian churches have common enemies,” and thus sees in the Russian church an ally of the Anglican church. Metropolitan Platon of Kiev responded to this message with gratitude, spoke of the desire for unity and asked about the conditions under which the Archbishop of England considers union possible. The primate turned out to be unprepared for such a question, but in his response message he spoke about the desirability of unity in the sacrament of communion as the highest act of communion in Christ, proposed to discuss the issue of Anglican ordinations and sent the necessary manuals and writings for this. The archbishop died without waiting for the Russian scholar's work on Anglican ordinations, which he so wanted to see during his lifetime, to appear in English translation. The deputations of the Bishop of Petersburg, now London, at the coronation of the Sovereign Emperor in 1896, and Archbishop Anthony of Finland, now Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, for the jubilee of Queen Victoria in 1897, says the son of Archbishop Benson in the biography of his father, strengthened the good feelings between the Anglican Church and Eastern Christianity in general and the Eastern Orthodox Church in particular. The same impression was made by the latter fact on other Anglicans, who presented Metropolitan Anthony with precious vessels in memory of his visit to England. The first relations between the Anglican Church and Assyrian Christians also began in the 19th century. The first appeal of the Assyrians to the Anglican Church was made in 1837, and at their request Dr. Badger was sent, recalled to England in 1843. In 1868, three Assyrian bishops, 32 priests and 11 deacons sent Archbishop Tate of Canterbury a request to send missionaries and preachers to them. In 1876, the archbishop sent two Anglican priests, one of whom settled in Kurdistan and the other in Urmia. The mission was reformed in 1885 when Archbishop Benson sent new persons with instructions: 1) not to distract the Assyrians from their own church and not to Anglonize them and 2) not to teach anything that was contrary to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Sending these missionaries, the archbishop handed them a message to Catholicos Mar Shimun, in which he spoke out against all proselytism and expressed his readiness to provide fraternal assistance. Valuing good relations with the eastern patriarchs, the archbishop hastened to notify them of the missionary embassy and received response messages with the blessing of the Antioch patriarch for the mission. The missionaries established a higher school for priests and deacons in Urmia and schools in other places for children, attracted several of the sisters of the Anglican monasteries to this work, and began the publication of ancient church monuments. “Since 1897, the mission from the Orthodox Russian Church,” writes Benson, “managed to conquer almost the entire diocese of Supurgan with its bishops. At the request of the (present) Archbishop Church, the Anglican mission acted in harmony with the Russian one, but since attachment to the latter continues here, there remains little field of activity for the Anglican mission in Persia” 240. Such, in its most important facts, is the history of the Church of England in the nineteenth century. We saw how, under the influence of extreme Protestantism, which spread so widely at the end of the 18th century, her life faded away, her energy fell, her influence weakened. But this Protestantism turned out to be a contradiction in itself: it brought destruction, not harmony, preached faith and spread unbelief, promised moral freedom and sowed moral licentiousness. Naturally, he could not satisfy and aroused an irresistible desire for a living, firm and immediate faith. In response to this desire, Methodism was born. Wesley was the first to try to raise the religious spirit of the people and awaken the activity of the church. He dreamed of remaining faithful to the latter, was afraid of separation from it, but was unable to overcome the anti-church movement and created a schism. Methodism passed without a trace for the church: it forced those who considered themselves its faithful children to wake up. The awakening affected the evangelical party. It was natural for them to turn all their attention to their inner state. Looking within themselves, they saw their disregard for the most important commandments of the Gospel and hastened to fulfill them. Frightened by the fall of their own faith, they hurried to preach it to others, realizing its deadness without works, they devoted themselves to works of mercy and charity. They were overcome by a strong feeling, and they made this feeling the basis of all their activities. Hence their disdain for historical Christianity, its ancient church forms and discipline, and, conversely, a strong attraction to individual freedom, allowing it to establish its own relationship with God, without the intervention and leadership of the church. Unguided and unbridled freedom led to arbitrariness and gave birth to liberalism. Liberalism not only forgot and neglected, but deliberately denied the significance of the laws and definitions of the historical church. He saw in the latter only an obstacle to his broad plans and aspirations, and declared an open fight against her, hoping to win a victory over her and place her under the guardianship of the state. The fall of the church was close, but it could not be final, for it would be violence against the entire history of Christian England. At the right moment, a reaction came: people, alien to extreme hobbies, saw the abyss under the feet of the raging ones, and found an antidote for them. The latter were blinded by hopes for a fantastic future, the former forced them to look back at the actual past, and instead of the illusory unification of all Christians on the basis of an arbitrary understanding of the Gospel, they showed them an image of true unity under the banner of the church, revealed the nature of the latter and explained the tools of its grace-filled life. The resurrected images of the past began to seek fulfillment in the present, and the life of the church was in full swing: conciliar activity was resumed, faith in the sacraments was revived, the external aspect of worship expanded, new churches arose, schools and theological colleges were built, the awareness of the need for friendly activity of the clergy and the people increased and church congresses, diocesan and All-Anglican cathedrals appeared, the ideal of a united Catholic Church was revived, the desire to get rid of dreary loneliness and achieve living communication with the rest of the Christian world. It was a victory for the church, but this victory was worth many sacrifices. The struggle itself could not do without persecution, red tape, trials and imprisonments. People who were strong in spirit endured these adversities and did not want to give up their convictions. They wanted to see quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. Many found it impossible to fulfill this desire at home, and after torment and remorse, after severe internal discord, they wanted to be satisfied with at least a shadow of their ideal and bowed their guilty heads before that very Rome, which so recently seemed to them the Babylonian harlot. The Vatican rejoiced at its successes and wanted even greater ones. Seeing the doubts of those wavering, he decided to cut the knot with one blow, and declared the Anglican Church not a church, its sacraments not sacraments, and the priesthood not a priesthood. But the “infallible” one made a mistake: he guessed about it too late. Carried away by self-delusion, he himself lost the quod ubique, quod a bomnibus. The true wise men in Anglicanism understood this, and saw that the sun shining in the west had completely set and began to look not for the sun of a newly invented lie, but for the Sun of truth. Where was there to go? The guiding star always pointed the way to the east. The path was distant and unfamiliar... Those who set off walked timidly, contemplated unusual forms, heard an unfamiliar language, saw either oppression or the kingdom of barbarism. It seemed difficult for them to come to terms with these people; they felt uneasy at the sight of the humiliated state of those in whom they were looking for their equals and allies. Where can we find the latter, without pricking our pride, without the despair of remaining misunderstood? One Rome lost its cherished image of truth, the other retained the latter, but was great only for its glorious past. I had to find a third one. It was a Rome without popes, but undeniable in the apostolic succession of its hierarchy, not so numerous, but still possessing millions of souls, not so active, but alien to propaganda and proselytism, not so glorious in its history, but still with gray hair over nine centuries. And most importantly, he never succumbed to old Rome, on the contrary, he always fought and is fighting both its errors and the false prophets preaching: “Christ is here - we have the truth.” True, old Rome had already tried to cast doubts against Canterbury in this third Rome, but the latter saw the flattery, and, perhaps, ridicule of itself, and did not give its answer. Strong in his theological knowledge, he can solve the question without the instructions of the “infallible”: and if so, then didn’t it turn out that “the Russian and Anglican churches have common enemies”? It was now necessary to get acquainted with the Russian Church in more detail and clearly, to understand it and then take the final step. Those who really studied and understood it came to the following conclusion: “The learning of the theologians of the Russian Church, the eloquence of its preachers, the zeal and success of its missionaries - there is no need to fear comparison with those of any other Christian confession in the world. In terms of the splendor of its shrines, the solemnity of its ceremonies, the beauty of its liturgy and worship, it has no rival in Christianity. As for the faith it contains, it is the same, without any change, replenishment or addition, as it was accepted by it more than nine centuries ago, from the undivided Catholic Church” 241. And if the Russian Church is like this, if it and the Anglican Church have “common enemies,” then why not declare a joint struggle, why not try to achieve unification with the found ally? To do this, it was necessary first of all to find out whether she wanted such a union? The answer was favorable: “since you, in your message, express a desire to be united with us, then I ask you to explain and notify me: on what conditions do you find it possible to unite our churches?” – So, with the directness characteristic of the Russian soul, wrote the ever-memorable Metropolitan of Kiev Platon in response to a greeting from the Archbishop of Canterbury on the occasion of the solemn celebration of the 900th anniversary of the baptism of Russia. This question turned out to be very difficult. The decrepit and aged 19th century did not have the strength to answer it, and it goes into the abyss of eternity, leaving its decision to its young and vigorous successor. “What is impossible with man is possible with God”... The English Church in the XVIII Century by Ch. J. Abbey and J.H. Overton London. 1887. p. 354. Currently, such benches can be seen only in the most ancient churches. If I'm not mistaken, I saw examples in the Church of the Holy Trinity in the City. In the fence of Winchester Cathedral on one of the monuments there was, for example. the following gravestone: “Here the Gaimsharan grenadier rests in peace, Who killed himself by drinking weak, bad beer; The soldier warns against this untimely death: Since you’re hot, drink something strong or nothing at all!” (Abbey and Overt - page 427). South's Works IV, 191. Abbey and Over. 451. Walcott's Customs of Cathedrals p. 137. This fact was referred to by the defenders of incense during the Lambeth debates. Overton. D. D. English Church in Nineteenth Century (1800–83). London, pp. 130–131 et d. S. N. Patten, Development of English Toucht. London. 1899. The first of the evangelicals was James Herway (1714–1758), who was one of the early Methodists at Oxford and Wesley. He is followed by: William Grimshaw (1703–63) known as the "mad priest". He was very active, and died after becoming infected while visiting the sick. “How many communicants were there when you occupied the Gavor parish?” – the Archbishop of York asked him. “Twelve, my lord,” answered Grimshaw. “How much now?” “In winter from 800 to 400, and in summer about 1200.” John Barnge (1716–1793) was a clergyman in Everton. He was so popular as a preacher that he was forced to give his speeches in the open air. He often visited other people's parishes and aroused displeasure and complaints from the clergy. "Do you know who I am?" - the bishop once asked him menacingly. “Yes,” he answered, “poor and sinful dust and ashes, like me.” An equally outstanding preacher was William Romine (1711–1795), the son of a Protestant who fled from France. His popularity as a preacher aroused envy in the rector of the parish of St. George in London, and he had to leave. By his convictions he was a Calvinist. Augustus Toppeda (1740–1778) owed his spiritual awakening to Wesley's preaching. He is known as a writer of church hymns. Of the Evangelicals in Wallis, Daniel Rooland (1713–1790) was especially famous. The number of communicants in his parish exceeded 2000 people - a rare figure for the 18th century. To listen to his sermon, people traveled more than 70 miles. Heinrich Wenp (1725–1797) is known as the author of “The Perfect Duty of Man,” a work of a Calvinistic nature. Rooland Gill, was rather a dissident and defender of Calvinism (1715–1833). Six bishops refused to ordain him, and he died only as a deacon. But as a preacher he ranks second after Whitfield. In the middle of the 18th century. the number of evangelicals was not numerous. Romain, mentioned above, in 1740 knew only seven priests who shared evangelical views; before his death (1795), he could count about five hundred evangelicals among the Anglican clergy (A. N. Note ibid. 452–455; G-G·. Perry The Student’s English Church History Load. 1887. Period 3, ch. VI). J. Henry Newman DD. Apologia pro veita sua. Lond. 1873.s. 5. Overton, Eng Ch. in XIX Cent 102, 103 pp. A History of Econ College 1440–1875 by H. C. Maxwel Syte c. 370, Lond. 1875 Вitish. Mag. 1832 vol. I (“The Lazy Church” in Overton 240). J. N. Overton En. Ch·, in XIX Cent. pp. 4–6 for many more examples. Hichol's, Literary Anecdotes. VIII, 95 cm. in Hore c. op. page 452. Overton. Ib. 7–8 (the names are withheld by Overton as they are well known). A fact that was remembered last. church congress. The Oxford movement. By K. W. Church M. A. Lond. 1891., p. 45. Ibid. 46–48. thus carried him to an early grave in 1836. Apologia pro vita sua page 100. Burgon S. W. Lives of Tweive Good men. Lond. 1891. p. 62. Newman’s “Apology,” in which he describes the state of his religious crisis, is reminiscent of a book we have forgotten: “The Tale of the Wanderings and Journeys through Russia, Moldavia, Turkey and the Holy Land” by the monk Parseny. Parseny the schismatic tells here how the doubts that arose in him about the rightness of the schism led him in the end to the rightful church. “I can never be calm in my heart,” he says about Parsenius until I find the Holy Church of Christ." No matter how great the difference is between the learned Newman and the simpleton Paronius, their psychology is essentially the same. The lost “peace” irresistibly attracted both to stop where each of them saw the truth. Newman’s rich, poetic nature was obviously one of those natures that cannot live long with discord and doubts, for which one is necessary. or a different outcome, but a decisive outcome. Well acquainted with the history of the ancient church, Newman, naturally, although erroneously, saw in the Roman Church an approach to the ideal that was drawn in his rich imagination. It was important for him to find something concrete that corresponded to his images, albeit in the most basic outlines. Rome undoubtedly satisfied this requirement, and Newman closed his eyes to everything else that seemed to him of secondary importance. “If Newman, who knew ancient history so well, had the same knowledge of modern church history,” says Dellinger, he would never have become a Roman Catholic.” Apologia pro vita sua page 139. Davidson, Life of A. S. Tait p. 98. See text in Apologia pro vita sua. 139 etc. History of Eu. Ch. Union Art. 24–26. The Pentateuch und Book of Joshua critically examineb Pats 1. U. Bythe Righ. Rev. J W Colenso. The Hist, of E. S. Union, ib pp. 46–47. Lilo of A, C Tait. Archbishop of Canterbury. Lond. 1891, vol. 2nd page. 35. The first chairman was Lindsay, the second was Lord Halifax, who is still there. The number of union members in 1860 was 205, and in 1891 35,034. See The History of the English. Church Union 1859–1894 by Rev G. B. Roberts. Load. 1895. Les ordinations Anglicans. Palmer William, Notes of a visit to the Russian Church in the years 1840–41. London 1882 Page 1–2 etc. Detailed presentation of this book from criticism. comments were made in articles by A.P. Lopukhin in “The Wanderer” for 1883. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus. Union Be view 1863 vol. I, no. 17. Letter to His Grace Archb. of Caut. by the E. B. Pusey Oxf. 1842., p. 96. Life of E. B. Pusey By H. P. Liddon DD. Lon. 1895, Vol. III page 71. The Life of Ed. W. Benson. By his son A.C Benson Lond. 1799 Vol. II pp. 164–165. Reference to Frankfurt Cathedral is made very often by Anglican writers when the issue of icon veneration is raised (Littledale Plain Reason against Joining the Church of Rome). It is strange that attention is not paid to the fact that the fathers of the Frankfurt Council had at hand the false acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. In these acts, the Greek word προβκονβΐν is translated adoraiе, that is, to adore icons instead of worship, and therefore the fathers of the Council of Frankfurt rejected the same thing as the Council of Nicaea. In the second of the 56 “capitula” (capitula) issued by the Council of Frankfurt, it is said that the Council of Nicaea anathematized those who did not They give icons the same veneration as the Holy Trinity! An obvious misconception. Let us also not forget that the acts of the VIIth Council were also signed by the legates of the pope. See Hefele, Concilien Geschichte lit., SS. 414–454; 646 et al. Ed. 2nd. The Lambeth Confer. 847–814. W. J. Birkbeck, The prospect of Reunion wifn Easterh Christendom Lend. 1894.