Prof. Nathanael Bonwech, John Lorenz von Mosheim, as church historian

Johann Lorenz von Mosheim ais Kirchenhistoriker von Nathanael Bonwetsch. Berlin, 1901, Weidmannsche Buchhandl. This extensive brochure, representing a reprint from a special collection (“Festschrift zur Feier des bundertfünfzigjährigen best-hens der Königlchen Gesellschaft der Wissenschsften zu Göttingen. Beiträge zur gelehrtengesechichte Göttingens”), has the meaning - above all - of a particular characteristic, but since The person depicted is far from ordinary; this ensures a more general scientific interest for this work. Mosheim († 1755) rightly enjoys the fame of “the father of modern church history,” as having laid a solid foundation for its study and construction. Naturally, research about it should also receive fundamental value. In particular, Mosheim is not alien to Russian church historical science 1 . The latter at first treated him with some dogmatic severity and through the mouth of the memorable Methodius (Smirnov), Archbishop of Tver (+ 1815) pronounced an overly decisive sentence. But by the end of the 19th century, the reputation of the German church historian was completely rehabilitated by the authority of our famous scientist, Prof. A.P. Lebedev, who gave a detailed and thorough account of the scientific merits of Mosheim (see in the “Collected Church Historical Works” of the city). Lebedeva, vol. I: “Church historiography in its main representatives”, Moscow 1898, pp. 285–298). From this side, Bonwech's work is not news to the Russian public, but for those interested in the matter it can serve as an excellent addition. It captures not just Mosheim’s most important church-historical work, but also the entire sum of relevant church-historical research. Therefore, the characterization is somewhat more comprehensive and typical. Then, more details are introduced into the consideration of fundamental views, from which observations acquire detailed specificity. All this, of course, is clear in a special monograph, although it also does not strive for complete completeness. It is much more important that both historians (of whom Prof. N. Bonvech is Russian by birth and education) agree on all the main conclusions, which for this reason are particularly strong. The merits of the German work are undoubted, and the learned personality of the venerable author, a professor at Göttingen, appears before us in a very sympathetic manner. It has long been recognized that Protestant freedom in practice was often resolved by partiality: this was already sharply stated by Archbishop Methodius (see A.P. Lebedev on p. 298), and was expressed more than once on the pages of “Christian Reading” (especially, for example, for 1898, No. 2, pp. 297–298; for 1900, No. 5, p. 859–860), recently confirmed by the authoritative instructions of Prof. A.P. Lebedev (in the interesting brochure “On our Creed”, Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1902, p. 2 ff.). Against this background, Prof. stands out brightly. Bonvech with his rare scientific balance, and all his solid works are imprinted with purely epic objectivism 2. At the same time, the vastness of erudition and the firmness of the precise substantiation of all the points raised give them high value as creative elements in the gradual progress of acquired church-historical knowledge. Alien to the tendentiousness and innovative psychopathy that has overwhelmed Protestant science, cluttering it with all sorts of hypotheses and complicating it with mutual struggles and party bickering, Prof. N. Bonvech calmly carries on his positive creative work, in which it would be fair to wish him an invariably happy continuation. Let us add that he now serves Russian science more than others by communicating its treasures to the West (especially in the field of ancient Slavic writing) and from this side he is especially dear to us. It can be added that in our country Mosheim also served as the basis for school teaching, as evidenced by Archpriest Eveimei Alekseevich Bolkhovitinov, - after the famous hierarch Eugene, Metropolitan of Kiev, - historian of the Voronezh Theological Seminary V.P. Nikolsky: see his History of the Voronezh Theological Seminary, part I (Voronezh, 1898), p. 94 In this case, the one who wrote about arcana discliptina in the magazine “Faith and Reason” in vain allowed himself unnecessary suspicions, which should especially be avoided precisely when one does not agree with the facts.