Professor Mitrofan Dmitrievich Muretov

On March 10, 1917, the Moscow Theological Academy was shocked by the sad news that the oldest member of the academic corporation, whom she had seen in her midst only a few days earlier at a meeting of the Academic Council, supernumerary Honored Ordinary Professor Mitrofan Dmitrievich Muretov, had been paralyzed the evening before and was in a difficult, even hopeless situation. The struggle between life and death did not last long, and on the morning of March 11, at 9½ o’clock in the morning, the academic veteran passed away. Those were special days for all of Russia, and for the academy in particular, the first days after the revolution. However, the hearts of many students and admirers of the deceased and all who value theological science responded with bitter and painful grief to this premature and sudden death and to the scientific loss that was irreplaceable for the academy. In recent years, Mitrofan Dmitrievich was the only living connection between the young academy and the old academy, the bearer of academic traditions, a model of indivisible service and devotion to science. He was also a somewhat peculiar type of “village” professor at the Moscow Academy, with which he became so closely united over many years of indivisible service to it. The deceased M.D. Muretov was the son of a priest of the Ryazan diocese, who died as a hieromonk and confessor of the Moscow Danilov Monastery. Born August 11, 1850. Remembering his childhood, M.D. Muretov called himself “a half-beggar, half-peasant hillbilly.” “We grew up on manure, in fields, meadows and forests, together with the Russian peasant,” he wrote (Theological Bulletin, 1916, vol. 3, p. 608). About his student years M.D. he himself spoke in detail in his “Memoirs of a XXXII year student” (Theological Bulletin, 1914, vol. 3, pp. 646–676; 1915, vol. 3, pp. 700–784; 1916, vol. 3, pp. 582–612). “Having declared to the authorities of the Ryazan seminary my consent to continue my education at the theological academy, I cared little about which academy they would send me to. And I didn’t even know about the Moscow Academy that it was located 66 versts from Moscow, in Sergiev Posad,” - this is how Mitrofan Dmitrievich’s memories begin. From the words of the deceased, we can also add that, making his way to the entrance exams and arriving from Ryazan to Moscow, he hired a cab “to the Academy” and he brought him to the Petrovsky Academy, where the future professor of the academy learned that he had to drive another 66 miles to the theological academy. Sincerely and frankly written, “Memoirs” characterize their author as a student in his student years, completely immersed in scientific academic studies, enthusiastically working on essays. However, this was not a student who was equally diligent in everything that was offered to him. No, only the topic that touched the interest of the soul attracted all his attention and hard work. And what had to be done only out of necessity was done “just to get off on a formality.” But there were also many such attention-grabbing scientific works throughout the entire academic course, so the entire time was filled with these scientific works. M.D. he himself recalls: “At least I didn’t have time for outside reading: despite all my efforts to remember the books I read, I can only name: the works of Khomyakov and the notes of Père-La-Chaise in French), and then during the summer holidays (I borrowed from the landowner), Fustel de Coulanges, Dreper, the autobiography of Archpriest Avvakum, the sermons of John of Smolensk. Then - I don’t remember where I got it - I read Anna Karenina in the Russian Bulletin, but not to the end - I became acquainted with the end of the novel late, when I was already an elderly professor. This, it seems, is the entire baggage of extraneous material I have read over the entire four years of my student life. I hardly leave out much through oblivion” (Theological Bulletin, 1916, vol. 3, p. 600). The scientific sympathies of the student Muretov leaned especially towards philosophical questions. From his memoirs, we see that he works especially hard and with exceptional interest on an essay on the topic of prof. V. N. Potapova: “The philosophical views of Giordano Bruno and their influence on the new philosophy.” And about other works on philosophical topics by M.D. remembers with special love (See Theological Bulletin, 1915, pp. 714–716). A penchant for philosophy was also reflected in the choice of topic for my PhD thesis. When moving to the 3rd year of M.D. takes the theme from V.D. Kudryavtsev: “Speculative Theism” and in the summer in the village reads Ulrici, Lotze and Fichte the Younger. But work on this topic did not proceed and brought M.D. to the recognition of his unsuitability for the work that he previously considered his calling, his inability for speculative thinking. “My complete, he writes, speculative unpreparedness, the puzzling gibberish of German speculation, the artificially vague German philosophical jargon, aggravated by the wisdom of Russian translators... There was the greatest confusion in my head: I didn’t know what or how to write—my mind was going beyond my mind—I was tormented in fruitless efforts to grasp something, to think about something, to give something definition and illumination. This something formless, elusive, cloudy, finally upset my nerves, deprived me of sleep, appetite, and put me in a sad, depressed mood” (B.V. 1915, p. 743). Despite, however, such a failure with a purely philosophical theme, M.D. finally calms down and settles on a still philosophical topic - about Philo of Alexandria, on which topic Prof. writes an essay. archim. Mikhail, who stipulated the comparison of Philo’s logology with John’s. So philosophy led Mitrofan Dmitrievich, while still a student, to the Holy Scriptures, in particular, to the New Testament. M.D. was taken to the same area. and his philological interests. “I loved,” he writes, to study languages ​​and everything connected with it (B.V. 1915, vol. 3, p. 743), I loved the Greek language, and with great curiosity I listened to lectures on the New Testament, patristic, and liturgical languages, and with particular pleasure I studied the modern Greek language” (Ibid., p. 751). For his specialization in the 4th year of the Academy M.D. takes a group of Greek language along with the Holy Scriptures of the New and Old Testaments, and attends almost exclusively lectures by S.K. Smirnov on the Greek language and the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament by Archimandrite. Mikhail. So, while still a student, M.D. began New Testament science with philosophical and philological preparation. It should also be noted that the failure with a purely philosophical theme was for M.D. another negative result. “I,” he recalls, felt, and, I think, rightly, a complete disgust for the unhealthy, perhaps pathological, and in any case scholastic-artificial nebulosity of German philosophical speculation. I became convinced that all this nonsense is sophistication, and not wisdom - sophistication, scholasticism and reasoning, and not reason, truth and wisdom - and that if you remove all this wise German husk from it, it will turn out to be no higher than ancient Greek philosophy - and I’m not even talking about Christian philosophy - only the obfuscation of the wise and the obscuring of the clear” (B.V. 1915, vol. 3, p. 744). In many works of M.D. we find the same reasoning. The basis for them, apparently, was laid in student life. In 1877 M.D. Muretov graduated from the academy course as the first student in the theological department and was immediately appointed as a teacher of Greek at the Tambov Theological Seminary. But far from the Academy M.D. stayed very briefly, only a few months: on September 27 of the same 1877, he was elected teacher of Greek at the Bethany Theological Seminary, where he was also a teacher of the Holy Scriptures. In 1878, the academic service of M.D. began. Muretova: On October 28, 1878, he was elected privat-docent in the department of Holy Scripture of the New Testament, and in 1884 he was renamed “correcting assistant professor.” At the same time, his master’s thesis was completed: “The doctrine of Logos in Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian in connection with the previous historical development of the idea of Logos in Greek philosophy and Jewish Theosophy" (Moscow 1885), for which M.D. Muretov was awarded a master's degree in theology (June 16, 1885) and confirmed as an associate professor at the academy. Six years later, his doctoral dissertation appeared: “The Old Testament Church, Part I. Exterior view of the church" (Moscow 1891). The matter of obtaining a doctoral degree became more complicated, since one of the reviewers, Associate Professor A.A. Zhdanov recognized the dissertation as not satisfying its purpose. The question was controversial, since in his book M.D. acted as an opponent of the “generally accepted” view of the appearance of the tabernacles of Moses and Solomon’s temple. Between M.D. Muretov and A.A. Zhdanov sparked controversy in rather elevated and harsh tones. M.D. published a whole book entitled: “Criticism and Criticism,” to which A.A. Zhdanov responded with two brochures entitled: “The newest restorer of the Old Testament church.” Academy Council doctoral degree M.D. awarded, but the Holy Synod referred the case to the Council of the Kazan Theological Academy, and only after the Council of the Kazan Academy recognized the book as sufficient to crown its author with a doctorate, M.D. was confirmed (April 20, 1893) in the degree of Doctor of Divinity. After receiving his doctorate M.D. Muretov was immediately elected (May 1, 1893) to the rank of full professor. With 25 years of service, M.D. Muretov was confirmed with the rank of Honored Ordinary Professor of the Academy (December 15, 1903). Professorial service M.D. did not leave voluntarily. Only when the new charter of the academies of 1910 limited the term of professorial service to 30 years, M.D. retired, but even after that, at the special request of the Academy, he was allowed to give lectures, participate in meetings of the Academic Council and carry out various assignments of the Council. Such supernumerary professorial service M.D. Muretov did not leave until the very end of his life. In addition to teaching St. Scriptures of the New Testament, M.D. Muretov was a lecturer of French from September 20, 1885 to May 14, 1893. In 1900–1901 and 1901–1902 academic years. taught Greek for years. From March 14, 1906 to January 10, 1909 - was a member of the academic board. Upon the introduction of temporary rules on academic autonomy of M.D. Muretov was elected inspector of the academy (November 4, 1906), but remained in this position for only one year (until October 26, 1907). By the end of his life, the deceased was an honorary member of all four theological academies: from 1911. – Moscow, from 1912 – Petrograd, from 1913 – Kazan and since 1914. - Kievskaya. This is a simple biography of the late Mitrofan Dmitrievich Muretov. It is not complicated, because the deceased himself did not want to complicate it in any way. He was not attracted to external activities; he was not interested in life's successes and everyday comforts. Until the end of his life he remained a typical “village” professor. Not everyone could recognize the famous scientist, high school professor, in his squat, awkward and usually very modestly dressed figure. Social activity was not the calling of the deceased. Elected inspector of the academy, he hastened to resign from this post a year later, and afterwards he commemorated this year with an unkind word, assuring that during this year he had shortened his lifespan by a decade. The dear and beloved element of the deceased was science. Here he was powerful. Here he is great and famous. Mitrofan Dmitrievich Muretov was not a neat scientist, as we are used to imagining German professors. By a careful scientist we mean one who writes book after book in his specialty. A careful scientist chooses a topic for work and, while he is busy with this work, all other variety of scientific interests ceases to exist for him. In the scientific activity of Mitrofan Dmitrievich, as a professor, we see the same features that we noted in his student studies. He works on those issues that interested him, that fascinated him. Scientific work answered only his inner needs; the inner burning of his scientific spirit. Many of Mitrofan Dmitrievich’s learned books and articles were written, one might say, out of passion. This nature of the scientific activity of M.D. This is explained, one must think, by the fact that many unfinished printed works remained from him, such as, for example, about the mutual relationship of the first three gospels or about Judas the traitor, although this last work began printing twice - in 1883 in the Orthodox Review and in 1905 in the Theological Bulletin. Unfinished works indicate that the writing hand could not keep pace with the thinking spirit. M.D. was captivated by a new interest. to the side and he abandoned the work he had already begun. Other printed works originated with M.D. Muretov during mandatory review classes. Reading someone else’s work submitted for an academic degree or an award, M.D. he himself was involved in the range of issues discussed in this work, and was carried away by some particular issue. The result was an extensive review with an independent solution to one or another particular issue. These are reviews of books by N.P. Rozanova about Eusebius Pamphilus, G.A. Voskresensky about the ancient Slavic gospel, P.I. Tsvetkova about Roman Sladkopevets, N.I. Mishchenko about the speeches of Ap. Peter in the book. Acts, N.L. Tunitsky about Clement of Slovenia and others. Translation of exegetical works by Rev. Ephraim the Syrian gives rise to the writing of one article and a whole special study on the apocryphal correspondence of St. Paul with the Corinthians. From a young age, M.D. was hidden in her soul. Muret's penchant for philosophy reflected certain characteristic features in his later works on the Holy Scriptures. Mitrofan Dmitrievich, who had a rare philological preparation for exegetical works, and with many of his works demonstrated his ability for painstaking, assiduous work, however, placed above all else the ideology of the New Testament, New Testament theology. It is clear that he could not write any extensive commentary on the entire New Testament book with philological and historical-archaeological references to almost every word of the text, as we have in many commentaries, mainly German. In 1899 M.D. began to publish an “interpretive review” of the gospel according to Matthew, but it was just a brief review, in which the author followed only the main ideas of the gospel, and did not give a hasty commentary in the generally accepted sense of the word. Moreover, the “review” was interrupted at the 8th chapter: having reached the prophecy of Isaiah about the servant of God (Matthew 8:17), M.D. became interested in a special study of this issue and wrote 27 pages about this one verse, while only 78 pages were devoted to the entire previous text of the gospel in the “review”. The plan and accepted scale of the work were destroyed and she did not see continuation. M.D. preferred to publish articles devoted to the interpretation of just a few verses, and it was possible to offer some special original understanding of a particular place, even one word. These are the interpretations of 1 Cor. 13:12 (Theological Bulletin, 1905, vol. 1, pp. 296–310), 1 Cor. 14:20–25 (B.V. 1904, vol. 2, pp. 496–520), etc. In these cases, an interpretation was given not of what is clear without interpretation, but of what is not clear even with effort and strain of thought. Post-poetry comments, which Western science is so rich in, were presented by M.D. scholasticism and about them he sometimes expressed himself quite harshly in his works. For each verse, M.D. said, a bookcase has been written, but all this is scholasticism, from σχολἠ - leisure, idleness. The abundance of similar works by M.D. Muretov was inclined to explain this by the reluctance or inability of learned people to find serious ideological work. M.D. himself was irresistibly drawn to the ideology of Scripture. When in the last years of M.D.’s life. He lectured as a free supernumerary professor, not bound by any compulsory programs - he read specifically New Testament theology. Two years before the death of M.D. published a highly interesting, meaningful and deep study, better to say, a synopsis of New Testament theology: “The New Testament as a subject of Orthodox theological study” (Collection of articles in memory of the centenary of the Moscow Theological Academy, vol. 2. Sergiev Posad 1915, pp. 593–666). This is almost the last printed work of M.D. is accompanied by the following remark: “Everything presented here has been the subject of our academic readings, from the very moment we entered the academic department, first in parts and outside the system, when explaining individual passages of the New Testament, in the form of excursions, and in recent years - in the form of a systematic review of the basic concepts of the New Testament” (Collection, p. 666. Dep. ot. p. 74). Here M.D. expressed his views on the main tasks of New Testament science. “All church-theological and secular disciplines in contact with New Testament Theology, although they must necessarily be studied scientifically, but by no means independently and separately, but only as service aids and auxiliary tools for the scientific system of New Testament Theology. These are only paints for painting, instruments for music, words for poetry. Auxiliary disciplines are of course necessary for Theology, just as chemical factories, musical instrument factories and grammar are necessary for the Ivanovs, Glinkas and Krylovs. But in themselves, as an end in itself and self-sufficiency, without Theology, they are as absurd as paints without painters, musical instruments without composers and musicians, grammars without writers and speakers. Theology contains only their meaning, purpose and life - without it they are deprived of the life-giving spirit and turn into a deadening letter. Described and limited in letter and history, the Word of God is indescribable and limitless in its spiritual and contemplative side, just as God, who spoke it, is indescribable and limitless in His essence. Therefore, it must be explained and studied according to Christ, that is, under the guidance of the idea of ​​God-manhood, and according to the high ideals of the spirit, and not, in the Jewish way, reduced to the body and earth, that is, to the letter and history, as some of the false Christians do. The mystery of God-manhood (New Testament) is the spiritual fulfillment of the law (Old Testament) through the abolition of the deadly letter and the manifestation of the life-giving spirit. Literalistic historians do not understand the mystery of the incarnation and do not want to be in the image and likeness of God, that is, they do not strive for deification, God-manhood and God's perfection. On the contrary, they want to be earth and go into the earth instead of ascending in spirit to heaven - to God, into the air - to spiritual light, on the clouds - with lofty contemplations to meet the Lord and for constant coexistence with Him through spiritual contemplation. The literal-historical meaning is the external and visible side of the Word of God, its clothing, and the spiritual-contemplative meaning or theological ideas are its internal, hidden, invisible side, its body or being: this closes the inner meaning of Scripture, this opens. This is the essential and predominant side of the New Testament. Without it, all these New Testament zeitgeschichts, evangelical and apostolic chronologies, the life and characteristics of Christ unknown to the Church, - the history of the text, the canon, questions about authenticity and reliability, - philological research, archaeological and historical references, even all the multi-volume commentaries... will turn out to be dead bones without living flesh and spirit, - a pitiful and senseless occupation of adults with children's toys, - or, at least, an unprincipled and idle scientific sport of people who are unwilling or unable to find serious ideological work for themselves. This is the tragedy of a lifetime, even of many generations, of quixotic learned theologians. We mean mainly the German-Protestant historical and philological school. “Search the Scriptures, because in them you think that you have eternal life, and they testify of Me” (John 5:39). The Good, the God-Man and Eternal Life - this is the beginning, middle and end of New Testament Theology, which should constitute the main task of our Church-Orthodox and scientific-theological study of the New Testament" (Collection of articles, pp. 663–665. Separate from. pp. 71–72). That article in the anniversary collection from which we have given this excerpt represents, as it were, a summary of New Testament Theology, as the late Mitrofan Dmitrievich imagined it at the end of his professorship. The basic concepts of this theology are presented in this article, by the author’s own admission, “only in the most general terms, briefly and fragmentarily.” The main subject of New Testament Theology should be the idea of ​​God-manhood. New Testament epistemology should be a methodological principle for the systematic construction of New Testament ideology. Goodness and bliss are the root cause, the ultimate goal and the highest meaning of existence and life. These ideas should dominate New Testament theology, cosmology and anthropology. Subjectively, the human condition and means for the realization of good and bliss in the world is faith. Logos – the incarnate Son of God and the God-man Savior is the objective object of human faith and the objective condition for the realization of good and bliss in the world. The subjective consequence and goal of a person’s faith in the Savior, the God-man, is the salvation of man. The objective-historical consequence and manifestation of man’s faith in the Savior-God-Man and the objective-historical realization of good and bliss in the world is the Church. The full realization of the good and bliss revealed to man and the ultimate goal of existence is achieved in eternal life. Thus, the basis of the New Testament, both as Scripture and as a religion, is represented by the idea and person of the Savior-God-man. “The particular and unclear aspirations and aspirations of all religions, as well as all poetry, arts and philosophies, since all of them, in their best or ideal aspects, come into contact with religion - the New Testament not only collects and manifests in one highest and central idea of the God-man-Savior, but also realizes this idea in the ideal person of the actual God-man-Savior Jesus Christ, being the expression and implementation all the highest religious and moral needs and demands of the human soul, as an image of God, and therefore a Christian in its very nature - this is the real and effective ideal of all religions - this is the irresistible and irresistibly omnipotent, even omnipotent power of Christianity - the most essential aspect of the New Testament. Christianity is a religion that transforms man in the image of the Savior-God-Man and regenerates the flesh of man from a mental body into a spiritual body, religion. of God-manhood and God's perfection of man “(Collected articles, pp. 605–606, 608. Det. pp. 13–14:16). These are the main ideas that M.D. himself Muretov considered them to be the most significant in everything he wrote. These ideas are scattered in parts in various works of M.D-ch. After him, several special scientific works remained, devoted to one or another issue, regardless of the general theological ideas of the author. Such are the works, for example, on the apocryphal correspondence of St. Paul with the Corinthians, about the New Testament of St. Alexis. This is a doctoral dissertation on the Old Testament church. 1 But the majority of the literary heritage of M.D. Muretov is permeated, like gold-bearing ore, with theological ideas. M.D.’s favorite ideas does not forget and constantly, often with light hints, repeats them. Sometimes theological and ideological sanctification of an issue is combined with a specially scientific study of it. Such, for example, is the work on the Genealogy of Christ (Moscow 1904). The book in places, especially in Chapter 7 (pp. 112–137), is of a specially scientific nature. However, the entire work is given a special task: “to understand the moral and religious significance that each word of the Gospel had in the consciousness of the evangelist, and therefore should have for our consciousness of religion in general, and the listing of the Lord’s ancestors in particular” (p. 3). And indeed, the list of pedigree names from M.D. addresses the history of the Messiah in connection with the history of the Messianic people (pp. 17–18). Unfortunately, the work of M.D., which was not completed in print and was not published as a separate edition, has the same character. Muretov about Judas the Traitor. In a general outline, published back in 1883, in 1905–1908. this work grew (in Theological Bulletin 1905, vol. 2, pp. 539–559; vol. 3, pp. 39–68; 1906, vol. 1, pp. 32–68, 246–262; 1907, vol. 3, pp. 723–754; 1908, vol. 1, pp. 1–52) into an extensive study, with many special excursions and special appendices. Often these excursions concern little things (the name “Iscariot”, the price of silver, etc.). But in all of M.D.’s work, original ideological and theological coverage is given of the entire history of the last days of the earthly life of the Lord with the betrayal of Judas at the center. “During the entire period of following Christ, Judas stood firmly on the basis of common Jewish national carnality, materialistic utilitarianism, foreign policy and socialist desires, and not expectations of moral regeneration and the realization of the ideals of the spirit. Life is not because of the word of God, but because of bread only, - not the love and bliss of God's truth, but the feeding of the hungry, the prosperity of all, Solomon's tents and gold equivalent to stone - not the poetry of life, spirit and love, but the prose of death, flesh, dry economic calculation - mammon and the golden sensual calf, and not God - Father, Son, Spirit, God - faith, hope, love. This “worthless flesh” (John 6:63) turned Judas Iscariot from an apostle into a devil, from a disciple into a traitor, from a friend into a traitor to the Lord. Having finally become convinced of the complete opposition of the ideal of Christ with his national-political and carnal-egoistic lusts, Judas goes to where the hearth and nest of all these utopias were - to the capital’s bishops, and betrays to them the “Innocent Blood” (Theological Bulletin, 1905, vol. 3, pp. 46–47). With such aspiration of the writer’s thoughts into the high sphere of theological contemplation and ideology, the works of M.D. Muretov are one of the rare exceptions in the often dry and lifeless exegetical literature. They are rich in theological content. This is their distinctive feature. Many articles by M.D. You can't read quickly. They should be read slowly. They need to be studied. You need to think about them. Often, somewhere in a small footnote, in a passing remark in parentheses, an interesting, original thought is given. When reading the works of M.D. Muretov, the reader does not feel in the position of a person cracking empty nuts. Under the shell of sometimes ponderous speech, a full and healthy grain of theological thought always reveals itself. In the works of M.D. Muret's conciseness and pithiness often come at the expense of their accessibility. So M.D. The Muretovs gave an interpretation of the entire conversation of the Lord on the Mount in just 40 printed pages, but these forty pages are worth many in terms of the richness of their ideological content and their sublimity and stand incomparably higher than many detailed commentaries. Here, by the way, the Gospel indicates the fruitful theological idea of ​​the identity of virtue and beatitude, which forms the basis of our best works on issues of Orthodox teaching, in contrast to Latin-German, Catholic-Protestant. Having completed the review of the beatitudes (M.D. completely rejected the strange term: “the Beatitudes”), M.D. writes: “the feat of man’s achievement of God’s truth does not require any external reward and in itself contains, incomparable with any reward, the self-bliss of satisfying the innate, highest and most powerful need of the god-like human spirit” (Otd. ot. p. 60). On these same 40 pages there is given, often on 1-2 sheets, a deeply ideological and systematically coherent solution from the evangelical point of view of such complex questions, confused by inept interpreters of the Holy Scriptures, as questions about war, about oaths and oaths, about divorce. The views expressed here should become part of the generally accepted practice of Orthodox theological scholarship. In these matters, theological theory comes into contact with noisy life, and under the influence of everyday practice, many are ready to renounce theological theory; often they cannot even understand and assimilate it. In the provisions of the 5th chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew M.D. Muretov saw not externally effective commandments that normalize certain aspects of human life. There he saw and pointed out only moral judgments and moral ideals, always standing above life with its inevitable shortcomings "due to evil - ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ" until this evil is overcome by good and until good is separated from evil. To explain how Christ “fulfilled" the law, M.D. Muretov cited the words of the apostle. Paul that Christ “abolished the law of the commandments (ἐν δόγμασι)” (Eph. 2:15). and beauty are moral dogmas, moral ideals addressed to the blessed Christian person, but by their very essence cannot be immediately and completely embodied in public and state life. Orthodox New Testament scholarship has always been concerned not only with the positive revelation of the meaning of the Scriptures, but also with the refutation of the superstition of heretics and infidels. We also have from M.D. Muretov has a whole series of works and articles of an apologetic nature. Apologetics in the study of the books of St. Scripture often takes on a petty character. This is when an Orthodox scientist, with a zeal worthy of better use, chases after the endless variety of hypotheses and opinions of the negative school. Apologetic works of M.D. Muretov are of a different nature. With the opinions of rationalists and deniers M.D. deals mainly in his essays on the history of Western Protestant exegesis, devoted to the analysis of the theories of Eichhorn, Pavlus, Kant, Schleiermacher, representatives of the new German orthodoxy, etc. (the essays were originally published in the Theological Bulletin for 1892), and in the work on the “Life of Jesus” by Ernest Renan, which was first published in the Theological Bulletin for 1892–1894, and in 1907 appeared in a revised form in the supplement to the magazine Wanderer. In these works M.D. Muretov reaches and brings the reader to the main sources of negative thought, in connection with this he determines the positive significance of church tradition for Orthodox theological science and establishes the task of church apologetics in the science of the Holy Spirit. Scripture. “The progenitor of Protestantism, Luther, saw the tree of knowledge, that it is good for food and red to eat. He committed a criminal violation of the collective identity of the Church and cut himself off from the living unity of the Church. The plucked fruit fell into the rich land of self-will and cleverness (reasoning). And you tasted the poison of its fruit... and opened your eyes and understood that the Nazis were besha. And by the thirties of the present (19th) century, Protestantism already represented complete theological and philosophical anarchy” (B.V. 1892, vol. 2, p. 359). “Every Christian or Christian community, as soon as they are excommunicated from the general church conciliarity into a separate and unauthorized person, can no longer have self-reliability and infallibility precisely because they are not imbued with the pan-conciliar consciousness of the Church and cease to be subject to the mysterious action of the conciliarity of the Church of Christ. With the isolation of a community or person, a need inevitably arises for them for self-identification, for evidence, for constructions. The directly living self-consciousness of the Catholic Church is replaced by the works of private individuals, disagreements, abstract arguments and scholasticism. Self-reliable, self-sufficient, clear and unconditional faith is replaced by false knowledge and artificial constructions, shaky theories, controversial positions, ideals of the mind, heart and will. And since evidence that is significant for one time and a certain circle of people, in another era “and for other people can turn out to be powerless, or even completely false, then new constructions arise that are artificially reconciled with the old ones, i.e. sophistry and scholasticism appear. Clinging with its limited mind to one or another side of the truth of the social consciousness of the Church, each separated society inevitably follows a one-sided path and to false conclusions” (B.V. 1893, vol. 4, pp. 104–105; Ernest Renan and his “Life of Jesus.” St. Petersburg, 1908, pp. 153–154). “The catholicity of the Church, as the body of Christ, is the last, highest and self-reliable testimony and expression of the infallibility of church self-consciousness” (p. 103). “Only the entirety of the Catholic Church, headed and enlivened by Christ and the Spirit, has in itself the immediate and self-sufficient certification and consciousness of its truth and infallibility. The Catholic Church alone remained, remains and will forever remain the faithful custodian of the apostolic and paternal tradition, identical with itself and directly self-certified in the fact that it is conciliar, unconditional, true, is the living body of the living Christ and overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, represents a living wholeness (καθ’ ὄλογ, καθολική) and the catholicity of Christian faith and identity” (p. 107). “Hence, for scientific self-certification and for the self-defense of the Church, Orthodox science must fulfill only the following two conditions: first, to reveal the lack of evidence of negative self- and superstitious wisdom and the powerlessness of enemy attacks on the strongholds of the Church; the second is to prove that the known truth, subject to enemy attacks, has always constituted and represents the necessary content of the collective consciousness of the Church. The first constitutes a negative task of Orthodox science, for the powerlessness of the attacker serves as a sure sign of the power of the defender. The second serves as a positive task for science, proving that the Church, which has Christ as its cornerstone and is led and protected by Him, is a stronghold that will never be overcome by the forces of hell.” “However, even without deliberate evidence, centuries-old historical experience has already shown the unshakable firmness of the Church and the powerlessness of its enemies. Centuries-old attacks by all kinds of enemies and from all sides have not shaken a single stone in the conciliar faith of the Church. On the contrary, like the city of Bora the Living, it constantly expands more and more and grows into the harmonious building of the Holy Church in the Lord, until it is filled with all the fullness of God, until the building of the body of Christ brings everyone into the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man and to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. And those who attack openly, who are malicious in secret and who simply do not know the truth of Christ—where are they? Truly, these are waterless clouds and mist, driven by the storm and carried by the wind, - wandering stars, - fierce foaming sea waves: - uttering inflated idle talk, they only catch those who are barely behind those spinning in error. They constantly appear and disappear like rain bubbles, leaving behind no harm to the Church” (p. 108). The above words clearly show what significance the idea of ​​the Church had in the theological constructions and scientific research of Mitrofan Dmitrievich. If in his New Testament Theology the idea of ​​God-manhood dominates, then in his apologetics and in his isagogy the idea of ​​the Church is in the first place, which provides the final basis for all scientific considerations. Maybe because M.D. He wrote relatively little on isagogy. Faith in the Church replaced isagogy for him, and he did not attach independent scientific significance to isagogy. Without faith in the Church, she cannot prove anything. All almost esagogical materials are given by M.D. in the appendix to his work on Renan (originally in the Theological Bulletin for 1894, vol. 4, pp. 33–66). But how are they given? In the form of entire pages of quotes, without detailed presentation or discussion, they are printed in small print. It is clear that writing in detail on isagogical issues was beyond the ideological interests of M.D. Muretova. The idea of ​​the Church of M.D. was very attractive and he did a lot to explain it. Among the works of M.D-cha there is one most special one - Ancient Jewish prayers under the name of St. Peter (Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius 1905). A very serious application has been made to this work about the meaning of the term καθυλικ ό ζ. Here we have collected a wealth of material for the history of this term and briefly suggested conclusions from it. The term καθυλικ ό ζ M.D. Muretov understood it in the sense of the integrity, the conciliarity of the Church, and he considered this understanding to be characteristic of the Orthodox East, in contrast to it from the West, where the tendency to understand this term in the sense of the spatial universality of the Church was already evident early on. In one of his reviews (on the book by V. Troitsky - Theological Bulletin, 1913, vol. 1) M.D. Muretov briefly sketched a majestic diagram of the history of the idea of ​​the Church, as this history was presented to him. This story is for M.D. Muretova in ancient times was divided into two channels - western and eastern. The Western, with the character of jurisprudence through Augustine's Civitas Dei, gave in the end to papism. The Eastern remained faithful to mysticism and among Orthodox theologians it represented (in the Areopagitica, in Maximus the Confessor, etc.) the Church as a conciliar whole, as a μυστήριον συνάξεωζ. In accordance with this Eastern tradition, according to M.D. Muretov, the Orthodox Church finds its essential expression in living conciliarity, and this conciliarity is the most essential distinguishing feature of the Orthodox Church. Among the scientific merits of the deceased, his translation activities should be especially noted. For more than twenty years, the deceased was continuously engaged in the great task of translating the patristic works into Russian. He was the constant and authoritative editor of those translations that were published in the academic journal, and in the last fifteen years the entire matter of academic translations rested with him alone. During these very years M.D. Muretov single-handedly translated the commentary of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospel of John, a commentary comprising four volumes of the works of St. father. Excellent philological training due to many years of practice made M.D. Muretov is a very experienced and authoritative translator. At the same time, the published translations of M. D-ch have some of their own characteristics. Translations by M. D-ch are usually supplied with various scientific notes of a textual and exegetical nature, and these notes often grow into entire excursions with the interpretation of the most difficult passages of Holy Scripture. In this regard, the translation of the interpretation of St. Ephraim the Syrian on the epistles of St. ap. Paul (Creations, part 7), scientific notes to which may have independent significance. Translation of the commentary of St. Cyril is accompanied by information about the Slavic readings of the entire fourth gospel. Here is information about John 7:53–8:11. Study of the Slavic text of Scripture M.D. Muretov considered it a patriotic duty for Slavic scientists (see, for example, the journals of the meetings of the council of the Moscow Theological Academy for 1911, p. 102). In fulfillment of this duty, M.D. wrote a study on the translation of the New Testament by Saint Alexis, and in the notes to the translation of the commentary of St. Kirill gave almost an entire study of the Slavic text of the Gospel of John. In addition, to the translation of the interpretation of St. Kirill M.D. added an extensive (257 pages) index. This index is a whole study of the theological and exegetical views of St. father according to his interpretation of the Gospel of John. The latest translated work by M.D. Muretov was the publication of the life of St. Maximus the Confessor and services to him (1915). This translation was made not only from printed publications, but also from Greek manuscripts of the Moscow Patriarchal Library. The translation is accompanied by an indication of text variants in manuscripts and printed editions of the life of St. Maxim, his service and the synaxar. That is why the “life” in the academic publication has grown into a whole volume (297 pages). These are, in a brief outline, the most important scientific works of M.D. Muretova. He served at the Academy for more than 38 years, but in all this long period of time there is no empty space that was not filled with scientific works. The entire professorial life of the deceased was one continuous scientific feat that bore abundant and full-fledged fruits. It was a working life, an office life. M.D. Muretov was more of a scientist than a professor. Brilliant, strictly decorated and more or less popular lectures were not his custom. And among his printed works we will find relatively few finished and chiseled, artistically written. It is noticeable that the learned author cares more about the content of his works than about their finishing. That's why M.D. he did not hesitate to often fill his works with even raw material, realizing that others themselves would not find or collect this material in the abundance in which he had it. The presence of raw material in the works or in special appendices to them is one of the characteristic features of the printed works of M. D-ch. Extensive appendices have also been made to the doctoral dissertation on the Old Testament church. We see the same thing in the works about Renan, about Judas the Traitor, about ancient Hebrew prayers with the name of the apostle. Peter, on Christian marriage. For us in the present case, all these “applications” are characteristic in the sense that they clearly show what an abundance of scientific material taken from primary sources was at the disposal of M.D. Muretov and how much diligent and selfless work there was in his life. Scientific work of M.D. Muretov valued, above all, others, and he wanted to see this work as the basis of all academic life. At M.D. Muretov had his own ideal of the academic system, which he depicted in the specially printed “Draft of the Charter of Orthodox Theological Academies” (1906). This charter clearly shows that the author is only interested in the educational and scientific side of academic life, and the administrative and educational side is considered not only not essential, but almost unnecessary. Thus, the rector of the academy is renamed a representative and his position consists not of command and control and not just chairmanship of the Council and the Board, but rather the necessary representation from the entire academy, its Council, the Board, professors, teachers, other officials and students (Draft Charter, p. 19). That is why each of the senior (ordinary) professors, in order of seniority, must be a representative of the Academy for one academic year (p. 19). The position of Assistant Representative is also filled (pages 20–21). The requirement of its charter M.D. performed, first of all, himself, remaining an inspector of the academy for only one year. And here are his thoughts about the educational part of academic life. “As grossly materialistic, purely external and not corresponding to the tasks of a higher theological school, the current assessment of the morality and behavior of Academy students must be recognized as absolutely harmful and corrupting, from the moral ideal reducing the pupil’s gaze to a number and its material consequences, directing not to God’s, but to man’s. As eligible citizens, students at the Academy are subject to government laws in both civil and criminal matters. And specifically student and academic misconduct should be subject to corporate courts of honor - student and professorial. And if the Church needs, of course, not “men in cases” or trained dummies, but people of spirit, boldness, character, strong will and convictions, then the Academies must abandon all external and material measures of influence on their pupils and be entirely based on the Gospel law of the love of Christ and God” (p. 7). M.D. says quite differently in his “charter”. Muretov about the scientific and educational side of academic life. His sympathies lean towards the statute of 1869. He is attracted by the system of specialization and freedom of scientific pursuits. M.D. in its charter it advocates the specialization of theological academies. A common shortcoming of the academic charters of M.D. considered instability and duality, hesitation between the strictly theological school of the Church and the semi-secular faculty of the university, as a result of which the academic student involuntarily splits and oscillates between the Church and the world, and the power of scientific and theological impressions is weakened and paralyzed (pp. 4–5). Academic freedom for M.D. understood as freedom to choose one or another group of scientific subjects, and not at all as freedom to work or not to work. Scientific work at the Academy should be compulsory for everyone. “I will note about lack of control in science and education,” writes M.D., that it is something fetishistic, a relic of a semi-savage state and is humiliating for an honest person. Truth and honesty are not afraid, but desire verification, because it is offensive to add trust when there is evidence. Control is the seal of honesty, double-entry bookkeeping in science” (p. 13). In recent university statutes there has been a tendency to reduce the number of academic degrees. M.D. Muretov, in his “charter” multiplies academic degrees, denying the scientific character of a candidate’s degree not based on printed work and introducing a new first academic degree of licentiate “In academies, as special theological and closed schools, one can wish for extra-duty things” (pp. 42–43). These are the scientific ideals that guided the late M.D. in his life. Muretov and these very ideals formed him into a tireless learned worker who did so much for science that his name will not be forgotten by everyone to whom the interests of Orthodox theological science are dear and close. At the Moscow Academy, his memory will forever be preserved with praise among those dear names that adorn the hundred-year history of the Academy and which convince everyone that this history was not in vain. But characterizing the deceased professor as a learned ascetic, one cannot help but say that the scholarly merits and famous scholarly name in the person of the deceased were combined with amazing humility. Learned people, as we know, rarely possess the virtue of humility. The mind is puffed up. Self-confidence and increased pride are very common in the scientific community. The late M.D. Muretov was a rare exception in this regard. First of all, there was no self-confidence in him either in solving scientific issues or in everyday life. His students and readers of his works were sometimes completely convinced by his reasoning and assimilated his views, but when they entered into a conversation with him, they suddenly heard: “maybe it’s not so!” The academic library contains copies of the works of M.D. Muretov, corrected by himself. He was not embarrassed to admit his mistakes and oversights to everyone. And sometimes in the margins of these copies we see rather harsh remarks from the author about his own address. Scientific humility M.D. Muretov was reflected in the fact that he not only did not overestimate the significance of his scientific works, but always underestimated them. He explained the appearance of his other works by material considerations. When all four theological academies elected him as an honorary member, he expressed bewilderment and tried to explain this fact regardless of his scientific merits. It was easy and pleasant to work with M.D. a scientific conversation and even an argument: he listened to the opinions of his interlocutor and opponent, even if he was a junior student. In all matters M.D. easily succumbed to outside persuasion, but usually not for long. Humble people are always easy and pleasant in society. Such was the case with the deceased M.D. Muretov. In the hostel, his general humility was revealed as simplicity of life and sincerity in his relationships with people. His modest house on Vifanka was very simply furnished; there was not even a special scientific office in it. But this house was turned by the owner into a small art gallery, for, not having any special artistic talents or knowledge, the deceased treated all art and all its workers with amazing respect, sometimes placing art above science. In relation to people M.D. Muretov was simple and kind. You could argue with him, but you couldn’t be at enmity with him. For the friends of the deceased, every conversation with him, every visit to his house was a true pleasure, especially when the owner abandoned his visible severity and some self-isolation characteristic of his character. The entire life of the late professor was modest in appearance, and the end of this life was also modest. M.D. Muretov died in those days when the wave of revolution reached the Academy and caused grief and confusion in it. The internal struggle with the interference of foreign new leaders filled even those hours when love for the native Academy demanded to pay the last prayer debt to one of its glorious figures, and the modesty of the deceased bound in silence the lips of all who wanted to say a feasible word of love at the grave of their beloved teacher. Without any special ceremony, without wreaths or speeches, M.D. was buried on March 14th. Muretov near the Academy, which he faithfully served all his life. In this article dedicated to the memory of our teacher, we aim only to briefly characterize the guiding ideas of the scientific activity of the late mentor. The difficult circumstances of the time, in particular extremely unfavorable for science, do not allow us now to give a detailed overview of the entire scientific heritage left to theological science by M.D. Muretov.