Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. Volume 4. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils (III. History of theological thought)

Volume 1 * Volume 2 * Volume 3 * Volume 4 Section three. History of theological thought For the present section of lectures by V.V. Bolotov, “History of Theological Thought” during the period of the Ecumenical Councils, the main text is given by the authorized courses of 1885/6 and 1886/7 taken together, published in lithographic method. The first of them ends with the “family tree” of the Monophysite sects; the second is a continuation of the first, but begins, after very brief remarks about the times of Justin I and Justinian, only with Justin II. The last half of the second course was rewritten for lithography (starting from the Council of 754) by the hand of V.V. Bolotov himself (at the end it is marked “κθ παχων. ΧΜ ΑΧΓ” April 25, 1887). Both of these courses are combined, with considerable abbreviations in places, in the 1888/9 course, also authorized (date at the end with the signature of V.V. Bolotov: “18 2 IV-89”). In addition to the text of these courses, partly to replace it, the printed edition makes numerous and sometimes quite significant borrowings, on the one hand, from the surviving handwritten notes of V.V. Bolotov, on the other hand, from later unauthorized courses, which were compiled by his academic students based on records of his readings and were usually lithographed. In particular, for chapter I, 1 (Arian controversy), in addition to the exposition of 1885/6 (1888/9), borrowings are made, except for the autograph, from the courses of 1894/5 and 1899/900. I, 2 (Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus) was published according to the course of 1885/6. Part of chapter II, 1 (Apolinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia) was taken from the course of 1885/6 and then 1894/5 and 1897/8; the history of the Origenistic disputes (pp. 156–175) is not available in the lithographed courses, and it is reproduced from what was preserved by prof. prot. P.I. Leporsky to a handwritten copy of the student records of 1891/2 II, 2 (Nestorian dispute) - from the same courses 1885/6, 1894/5, 1897/8. and from the autograph (by the way, hence pp. 231–236). II, 3 (monophysite dispute) – from courses 1885/6, 1894/5, 1895/6, 1897/8. and from the autograph; missing from the 1885/6, 1886/7 and 1888/9 courses. reports on the attitude towards Monophysitism and Orthodoxy of Justin I and Justinian (359–384) are borrowed from the courses of 1894/5 and 1897/8. II, 4 (dispute about three chapters) is also taken almost exclusively from the same courses of 1894/5 and 1897/8, with minor borrowings from the autograph; information about the church policies of Justin II and Tiberius (434–438) - from the course of 1886/7. II, 5 (Monothelitian dispute) - from the courses of 1886/7, 1892/3, 1895/6 and 1897/8; a record of messages about the Maronites (501–506) is available only in the course of 1895/6, but in an extremely defective form; Notes related to this in the papers of V.V. Bolotov served to correct this to some extent. Chapter III (the iconoclastic dispute) was published according to the course of 1886/7, with additions from the courses of 1892/3 and 1895/6. A peculiarity of the presentation here in the lectures of V.V. Bolotov, written, as already noted, for the lithography for the most part initially by himself, is a number of Greek (sometimes Latin) expressions introduced into the text and part of the long tirades left without translation. In the present edition, these foreign elements are usually replaced by a Russian translation, as was already done, although not always satisfactorily, by students of V.V. Bolotov in the courses of 1892/3 and 1895/6; foreign words and phrases are either placed in brackets or transferred to footnotes, and in some cases, when they do not represent anything particularly characteristic, they are completely omitted. The printed program of V.V. Bolotov in 1895, the previous parts of which were given in the prefaces to volumes II and III of lectures, indicates the following divisions for the history of theological thought in the era of ecumenical councils. V. History of theological thought aa) mainly in the east. – a) Completion of the “theological” stage. 1. The first ecumenical council. 2. Second Ecumenical Council. 3. Misconceptions that arose under the influence of the struggle against Arianism. α) Doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra. β) Doctrine of Photinus of Sirmium. γ) Doctrine of Apollinaris of Laodicea. – δ “Christological” stage. 1. Third Ecumenical Council. 2. Fourth Ecumenical Council. 3. Dispute about the dogmatic authority of the fourth ecumenical council, α) The firm policy of Marcian and Leo I. Codex encyclius. β) Union attempts. "Ἑνωτικὸν" by Zeno. "Acacian schism". γ) The disintegration of Monophysitism into rumors, δ) The triumph of Orthodoxy under Justin. Complications caused by the papistic claims of Rome, ε) Dispute over the expression: “One of the Holy Trinity suffered,” ς) Unionist aspirations of Justinian I. η) Dispute about the “three chapters”. 4. Fifth Ecumenical Council, α) Results of the church policy of Justinian I. β) Church policy of his successors, γ) Completion of the “Christological” stage; αα) Reasons explaining the emergence of monothelitism, ββ) History of the dispute. 5. The sixth ecumenical council, a) Consequences of the sixth ecumenical council in the west and in the east. – c) Iconoclasm. 1. Causes of the phenomenon. His character. 2. Iconoclasts of the first generation – “Christian accusers.” 3. Seventh Ecumenical Council. 4. Reasons for the resumption of iconoclasm. 5. Iconoclasts of the second generation. 6. The triumph of Orthodoxy. 7. The attitude of the West to the seventh ecumenical council. –bb) History of theological thought in the West. – a) “Christological” disputes. 1. The error of Presbyter Leporius. 2. Adoptians. – b) Dispute about the ever-virginity of the Mother of God. 1. Helvidium. 2. Bonoz. – c) Disputes about the mutual relationship of freedom and grace. 1. Pelagianism. – d) Origenistic dispute between Jerome and Rufinus. – f) Disputes on issues of church ritual and asceticism. 1. Jovinian. 2. Vigilance. – f) Dispute sui generis. 1. Priscilian. – c) The struggle of the church against errors with a dualistic basis. 1. Manichaeans. 2. The dualistic element in the errors of Eustathius of Sebaste. 3. Ipsistaria. 4. Euchites (Messalians). α) in the 4th–5th centuries; β) in the 11th century. 5. Paulikians. 6. Afingans. 7. Arevords. 8. Appendix: Bogomils. The most important deviation from the program made when publishing the lectures was the transfer of Apolinarianism from the chapter on triadological disputes (“the completion of the “theological” stage”), where it is placed by V.V. Bolotov, as one of the misconceptions that arose under the influence of the fight against Arianism, to the chapter on Christological disputes. Apolinarianism was in itself so important in the history of Christological disputes, and then, through its literary forgeries, was accompanied by such important consequences for the further history of these disputes, turning out to be, in relation to the term μία φύσις, the direct ancestor of Monophysitism, that it is most natural to place it at the beginning of the section devoted to these disputes. In addition, characteristic of him from the very beginning is the struggle not against Arianism, but against Antiochian Christology (cf. about this G. Voisin. L’Apollinarisme. Louvian - Paris 1901). The program outlines not only the history of theological thought “mainly in the East” (aa), but also purely Western theological disputes (bb), and, moreover, the struggle of the church against errors with a dualistic basis (cv). The published material covers only Eastern theological disputes - about the Holy Trinity, Christological and iconoclastic, and the history of only these disputes was the subject of more or less regularly repeated readings by V. V. Bolotov. But once, at least part of one of the courses, namely 1889/90, was devoted to them and the history of Western disputes. Recorded and lithographed by students of V.V. Bolotov, but without viewing or any corrections on his part, this course turns out, unfortunately, to be extremely faulty and unsatisfactory in its presentation in its present form, so that doubt may arise regarding its suitability for publication as a whole. Over time, it is planned to use, as far as possible, this material for an additional volume, which will contain various essays and excerpts from lectures that were not included for one reason or another in the already printed volumes. As for the history of the church’s struggle with dualistic errors, there are only a few fragmentary and brief notes on this issue in the papers of V.V. Bolotov. We can conclude from this that he once focused on this section in his readings; but a coherent and integral presentation of his lectures in this case, apparently, has not been preserved. The index of names attached at the end of the book refers not only to the present IV volume, but also to the previous III, containing the first two sections of the history of the church during the period of the ecumenical councils (“Church and State” and “Church System”). To the places requiring correction, both in this and in the previous volumes of lectures, it would be necessary, by the way, to add those places where the method of rendering them in Russian, which V.V. Bolotov himself considered, in the end, the only correct and desirable, was not carried out with sufficient consistency in relation to some proper names, although he himself did not always and did not decide in this case to be completely consistent, yielding to the established custom (cf. on this matter Christ. Reading, 1912, I, 155–158). So, instead of “Sulpicius Sever”, “Caecilius”, “Caecilian” you should put “Sulpicius Severus”, “Kecilius”, “Kekilian”, as V.V. Bolotov wrote these names, for example. in 1895 (at the same time “Porcius Cato”, “Scipio Africanus”, in 1893 - “Lukifer”, “Werkellsky”). Along with the spelling of "Constances", "Florentius", apparently, and "Domitian", "Lactantius", should be changed to "Domitian", "Lactantius". Usually used and stated throughout the text of the lectures (according to the spelling of V.V.