Dogmatic theology of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) and other confessional theology: connection and opposition

The article by graduate student of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University Alexander Fokin is devoted to the study of the dogmatic works of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) in relation to his criticism and reception of other confessional theology. The dogmatic works of the Right Reverend Macarius occupy a special place in discussions about Western influence on Russian theology. On the one hand, he was the largest representative of the academic tradition, the author of classical dogmatic works that became didactic guides for several generations of Russian theologians. On the other hand, the works of Metropolitan. Makarii (Bulgakov) have been criticized more than once in connection with the possible borrowing of ideas from Western authors. All these opinions, however, have so far remained default statements, without a specific study of the texts of Metropolitan. Macaria. The importance of the Western Christian tradition in the history of Russian theological thought is difficult to overestimate. It manifested itself in different ways: both as an apologetic opposition to Western ideas, methods, trends, conclusions, and as attempts at a completely independent answer to theological questions raised by Western theology, and as borrowing, with varying degrees of criticism and passion. The most difficult thing to study are borrowings, since they are not always easy to identify and identify authorship. The assessments of these borrowings are ambiguous and sometimes polar: some researchers consider them an unjustified compromise, others consider them almost the only way to develop Russian theology. Dogmatic works of Metropolitan. Makaria (Bulgakov) 1 in the light of this problem are very interesting to study. As is known, even during the theologian’s lifetime they received a variety of assessments and reviews - from high praise to total criticism, both in relation to the conformity of these works with the Orthodox tradition and in relation to their independence. Yes, St. Innocent (Borisov) in his review defended the originality of the system of the Right Reverend Macarius 2; the opposite opinion was also widespread - about the complete dependence of this system on the teachers at the academy of Archbishop Demetrius (Muretov) and St. Innocent (Borisova) 3. Father Georgy Florovsky writes about the increased interest of Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov) to Western theology, especially to Roman Catholic systems 4, and then takes this thesis to the limit: “Makarius has no views of his own” 5. All these opinions, however, remained default statements, without a specific study of the texts of Metropolitan. Macarius, which is what this article is intended to correct. The author's main attention is aimed at identifying traces of the Western Christian tradition in the theological heritage of Bishop Macarius, for which all direct references to Metropolitan will be analyzed. Macarius on the works of contemporary Western systematic theologians. This is necessary in order to understand exactly which other religious works Metropolitan was familiar with. Macarius and for what purposes he used them. Direct links Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov) on Catholic dogmatism In his first work on dogmatic theology, 6 the Reverend Macarius nowhere refers to Western dogmatic treatises, which is a consequence of the very purpose of this work. Metropolitan Macarius intended to compile a small dogmatic collection in Russian, using only Russian-speaking authors, mainly the works of St. Demetrius of Rostov. In the second work “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” 7 (hereinafter referred to as the Introduction) Met. Macarius especially notes several German-speaking Catholic theologians, who, in his opinion, became the authors of the best Western textbooks on dogmatic theology: “... the best are recognized as: Clay, Staudenmaier, Perrone, Liebermann, Dobmeier, Brenner” 8. Address them to Met. Macarius advises Orthodox readers “only on those points of the Dogmatic teaching in which these theologians of other confessions are completely similar to us, for example: in the doctrine of the triune God, about the Redeemer, about some sacraments” 9 . At the same time, it is noteworthy that Bishop Macarius himself refers in his works to the works of these authors in those sections in which Orthodox teaching differs from Catholic teaching. In the Introduction, we see the greatest number of references to the dogma of the representative of the Roman neo-scholastic school, Giovanni Perrone 10 . How good is Met. Macarius knew the dogma of Perrone, the quote shows that the latter refers to the Russian dogmatists Adam Zernikav and the Right Reverend Theophan (Prokopovich): “... one of the first modern theologians of Rome, Perrone, exclaims that all the evidence of the fathers Zernikav and Prokopovich cite only fifty against the Latins, while our writers of Augustine alone oppose them with more than fifty such evidence Proof that Perrone read Zernikav and Prokopovich 11 (Vid. Praelect. Theolog., Perrone, vol. II, pag. 426)” 12. In the chapter on “A Beginning for Judging the Orthodox Church,” Met. Macarius expresses the idea that the true Church is the one that corresponds to all four properties set out in the Creed, “some Roman theologians and Russians think so 13: see the system of any of them: Feyer 14, Lieberman, Perrone, etc.” 15. On these same three neo-scholastic theologians and on Marianus Dobmeier, Met. Macarius refers to the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit 16, especially noting that the dogmatists of Zernikav, Prokopovich, Falkovsky contain many passages refuting the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, however, “Roman theologians, as far as we know, for example, Feyer, Dobmeier, Lieberman, Perrone, pass these denunciations in silence” 17. From this we can conclude that Met. Macarius had access to these four dogmatists and was definitely familiar with the sections on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Here, Bishop Macarius especially recommends a manual for teaching the history of the dogmas of Heinrich Klee 18. At the same time, the archpastor in the Introduction nowhere else refers to Heinrich Klee and does not even mention his name, but in his main work “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” 19 (hereinafter referred to as Dogmatics), Klee’s works often appear in the sections on the procession of the Holy Spirit 20, sacramentology 21 and eschatology 22. In Dogmatics, new names of Catholic theologians Benedict Stattler (1728–1797) and Benedict Zimmer (1752–1820) appear, whose works the Right Reverend mentions only 23 times in the context of the doctrine of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. In the section on indulgences, Metropolitan. Macarius again actively quotes Giovanna Perrone and tries to refute this teaching, which has “not the slightest basis either in Holy Scripture or in Holy Tradition. Indulgences turn out to be harmful in relation to Christian life: they undermine true repentance for sins and can contribute to the general corruption of morals. Let us not even mention the various abuses of the Roman hierarchy that were and are always possible during the distribution of indulgences” 24. Although Metropolitan himself Macarius explains that all these references serve only to demonstrate the peculiarities of Catholic doctrine and thereby highlight Orthodox teaching against its background; these references actually result in detailed apologetic chapters. However, in some places references to representatives of Catholic systematic theology, Met. Macarius does not use it to polemicize directly with them, but to illustrate arguments against Protestant teaching. In the section on grace, Met. Macarius mentions Catholic theologians Perrone, Lieberman, Feyer, suggesting that we turn to them for attempts to explain “how the powerful power of God, acting on a person, leaves his freedom inviolable” 25. Analysis of direct links from Metropolitan. Macarius on contemporary Western Catholic dogmatic works showed that, firstly, the range of authors he used was quite wide in the sense of representing the palette of trends in Catholic theology of that time. Personalities can be classified according to certain areas of Catholic theology of the late 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. Firstly, this is “traditional Catholic” theology, oriented towards the scholastic method and which largely provided the theological basis for the First Vatican Council. This “neo-scholastic” trend is represented by two schools: Mainz (Leopold Liebermann) and Rome (including Giovanni Perrone), and Feyer 26 . Secondly, Met. Macarius refers to such German theologians as Marianus Dobmeier and Friedrich Brenner. They can conditionally be classified as one theological school, which is characterized by duality: their theological systems contain features of ideas from both the Enlightenment and Romanticism. To denote this movement, following the researcher of the history of German theology G. Schwarzweller, we will use the phrase: “From Enlightenment to Romanticism” 27 . And finally, the third group, the “Romantic movement,” is represented by the theologians of the Tübingen Catholic school Franz Staudenmaier and Heinrich Klee, who, although he was a student of the Mainz school, was, however, greatly influenced by romanticism 28 . The nature of the identified links indicates that Met. Macarius was thoroughly familiar with these authors, and not just heard about them, however, the reasons for which Bishop Macarius refers to these works do not give grounds to talk about borrowing the ideas and methods of any author. Rather, we are talking about the perception of the experience of Catholic and Protestant polemical traditions in formulating theological questions. Direct links Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov) on Protestant dogmatism As shown above, the archpastor in many sections of the Introduction refers to the books of Catholic theologians in the context of disputes with Protestant movements - Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Swedenborgians, etc. At the same time, Met. Macarius nowhere refers to the specific works of representatives of these directions. Information is taken either from Adam Mohler's Symbolism or remains completely anonymous. So, vaguely, without going into details, Met. Macarius sets out Protestant positions and opinions in one of the main sections of the Introduction, in the section on the Church. First, the Eminence examines the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the papacy, then analyzes Protestant opinions. Metropolitan Macarius explains that Protestants would recognize as true only that Church “in which the pure confession of the Word of God and the correct administration of the sacraments are preserved” 29 . The Right Reverend Macarius presented this definition in the form of a quotation with a footnote, where, however, no specific Protestant author is mentioned who would write in this way, only the following: “... see. also, any system of Protestant theologians” 30. While in the Introduction Met. Macarius is reluctant to reveal the sources from which he draws his knowledge of Protestantism; at the beginning of his Dogmatics, he gives indirect references to what materials he relies on when presenting Protestant doctrine. These sources are secondary in nature. Metropolitan Macarius states that the error of the Protestants has been refuted several times in the catechisms and confessions of the Orthodox Church. Here he mentions the response of Patriarch Jeremiah to the Augsburg Confession, written in Constantinople in 1576; "Confessio fidei orthodoxae" (1640), compiled by Metropolitan Peter (Mogila) of Kyiv, and the Jerusalem synodal decree of 1672 against the Calvinist doctrine "Confessio Dosithei". Metropolitan It is important for Macarius to show that “with the cessation of the Ecumenical Councils, the further revelation of dogmas in the Orthodox Church did not stop” 31. Therefore, it was natural that Protestant teachings in the Eastern Orthodox Church should be condemned at the Councils, “which issued the most accurate statements of faith against these errors, in order to preserve the purity of Orthodoxy” 32. In this regard, it can be explained why until now there have been no references to certain works of Protestant theologians: Met. Macarius took advantage of the confessions of the Orthodox Church. References to dogmatic texts of Lutherans and Calvinists appear for the first time in the context of the doctrines of original sin, grace and justification. Here Met. Macarius does not show an attempt at independent reflection and renewal of the discussion with Protestantism, but rather simply summarizes the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, using the following confessional works: Confessio Helvetica Prior (1536), De Institutio Christianae Religionis (1536), Confessio Belgica (1561). As an Orthodox response to this teaching, he quotes only a passage from the Confessio Dosithei. In a similar way, Met. Macarius expounds the Lutheran doctrine of justification from the following sources: Loci communes of Philip Melanchthon (1521), De servo Arbitrio (1525) of Martin Luther, Confessio Augustana (1530), Apologia Confessionis Augustanae (1530–1531). He then quotes the Orthodox doctrine of justification from the Confessioni fidei orthodoxae. This form of working with sources suggests that Metropolitan himself. Macarius generally 33 did not turn to primary sources or to contemporary Protestant authors, but used ready-made quotations from Orthodox confessions of faith. Links Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) on non-dogmatic works of Catholic and Protestant authors Contemporaries and later researchers of the legacy of Bishop Macarius often spoke negatively about his dryness and overly cumbersome presentation, behind which any living theological thought is lost. Fr. was especially distinguished by such criticism. Georgy Florovsky. Nevertheless, he recognized the importance of the works of the Right Reverend Macarius, noting that “the wealth of material collected and compared here is almost exhaustive” 34. The encyclopedic nature of the writing is manifested, among other things, in an attempt to keep up with the latest scientific developments in various fields of theology. What are the characteristics of this encyclopedic approach of Met. Macarius in relation to the “non-dogmatic” works of Catholic and Protestant theologians will be discussed below. The Introduction mentions Western theological works, especially in those sections where the Reverend Macarius gives advice on which books can be used “without harm” for a more detailed study of a particular area of ​​theology. In the section devoted to the system of theological sciences, namely church history, Metropolitan. Macarius lists Western works on this discipline, which, in his opinion, are recognized as the best 35. As for exegetical writings, Met. Macarius chooses more modern books and clearly gives preference to Catholic authors 36: Jean-Baptiste Duvoisin (1744–1813), Joseph Franz Allioli (1793–1873), Johann Leonhard Hug (1765–1846). Metropolitan Macarius also mentions the studies of Protestant biblical scholars, but only those in which their authors do not adhere to the radical historical-critical method: these include the work of Hermann Olshausen (1796–1839), a student of Neander and Schleiermacher, and the Pietist theologian from Halle August Toluca (1799–1877) 37 . Metropolitan Macarius maintains his apologetic tone, while he does not refer to a specific philosophical treatise to present this or that dogma, but it is important for him to point out that there are philosophers who borrow their way of thinking from Christianity. These include Leibniz, Wolff and Kant, whom he describes as "Christian thinkers" whose study is useful for strengthening faith in God. With the same intention, in the treatise that the human mind receives clear indications of the existence of God in nature, Met. Macarius addresses not only the Fathers of the Church, but also the representatives of physicalist theology 38 (Physikotheologie) of the Enlightenment, which tried to reconcile natural science and the religion of Revelation. Particularly noteworthy in this context is the large number of references to Adam Mohler (1796–1838), the famous Catholic romantic theologian who influenced the further development of both Russian (he was taken as a basis by the Slavophiles 39 ) and Western theology (A. Mohler is considered to be the founder of ecumenical theology) 40 . In the Introduction, in the context of consideration of the foundations of the science of comparative theology, Met. Macarius mentions A. Mohler’s “Symbolics” 41 as one of the best modern “ready-made manuals”. Metropolitan on her. Macarius refers when describing other confessional errors, whether Protestants 42 or other confessions 43. At the same time, on the works of the representatives of these religious groups themselves, Metropolitan. Macarius does not refer. In Dogmatics there are also references to “Symbolism” as a source of certain false beliefs 44. Thus, the conclusion suggests itself that the polemics with the Protestant trends of Met. Macarius led based only on the argumentation developed by Catholic theology. There are other places where Met. Macarius recommends the non-dogmatic works of Western theologians, and this leads to certain conclusions that can be formulated as follows: Met. Macarius indeed made a lot of active references to Western theologians - both predecessors and contemporaries, but in his choice he was guided by a certain logic. All authors and treatises should not conflict with the dogmas of the Orthodox Church. It is evident with what caution Met. Macarius belongs to the latest achievements of the historical-critical method in biblical studies; many prominent representatives of these movements do not appear at all as authoritative sources of the latest scientific data. For example, the theologians of the Protestant Tübingen School and their works, in contrast to the Catholic Tübingen School, are not mentioned at all. As a result of the analysis of direct references from Metropolitan. Macarius’s approach to the works of Catholic and Protestant theologians, one can note the encyclopedic diversity with which he approached the presentation of both modern and Western theology, which had already become traditional by that time. However, this diversity corresponds to a certain logic, which, in our opinion, is subject to the ideas of the Most Reverend Macarius about churchliness. Everything that is useful to the Orthodox Church, everything that leaves no room for doubt and does not give rise to disputes that have not yet been resolved, finds clear support in the works of Metropolitan. Macaria. This also explains the greater trust of Metropolitan. Macarius to Catholic authors compared to Protestant ones. When Bishop Macarius uses the Catholic dogmatic systems that are new to him in polemics with them, he does not take into account modern Protestant dogmatic treatises. His Eminence Macarius shows no interest in them and is content with borrowing ancient forms from the 17th–18th centuries. There is no explicit attempt in his writings to stimulate a renewed debate with modern Protestant systematic theology. The most important reproach of Met. Macarius to modern Protestantism is the danger of its consequences: indifference to tradition and loss of “churchliness.” Metropolitan himself Macarius explains that he writes his dogmatic work as a classic exemplary work, which is designed to dispel all possible doubts and leave no room for ambiguity. All of the above allows us to state that Met. Macarius did not write his works in intellectual isolation from contemporary Western theology. He knew and used contemporary dogmatism - and not only neo-scholastic ones, which was repeatedly noted in the research literature earlier. Based on the analysis of individual direct references and some indirect signs described above, it can be argued that the themes, problems and formulations of questions of non-confessional theology are clearly reflected in the systematic works of Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov). Thus, as a characteristic of St. Innocent (Borisov) about the complete independence of the Right Reverend Macarius, and the reproach of Fr. Georgy Florovsky in his complete lack of independence is not confirmed in the texts of the right reverend author. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Introduction to Orthodox Theology. St. Petersburg, 1847. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Orthodox dogmatic theology. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 1–2. Macarius (Bulgakov), Hierom. Our Holy Father Demetrius of Rostov, Saint and Wonderworker, dogmatic teaching selected from his writings // Christian Reading. 1842. IV. pp. 311–521. Zelenina Ya. E., Lopukhina E. V. Innokenty (Borisov) // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 22. M., 2011. pp. 686–707. Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. Vilnius, 1991. Chistovich I. A. History of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. St. Petersburg, 1857. Bolshakoff S. The Doctrine of the Unity of the Church in the Works of Khomyakov and Moehler. London, 1946. Doyle D. Möhler, Schleiermacher, and the roots of communion ecclesiology // Theological studies. 1996. Vol. 57.3. P. 467–480. Eschweiler K. Johann Adam Möhlers Kirchenbegriff: das Hauptstück der katholischen Auseinandersetzung mit dem deutschen Idealismus. Braunsberg Pr. 1930. Flury J. Um die Redlichkeit des Glaubens: Studien zur deutschen katholischen Fundamentaltheologie. Universitätsverlag, Freiburg, 1979. Schwarzweller-Madl G. (n.d.). Jesus Christus, der “Gott mit Uns”: Gottsein und Menschsein Jesu Christi in der Katholischen Dogmatik des 19. Jahrhunderts im Deutschsprachigen Raum. Frankfurt am Main, 1994. (Regensburger Studien zur Theologie). Wagner H. Die eine Kirche und die vielen Kirchen: Ekklesiologie und Symbolik beim jungen Möhler. Paderborn 1977. Under the dogmatic works of Metropolitan. Macarius understands four of his works. The first dogmatic-systematic experience of Met. Macarius had an article from 1842, “Our Holy Father Demetrius of Rostov, Saint and Wonderworker, dogmatic teaching selected from his writings.” Simultaneously with teaching dogmatic theology, the bishop taught basic theology, and in 1847 his work “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” was published. And finally, in 1849–1853. - the most significant and monumental creation, published first in 5 volumes, then in 2: “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, and in 1869 a more abbreviated manual adapted to the needs of the seminary school system: “Guide to the study of Christian Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”. Yes, St. Innocent wrote: “...the work is independent and original: because the author, neither in the system, nor in the method, nor in the way of presenting the truths, did not follow any of the domestic and foreign theologians, but went his own way...” (Chistovich I. A. History of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. St. Petersburg, 1857. P. 284). “Student I. in KDA, later. Metropolitan Moscow Macarius (Bulgakov) <...> in his dogmatics, undoubtedly, followed the dogmatics of I., although it was written more academically, with the involvement of more patristic material...” (Zelenina Ya. E., Lopukhina E. V. Innokenty (Borisov) // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 22. M., 2011. P. 698). Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. Vilnius, 1991. P. 280. Macarius (Bulgakov), Hierom. Our Holy Father Demetrius of Rostov, Saint and Wonderworker, dogmatic teaching selected from his writings // Christian Reading. 1842. IV. pp. 311–521. This is especially evident in the section where Met. Macarius describes the Catholic teaching about the Filioque (see: Macarius (Bulgakov), Archbishop. Introduction to Orthodox Theology. P. 398, 400–402). And indeed, opening Perrone’s book, we will find references to St. Feofan (Prokopovich), Adam Zernikava and many references to St. Philaret of Moscow, namely on his work “Conversations between the searching and the confident about Orthodoxy.” “See, for example, in Dogma. Theology Rev. Ternovsky, between the concepts introduced about the properties of the true Church and the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Catholic Church" (Ibid. p. 388). Georg Fejer (1766–1851) – Hungarian Catholic theologian. He was a professor at the university in Pest. He published dogmatics in a neo-scholastic spirit - “Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae” (1820). Patristic passages in defense of the doctrine of the Filioque “can be seen in all the Roman Dogmatics, in the treatise on the origin of the Holy Spirit, such as in the Dogmatics of Dombayer, Feyer, Liebermann, Perron, etc.” (Ibid. p. 402). Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Introduction to Orthodox Theology. P. 402. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Orthodox dogmatic theology. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg, 1868. Direct links Metropolitan. Macarius on G. Kley and on J. Perron in the section on the procession of the Holy Spirit (see: Ibid. T. 1. P. 332, 334, 340, 345:346). Metropolitan Macarius refers to G. Klee in confirmation of what Western theologians themselves write about immersion in the Ancient Church at Baptism (Ibid. T. 2. P. 326). In the context of discussing the need for both Confirmation and the laying on of hands, he invites readers to turn to the works of Western theologians (with reference to Klee and Perrone), who “recognize both of these signs as equally necessary when performing the sacrament” (Ibid. p. 356). And finally, Met. Macarius believes that “Klee, Perrone, Brenner and other theologians in their treatise on confirmation” (Ibid. p. 363) gave a comprehensive Catholic interpretation of this sacrament. Reference to the French translation of G. Klee, and for the first time only to the “Manual on the History of Dogmas”. About the Catholic teaching on purgatory: Perrone Prael. Theolog. vol. III, p. 310–318. 325. 327; Klee, Manuel de l'hist. des dogm. T. II, p. 474, Par. 1848. (Ibid. P. 611). Right there. T. 2. P. 464. At the same time, His Eminence Macarius suggests turning to the Catholic historians of the Church themselves, who described these abuses - for example, to the work: Fleury, 4 Discour. sur l'hist. eccles. ed. 1840. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Orthodox dogmatic theology. P. 288. It is difficult to classify Georg Feyer as belonging to any particular school within Catholic theology. Schwarzweller-Madl G. (n.d.). Jesus Christus, der “Gott mit Uns”: Gottsein und Menschsein Jesu Christi in der Katholischen Dogmatik des 19. Jahrhunderts im Deutschsprachigen Raum. Frankfurt am Main, 1994. (Regensburger Studien zur Theologie). S. 36. The question of G. Klee's membership in the Tübingen school remains controversial among historians of German Catholic theology to this day. If we follow the scientific tradition of Yves Congar, G. Klee should be considered the ideological successor of at least the ecclesiology of the Tübingen school (in particular A. Möhler). For discussions around the figure of G. Klee and his affiliation with the Tübingen school, see: Flury J. Um die Redlichkeit des Glaubens: Studien zur deutschen katholischen Fundamentaltheologie. Freiburg, 1979. S. 29. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Introduction... pp. 388–389. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Orthodox dogmatic theology... P. 18. There is only one place where direct reference is made to the Protestant dogmatic compendiums. Here Met. Macarius again limits himself only to their names without a detailed study of the texts. In the sections devoted to the visible and invisible world, the following names and their works are given: Johann Salomo Semler - “Dissertatio theologico-hermeneutica de daemoniacis quorum in Evangeliis fit mentio” (1760); Johann Ernst Schubert (1717–1774) – “Institutiones Theologiae dogmaticae” (1749); Heinrich August Schott (1780–1835) – “Epitome Theologiae Christianae dogmaticae in usum scholarum academicarum adornata” (1811). Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology... P. 282. “In the west; a) written in the spirit of the Roman Church and considered the best: the chronicles of Baronius, the church history of Alexander Natalis and the church history of Fleury; b) written by Protestants, also the best: Magdeburg centuries and church history of Mosheim” (Makariy (Bulgakov), Archbishop. Introduction... P. 449). Right there. pp. 285, 312, 454. “Theologia aquae – Fabricii, Theologia Anatomica – Njewentyt; Theologia insectorum – Lesseri; Théologie astronomique, ou Demonstration de l’existence et des attributes de Dieu – Durham; La géologie et la minéralogie dans leurs rapports avec – Buckland” (Ibid. p. 19). See: Eschweiler K. Johann Adam Möhlers Kirchenbegriff: das Hauptstück der katholischen Auseinandersetzung mit dem deutschen Idealismus. Braunsberg Pr., 1930; Wagner H. Die eine Kirche und die vielen Kirchen: Ekklesiologie und Symbolik beim jungen Möhler. Paderborn 1977; Doyle D. Möhler, Schleiermacher, and the roots of communion ecclesiology // Theological studies. 1996. Vol. 57.3. P. 467–480. “Of the recently compiled Symbols, the best are recognized as those of Mohler, Guericke, Planck and Wiener” (Makariy (Bulgakov), Archbishop. Introduction... P. 471). About the fact that M. Luther freely handled the canon of Holy Scripture (Ibid. p. 340). About the Anabaptists, Swedenborgians and Quakers Met. Macarius suggests looking in more detail in A. Mohler’s “Symbolism” (Ibid. P. 315:344). About the Anabaptists, see: Macarius (Bulgakov), Archbishop. Orthodox dogmatic theology... T. 2. P. 315.