Methodology of church history in lecture courses by Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky

Contents Abstract Context of reading lectures on church history by A.V. Gorsky Historiography of the study of the church-historical concept of A.V. Gorsky Principles of course construction A.V. Gorsky based on the materials of his introductory lectures Definition of the subject of church history in the lectures of A. V. Gorsky Periodization of church history Systematization of the material of church history in certain periods Historical aspect of the lecture course by A. V. Gorsky Results Gorsky A., prot. Materials of lectures on church history Church history. Introductory lectures (1830–1840) Doctrine, sacraments, hierarchy. Life Old Testament history - lectures (with additions) (1830–1840) Lesson program for the class of General Church History (1860s) Church history. Lectures... Part I. Old Testament History (1840/1841) Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky (1812–1875) was recognized by his contemporaries as the most authoritative specialist in the field of church history. He taught all sections of this discipline at the Moscow Theological Academy for thirty years. Most of his archival notes on church history remained unpublished, including the introductory lectures most important for understanding his church-historical concept. In the literature devoted to A.V. Gorsky as a church historian, the prevailing opinion is formulated by A.P. Lebedev that his lecture courses have no scientific value. However, regardless of their scientific value, which can only be established as a result of studying individual sections of the discipline, his notes are of interest in the context of the history of teaching church history in theological academies. The proposed publication contains the main ideas about the church-historical concept of A.V. Gorsky, which have developed to date, are correlated with the features of his readings, identified on the basis of an analysis of the notes of introductory lectures from different years. Context of reading lectures on church history by A. V. Gorsky During the period of the Charter of 1814, the program of which was prepared by St. Philaret (Drozdov), church history belonged to theological disciplines and included all sections - from the Old Testament to modern church history, as well as the study of antiquities. While studying at the Moscow Theological Academy (MDA), A.V. Gorsky took a course in church history from St. Filaret (Gumilevsky), and in 1833 he himself received an appointment to this department. In the late 30s - early 40s, canon law, patristics, then biblical history, and at the end of the 50s - the history of the Russian church were separated into independent disciplines. This contributed to a deeper study of each subject, but weakened the integrity of the church-historical concept. In the last years of his tenure at the department of church history, A. V. Gorsky was supposed to teach only general history, but according to the testimony of 1858 graduate E. E. Golubinsky, “he read church history - all kinds, biblical, general and Russian” 1 . The classic books in seminaries and academies during this period were “Sketches of Church Biblical History” 2 St. Philaret (Drozdov) and “Inscriptions of Church History from Biblical Times to the 18th Century” 3 St. Innocent of Penza. The Metropolitan of Moscow reproached his younger colleague with the same name: “you are referring to books written almost thirty years ago by a man who was much more inexperienced than you and was self-taught” 4, meaning St. Innocent of Penza. He added to himself: “the writer of Biblical [history] had no time to revise his long-standing work, and the teachers of this book still wandered in the footsteps of others without reasoning, although they were often reminded of this” 5 . A.V. Gorsky began his teaching of church history, focusing primarily on academic classic books. In parallel, together with Archimandrite, who headed the MDA and taught dogmatic theology. Filaret (Gumilevsky), he studied modern Western theological and historical literature, worked in archives. In the 40s, A.V. Gorsky’s notes on church history were used not only by his students who began teaching this discipline independently, but also by his colleagues. Archbishop of Chernigov, when writing the History of the Russian Church, asked Alexander Vasilyevich for his notes on church history, and Archbishop Eusebius (Orlinsky), during his rectorship at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy 6, asked for notes on Evangelical history. After the death of A.V. Gorsky, prot. Sergius Smirnov published the history of the Evangelical and Apostolic times and the history of the Eastern Church based on his own manuscripts. In 1902, the Gospel and Apostolic History were republished as a separate book 7 , and finally, in 1999, they were published together with the diaries 8 . In 1883, another edition of these materials was published, but, as the editor noted, student notes were used as its sources 9 . A comparison of these two versions of publications showed complete identity of the texts. In the 20th century, materials by A.V. Gorsky on the history of the Russian Church were published 10. However, the introductory lectures in which he outlined the principles of constructing his course, especially valuable for understanding the author’s church-historical concept, remained unpublished. The presented materials from introductory lectures on church history by A.V. Gorsky make it possible to restore the sequence of formation of the final version of his church-historical concept, which was formed by the early 40s, and to check the correctness of ideas about it that have developed to date in Russian literature. To solve this problem, the historiography of the issue will first be considered, then an analysis of archival materials will be carried out. The most significant opinions formulated in the works of various researchers will be correlated with the provisions of A.V. Gorsky, identified from archival sources. Historiography of the study of the church-historical concept of A.V. Gorsky There are quite a lot of comments on the introductory lectures on church history by A.V. Gorsky in the literature. The most valuable are the testimonies of those authors who themselves were his listeners. Among them is a graduate of 1842, Pyotr Simonovich Kazansky. After graduating from the academy, he was appointed to the department of civil history and was one of Alexander Vasilyevich’s closest colleagues throughout his teacher’s subsequent church service. The editor who published the memoirs of P. S. Kazansky about A. V. Gorsky clarifies that “they were partly written down from the words of P. S. Kazansky by Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, partly recorded by Pyotr Simonovich himself for the same person shortly after the death of A. V. Gorsky” 11. This material contains information related to the lecture course. In particular, P. S. Kazansky reports that “three students - P. Palimpsestov, N. Sokolov and Palmov 12 recorded his lectures each class, then compared what was written down and compiled a corrected list” 13. The editor's note indicates that the final clean list of this summary was made by P. Palimpsestov and it is located in the MDA library. The abstract consists of three books in landscape format in a cardboard binding, and, apparently, it is this one that is presented in the manuscript department of the Russian State Library in the 78th fund of A. V. Gorsky in storage units 2, 3 and 4 cardboard No. 5. Pyotr Simonovich claims that this “course spread throughout Russia and became a guide for many teachers” 14. P. S. Kazansky admitted that, as students, they could not appreciate the merits of their teacher’s lectures. He also noted that over time A.V. Gorsky supplemented and reworked his lectures, and paid considerable attention to philological studies of ancient original texts. “Knowing the Greek language perfectly, he carefully followed the authentic expressions of the monuments, and this gave him the opportunity to spot errors in the best foreign church historians” 15. Among the Western authors about whom A.V. Gorsky spoke positively, Kazansky mentions Guericke and Fleury, and about the German church historian A. Neander he gives an oral quote from his teacher: “you can’t help but use him... you just need to cut off his biased judgments and check some news that can be explained completely differently than Neander explains them” 16. For the first time, a general description of A.V. Gorsky’s lecture course on church history was presented by the MDA graduate of 1844, Archpriest. Sergius Smirnov, who, like P. S. Kazansky, upon graduating from the academy, was appointed to the department of civil history. In his essay “The History of the Moscow Theological Academy,” published in 1879, he cites fragments from the archival manuscripts of A.V. Gorsky, but does not provide any references to sources. Published materials made it possible to establish that he relies, first of all, on the “Program of lessons for the class of General Church History” (F. 78, volume 2, item 1). Anticipating a direct description of A. V. Gorsky’s lecture course on church history, the author expresses the opinion that before him there was no “serious and thorough teaching of church history at the Academy” 17 . He believes that Alexander Vasilyevich in this area surpassed his teacher - St. Filaret (Gumilevsky). S.K. Smirnov makes several comments regarding the circumstances of reading the discipline. In particular, he writes: “first of all, Gorsky’s critical hand was laid, albeit with caution, on textbooks; in the early forties, he began to speak more boldly about the shortcomings of educational manuals, introduced new research into biblical history, and artistically outlined the history of the Gospel in its entirety” 18. As part of the objectives of his large-scale research, Rev. Sergius Smirnov does not undertake a detailed analysis of the lecture course by A.V. Gorsky, but only highlights the most important, in his opinion, features and comments on the historical review of the literature. S.K. Smirnov focuses on Alexander Vasilyevich’s idea about the predominant action of the persons of the Trinity in history. “The main idea of ​​church history in Gorsky’s lectures is distinguished by remarkable originality. He considers all phenomena of church-historical life as a manifestation of the action of the three persons of St. Trinity, and the activity of each of these persons in a certain group of phenomena is shown. In its summary we read the following: "the main aspects from which the subject (church history) should be considered: a) the calling of peoples into the bowels of the church; b) leadership in the church; c) the fruits of this leadership in life. 1) The special action of God the Father is manifested in calling. The history of calling is combined with the history of the persecution of martyrs, apologists. 2) Leadership is the work of the Head of the church, whose threefold ministry continues in the church. Accordingly, the history of church teaching is revealed here, worship and administration (Church - school, church and kingdom). 3) Disclosure of the established principles of Christian life under the special influence of the Holy Spirit. Institutions relating to Christian life, for example, monasticism, lives of saints. The main features of the dominant trend in social morals are good and bad” 19. Prot. Sergius Smirnov provides a detailed list of references and some assessments given by A.V. Gorsky to individual authors and their works. In his opinion, “Neander was Gorsky’s favorite leader in the field of historical research. In both biblical and church history, in many cases he was undoubtedly under his influence: this, for example, can be seen in the presentation of the history of persecution, but at the same time it cannot be said that Gorsky’s use of Neander reached the point of slavish borrowing from his history. He largely remakes Neander both in the arrangement of facts, in his views, and in his presentation; in addition, in some places he directs his speech directly against Neander” 20. Prot. Sergius Smirnov considers “the height of perfection” 21 the Gospel story of A.V. Gorsky, in which he emphasizes the independence of judgments, and calls its main idea “the awakening by Christ of faith, visible in him in such facts that, with a simple reading of the Gospel, apparently, could not in any way lead to the conclusions that Gorsky draws from them” 22. He also notes the originality of Alexander Vasilyevich's lectures on Russian church history, which used the results of his own archival research. And finally, Rev. Sergius describes his manner of presenting the material: “he wrote in an unusually elaborate and pure language, did not allow foreign terms in his speech, avoided vague and mutual expressions, chose words and expressions that were precise and weighty, observed extreme caution in the formulation of phrases and, despite all the scientific nature of the research, did not fall into dryness of presentation” 23. Alexey Petrovich Lebedev writes in more detail about lectures on church history by A.V. Gorsky. He graduated from the MDA in the year the new Academic Charter was adopted, number two on the rank list and listened to Rev. Alexandra is already taking a course in dogmatic theology. To serve in the MDA, he chose the department of church history. The rector of the MDA saw him in a different position, since during his studies Alexey Petrovich did not write a single course work in this discipline, but the graduate still received the desired appointment. Subsequently, their relationship was complex, which A.P. Lebedev repeatedly mentions in his materials, thereby already calling into question the objectivity of his assessments of the legacy of Archpriest Alexander. He studied the historical lectures of A.V. Gorsky from his manuscripts, which the rector bequeathed to the MDA library, and described them at least three times in his publications. Unlike the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries, Alexey Petrovich invariably emphasized that they did not represent scientific value. For the first time, A.P. Lebedev presented his description of the lectures of the rector of the MDA in the article “Several memories of the late A.V. Gorsky as a professor of church history,” published in 1879, which was subsequently included in his essay “Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th century,” published in 1899. This is the most cited text by subsequent authors studying the legacy of A.V. Gorsky. Moreover, he writes about Alexander Vasilyevich not only in the section dedicated directly to him, but also in the material about Neander. In this part, he claims that it was Neander who prompted Gorsky to “throw away the old Latin historical works, which initially guided him in his professorial career, and work partly according to Neander, partly on his own. …. There are sections in Gorsky’s lectures that were undoubtedly taken from Neander, although they were significantly revised, partly on the basis of personal acquaintance with the sources, partly based on other, mainly German monographs and articles. This includes the history of persecution, the history of the struggle of Christian emperors against paganism, the history of church literature of the first three centuries and the history of church teaching of the same time. In general, Gorsky can be considered a follower of Neander, but with limitations” 24. According to A.P. Lebedev, “Neander was always the ideal for Gorsky” 25. He believes that the German and Russian historians were close in spirit, but Gorsky was not able to realize himself in scientific activity to the same extent as his Western colleague, the personality of Alexander Vasilyevich “is very little expressed in literary works - he was taller, more serious, deeper, insightful and more attractive than what his printed works portray” 26 The analysis of archival materials in which fragments of introductory lectures by A.V. Gorsky are found has made it possible to establish that A.P. Lebedev, in assessing his church-historical concept, relies on only one storage unit 2 out of 78 funds, cardboard 4. This material does not represent a consistent presentation of the issue, but includes fragments of lectures from different years, therefore, in principle, it is impossible to fully restore the system of the lecture course of A.V. Gorsky from it. In addition, A.P. Lebedev in his publication provides comments on individual issues without taking into account the chronological order of the entries. He highlighted all the quotes given in his article in the margins of A.V. Gorsky’s manuscripts in red pencil, which characterizes the researcher’s disdainful attitude towards archival documents. Just like S.K. Smirnov, A.P. Lebedev does not provide any references to the source used, although the manuscripts have an inscription and in some cases are dated. In general, his description of the lectures of A. V. Gorsky is a haphazard commentary on the given quotes, while Aleksey Petrovich states that “even a person who deliberately took the trouble to study his system would hardly be able to recreate it in its entirety” 27 . The starting point of his article, directly related to the lectures, looks like this: “Gorsky was convinced that church history, as a science, is subject to the general laws of historical truth in general” 28. Thus, he immediately focuses attention not on the theological, but on the historical side of the discipline. Just like S.K. Smirnov, A.P. Lebedev, highlights A.V. Gorsky’s idea about the predominant action of the persons of the Trinity in history, but gives it in a more detailed version, presented in the source on which he relies. For both authors, this provision turns out to be outside the general context of constructing the system of the lecture course of their teacher, in addition, they do not clarify the time of formulation of the cited provision. Only after this significant quotation from Gorsky, Alexey Petrovich finally notices that “the presentation of the history of the church is most determined by the dogmatic view,” 29 although it would be logical to begin the analysis with it. Here he also adds a fragment from Alexander Vasilyevich’s diary about the development of the dogma, dated 1836, that is, the earliest period of his teaching activity. Regarding the question of the influence of Neander on A.V. Gorsky in this material, A.P. Lebedev is close to Archpriest. Sergius Smirnov. He believes that the German historian “was imprinted on Gorsky’s readings, but nothing more. To say that Gorsky read Neander is to say too much. Gorsky never used anything in his lectures without a critical attitude towards his source. Gorsky’s Neander always appears in a transformed form” 30. The fundamental evaluative attitude of A.P. Lebedev, presented in this publication, is that A.V. Gorsky was an “objectivist historian”, since he did not set the task of “studying history in the sense of the development of church historical life” 31. The second half of his publication is devoted mainly to how A.V. Gorsky reveals a number of particular issues of church history. Here he uses other archival materials - lectures on New Testament history. As a result, A.P. Lebedev claims that “his readings do not represent scientific works that could serve, upon publication, for the further progress of science; they are only lectures” 32. Later, in his own introductory lecture, given at Moscow University and published in 1895 under the title “A Brief Outline of the Progress of the Development of Church Historical Science in Russia,” he calls A.V. Gorsky “a deep expert and most devoted adept of our science” 33, but, at the same time, claims that he cannot “name a single work of Gorsky that would give him a particularly prominent place among people involved in our science; Gorsky does not have such an essay” 34. The last material by A.P. Lebedev, dedicated to A.V. Gorsky - “To the memories of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky, rector and professor of the Moscow Theological Academy” was included in the collection of 1900, published in connection with the 25th anniversary of his death. In this material, Alexey Petrovich, on the one hand, seeks to demonstrate his significant role in preserving the memory of the rector of the MDA and studying his legacy, on the other hand, he describes in detail the conflict situations that arose in their relationship, completely inappropriate for the occasion of the publication. At the very beginning of his material, speaking about A.V. Gorsky’s dissatisfaction with the new Academic Charter, A.P. Lebedev focuses on the fact that he significantly reduced the rector’s powers. In his opinion, the new Charter “responded extremely favorably to the position of church historical science,” 35 while A.V. Gorsky saw this as a serious danger, since in the two departments of the academies the students did not deepen their theological education. A.P. Lebedev, for his part, writes with obvious satisfaction about the diminishing importance of dogmatic theology and allows himself a tactless comment addressed to the rector himself: “they debunked science, and its professor was debunked” 36. In addition, A.P. Lebedev expresses provisions that are called into question by the evidence of other authors. Firstly, about the just published work by Sergei Grigorievich Popov “A. V. Gorsky. The experience of a biographical sketch” 37, he writes that the topic was taken by the author “on his personal recommendation, and the essay itself was written under his leadership” 38. Meanwhile, it is known that the material was prepared by S. G. Popov at the request of the archbishop. Alaskan Nikolai (Ziorov), who was the altar boy of Archpriest Alexander, and published at his expense. Secondly, his statement that the already deceased Archpriest is also doubtful. Sergius Smirnov, who published the materials of A.V. Gorsky during his rectorship, prevented him from publishing the remaining lectures 39. Finally, A.P. Lebedev reports that at the end of the 80s it was to him that Bishop Christopher (Smirnov), who headed the MDA after Archpriest. Sergius Smirnov, submitted the manuscript of P. U. Palimpsestov for consideration. Alexey Petrovich assessed it as “a carelessly copied notebook in which both thoughts and words were distorted, so that it is only with difficulty that one can find a thought, and even then not always. Not a single human hand corrected the manuscript, and the writer did not understand what he was writing." 40 He further claims that the list was made from the earliest notes of A.V. Gorsky, and therefore “lost its scientific value due to a more advanced edition of the notes stored at that time in the library” 41. His statement contradicts information published in the same collection. It was Palimpsestov’s list that was kept in the MDA library; the thoroughness of his preparation is evidenced by the copyist's classmate P. S. Kazansky; The notes are dated 1840–1841; this is not the earliest, but also not the latest lecture notes from the archives of A.V. Gorsky. In his latest publication, highlighting the main feature of A.V. Gorsky the historian, A.P. Lebedev somewhat changes the thesis of the previous material about his objectivist method. He expresses the opinion that Alexander Vasilyevich “did not like the philosophy of history, did not allow a pragmatic presentation of science” 42 only stated the facts, but did not explain them. This contradicts the idea that he highlighted and quoted in detail in the previous article about the predominant action of the persons of the Trinity in history. In addition, Lebedev claims that he “worked little... on the history of dogma” 43, although from the memoirs of many direct listeners of the church history of A.V. Gorsky it is known that the history of doctrine was a priority area for him. In this publication, A.P. Lebedev changes his previous opinion about the degree of influence of Neander on his domestic colleague. He claims that, according to Aleksey Petrovich, the Gospel story of A.V. Gorsky “is reliably known... borrowed from Neander” 44. Thus, in relation to the previous material, the author strengthens the dependence of A.V. Gorsky on the German church historian. As a result, he repeats again that his teacher “did not leave behind lectures of such perfection that they could form an era in the history of this science” 45. The judgments of A.P. Lebedev indicate that he not only disagrees with his contemporaries, but his own latest statements contradict previous ones. Moreover, the author presented the latest text, extremely controversial in its assessments, in an anniversary collection dedicated to the anniversary of the death of his teacher. Apparently, the authority of A.P. Lebedev the historian was quite high, since his works are cited by the next generation of authors almost immediately after publication. Already in 1900, Sergei Ivanovich Smirnov wrote that A.V. Gorsky did not present historical material in a systematic manner and it was no longer possible to restore his scientific system. In his opinion, “Gorsky is a great scientist who will forever remain hidden” 46. A diary entry of his master's dispute with St. S.I. Smirnov interprets Philaret (Drozdov) as excessive pressure from the Metropolitan on the young scientist and claims that “he did not change the Neander method to the Bossuets” 47 . Both he and A. A. Spassky cite in their writings A. V. Gorsky’s idea about the predominant action of the persons of the Trinity in history, but the latter evaluates it as “an original philosophy of church history” 48 (i.e., on this issue he does not share the opinion of A. P. Lebedev) and finds in it “a certain amount of mysticism” 49. At the same time, both authors uncritically accepted Alexei Petrovich’s idea of ​​Gorsky as an objectivist historian. A.P. Lebedev’s student N.N. Glubokovsky considered his scientific supervisor to be the direct heir of A.V. Gorsky. In his study “Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state,” he used his materials, since he no longer had the opportunity to work with Alexander Vasilyevich’s manuscripts. However, unlike A.P. Lebedev, N.N. Glubokovsky placed the theological understanding of history in the foreground in A.V. Gorsky’s church-historical lectures and characterized his method of Orthodox theology, which “consists of affirming one’s truths on the Word of God and supporting one’s understanding of the Word of God with the testimony of the Church or Tradition in the broadest sense. This respect for the voice of the Church or Tradition is at the same time respect for the history of the Church, which, with this approach, appears not just as a dispassionate narration of the facts of the past, but as a living apology for Christian truth with its doctrinal beliefs and concrete discoveries" 50 After the death of A.P. Lebedev, the topic of the correctness of his assessments was raised in the memoirs of two MDA graduates who personally communicated with A.V. Gorsky in the last years of his life. Archbishop of Alaska Nikolai (Ziorov), the best graduate of the history department of the Moscow Academy of Arts in 1875, listened to A.P. Lebedev’s lectures on church history. He noted that Alexey Petrovich was “with great self-importance, read from German sources, criticized everyone and everything” 51. MDA professor Mitrofan Dmitrievich Muretov, who also personally communicated with the rector of the academy, emphasized fundamentally different approaches to the study of church history by Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky and A.P. Lebedev: “Gorsky and Lebedev were complete opposites. Gorsky is an expert and analyst of the originals in almost all languages of primary sources not only of church history, but also of all related disciplines: Holy Scripture, dogmatics, patristics, canons, liturgics, etc. - Lebedev hardly read and scientifically analyzed at least one primary source in its entirety, comprehensively and in the original - he was completely immersed in the study of the latest foreign literature of his subject. Gorsky is a difficult but deep thinker and theologian, Lebedev is an easy and entertaining storyteller. Gorsky is a researcher and developer of ideas and the meaning of history, Lebedev is an observer and speaker of facts and events. Gorsky is a theologian, Lebedev is a historian” 52. M.D. Muretov notes the general dependence of Alexander Vasilyevich’s lectures on Neander, but believes that “their ideological side is deeply original” 53. His younger colleague, Rev. Pyotr Postnikov presented extensive material in the collection for the 100th anniversary of the MDA, “Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky,” which is preceded by a list of all previous literature devoted to the rector of the MDA. Father Peter independently worked with his archival lectures and noted that A.P. Lebedev in his analysis “uses not so much the full course as individual introductory lectures and notes by A.V.-ch on general church history” 54 . He believed that “Lebedev had valuable, interesting, unknown material at his disposal” 55 from which he took “not everything that was possible and necessary” 56. In addition, Rev. P. Postnikov drew attention to the change in Alexander Vasilyevich’s views over time, but did not specify how this manifested itself. Prot. Georgy Florovsky believed that the image of A.V. Gorsky “is one of the brightest in science” 57. Perhaps his father, Rev., shared his personal impressions with him. Vasily, who witnessed the last year of his service at the academy. G.V. Florovsky noted that “what attracted him to Neander was this desire and ability to find the religious meaning of the events that took place, this ability to depict the historical process “as one whole, in the harmonious and close connection of all its parts.” In his lectures, Gorsky sought, first of all, to show this “internal connection of facts”; he was not content with external pragmatism, and spoke about organic development. Most of all, he dwelled on the history of dogmas” 58. Prot. Georgy believed that A.V. Gorsky “had a thoughtful historical worldview, his own philosophy of Russian history” 59, but did not specify what they were. According to Rev. Georgiy Alexey Petrovich “was not a theologian at all. ... And the best of his books, his famous dissertation on the first ecumenical councils (1879), lacks precisely this sympathetic insight into the meaning of the events described and discussed” 60. In Russian literature of the 20th century there are also several works in which the authors write about A.V. Gorsky as a church historian. In the anonymous material “A. V. Gorsky,” published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, the author notes the significant influence on him not only of St. Filaret (Gumilevsky), but also professor of philosophy F.A. Golubinsky, and believes that “before Gorsky there was no separate science - Russian church history” 61, in which he used, among other things, research in related fields - Russian literature and literature. In his opinion, the greatest value is not the lectures of A.V. Gorsky, but his scientific works 62. The name of A.V. Gorsky is repeatedly mentioned in his extensive study “History of the Russian Church” by I.K. Smolich. Igor Kornilievich highlights the merits of his lectures on church history, relying on the memoirs of P. S. Kazansky, and writes about methodology, referring to E. E. Golubinsky. I.K. Smolich erroneously indicates that A.V. Gorsky completed teaching church history in 1864 (in fact, at the end of 1862), and believes that he replaced St. Philaret (Gumilevsky) 63, although he was appointed to the Riga department and left the Academy already in 1841. N. N. Lisova in her “Review of the main directions of Russian theological academic science in the 19th – early 20th centuries” does not indicate the difference in the methodology of A. V. Gorsky and A. P. Lebedev. In the section dedicated to the rector of the MDA, he notes the achievements of Alexei Petrovich and his students (A. A. Spassky, N. N. Glubokovsky, etc.), arguing that “ancient church history developed at the MDA in the spirit bequeathed by A.V. Gorsky’s unity of historical and dogmatic materials, directly interacting with the history of dogmas” 64. Already in the 21st century, the life path and legacy of A.V. Gorsky is explored by a number of authors, among whom are Bishop. Gennady (Gogolev), A. S. Melkov, deacon. E. I. Lyutko, K. A. Kuzoro. All of them use as sources, first of all, the works of A.V. Gorsky’s contemporaries, refer to individual manuscripts from his archive, but no one independently analyzes his original introductory lectures on church history. Ep. Gennady (Gogolev), in his monograph “Giant of Learning,” awarded a candidate’s church degree, correctly notes that A.P. Lebedev was not his direct student in this area. Quoting all the published works of Alexei Petrovich, he cites mainly his positive statements about the rector of the MDA, on the basis of which he claims that Lebedev treated him with great respect. Ep. Gennady claims that “his contemporaries did not consider his lectures to be deep scientific research” 65, but does not name them. He repeats the last assessment of A.P. Lebedev about the course of Gospel history as borrowed from Neander. At the same time, Bishop Gennady quotes the letter from the archbishop. Eusebius (Orlinsky), who asks A.V. Gorsky to send these lectures, not noticing the fundamentally critical remark of Alexander Vasilyevich about this work of the German historian located nearby in their correspondence. A. S. Melkov, the author of a number of publications dedicated to Archpriest Alexander, raised the question of the possibility of his canonization. In his largest work, “The Life Path and Scientific Heritage of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky” 66, there is a separate section devoted to lecture courses. Unfortunately, the lengthy description is an abstract of the literature, mainly publications by A.P. Lebedev and others. Sergius Smirnova. The author claims to have worked with sources, but does not provide links to them. N.K. Gavryushin dedicated to A.V. Gorsky two pages of his essay “Features of the historical school in theological academies.” He gives all references to the above-mentioned monograph by A.S. Melkova. Apparently, in connection with Alexander Vasilyevich’s idea about the primary participation of the persons of the Trinity in the industry of Christian peoples, he notes that his metaphysical generalizations are made “in the spirit of Joachim of Flores” 67 K. A. Kuzoro focuses mainly on the publications of A. P. Lebedev, but does not pay attention to critical reviews of his assessments by other authors. In particular, she repeats as an established opinion that “Gorsky did not propose any holistic concept” 68 . E. I. Lyutko in his publications examines the role of A. V. Gorsky in the organization of scientific research at the MDA 69, and makes an important remark about the church-historical concept of Archpriest Alexander: “Gorsky’s providentialism is not a caricature, it does not consume a person: the latter is not just a weak-willed executor (or non-executor) of the will of God, Gorsky’s history is, first of all, the history of man” 70. Thus, we can conclude that A.P. Lebedev had a decisive influence on the formation of ideas about the lecture course of A.V. Gorsky and his church-historical concept in Russian literature, but the assessments formulated by him raise doubts. There is no consensus in the literature about the degree of influence of the German historian A. Neander on A.V. Gorsky. A comparison of the lecture course by A.V. Gorsky with the classic books of Saints Philaret of Moscow and Innocent of Penza has not yet been made, but the idea of ​​the restraining influence of the Metropolitan of Moscow, based solely on the early diary entries of A.V. Gorsky, is quite widespread. The published fragments of the introductory lectures by A.V. Gorsky should clarify these issues. Principles of course design by A.V. Gorsky based on materials from his introductory lectures An analysis of the features of the construction of A. V. Gorsky’s lecture course will be carried out based on archival material from storage unit 5, cardboard 2, a student manuscript dated 1840–1841. The characterization of P. U. Palimpsestov’s manuscript given by A. P. Lebedev was not confirmed when reading the material. It is made carefully, reads well, no distortions of words or thoughts were found in it. In the manuscripts of the Additional Collection of Manuscripts of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra No. 125 and 274, almost identical to each other, which may have been recorded from lectures given to the next course, the rationale for the periodization of church history and a more extensive historical overview are presented in more detail. Therefore, the most significant fragments from these materials were added to the first source upon publication. The manuscripts of A.V. Gorsky himself, dated from different years, are useful for clarifying changes in the main provisions of his course over time. To clarify the features of Alexander Vasilyevich’s lecture course, it is necessary to point out the main provisions of domestic textbooks: “Outlines of Church Biblical History” by the Metropolitan of Moscow and “Outlines of Church History” by the Archbishop of Penza. Since all contemporaries write about the influence of A.V. Gorsky Neander on the formation of historical ideas, it is necessary to clarify his views on the subject of church history. Features of the presentation of church history in the works of A.V.’s predecessors. Gorsky. St. Filaret (Drozdov) defines the discipline of church history as “based on solid evidence, raised from private narratives to general considerations and directed towards active instruction of the origin of the Church of God on earth, the changes in its external and internal state that followed and its continuous preservation under the special Providence of preservation, from the beginning of the world to the present day” 71 . Prot. Pavel Khondzinsky notes that “church history implies in St. Philaret not only demonstrates, but also comprehends events (raising from the particular to the general)” 72. The author of “Outlines of Church History”, St. Innokenty (Smirnov) is a supporter of extreme providentialism in history. According to Rev. Pavel Khondzinsky, “the idea of ​​the absolute omnipotence and all-pervasiveness of Divine Providence lies with the saint at the basis of any, not only church-historical judgments” 73. The Archbishop of Penza correlates providence with the action of the Holy Spirit, but his pneumatology has nothing in common with the romantic concept of Western authors, which began to take shape around the same time. Prot. Pavel Khondzinsky believes that the authors of the first domestic textbooks “are moving away from the opposition of Old Testament and New Testament history, on the one hand, and, on the other, from the isolation of church history in itself” 74 . Prot. Georgy Florovsky points to their use of the works of Protestant historians F. Budday and I. Mosheim 75, and Fr. Evgeniy Lyutko notes that the saints “managed to well camouflage their appeal to Mosheim” 76 due to the ambiguous attitude of their colleagues towards his works. O. Eugene draws attention to the fact that in the “Outlines of Church Biblical History” by St. Filaret “systematizes events, describing them according to chronology,” 77 while his colleague divides the material by subject and follows the chronology by century. In "Outlines of Biblical History" by St. Philaret of Moscow, the main guide for which, according to A.V. Gorsky, was the work of Buddeus, and not Schreck, as P.S. writes. Kazansky, he highlights the inadequacy of church chronology and geography. A.V. Gorsky draws attention to the fact that they omit “the gradual disclosure of the plan by which all this moves, considerations of how what goes towards this plan, how the main goal is gradually achieved, how people called to special service in the church gradually prepare for inner perfection” 78. The most significant flaw in the “Outlines of Church History” by St. A. V. Gorsky sees Innokenty of Penza in the presentation of the teaching. He writes: “in our educational book, the teaching is not presented harmoniously and satisfactorily, ... but in a form more suitable for dogmatics than for history” 79. In “The Outline of Biblical History,” Alexander Vasilyevich considers the consideration of the Gospel history to be excessively brief. He draws attention to the fact that the author of the textbook “confines himself to a simple narrative that presents events in Holy Scripture itself, without going deeply into the internal foundations of these events, and, as if deliberately avoiding conjectural judgments about why this happened and what it led to? Of course, it is necessary to allow quite a bit of arbitrariness in determining the merits of events and proximity to the main matter, but without such a view and judgments, history becomes too dead and dry” 80. A comparison of the lecture courses of A. V. Gorsky with the works of A. Neander deserves a separate study. His works have not been translated into Russian, so in this case the main provisions of his church-historical concept are given based on quotes from the publications of A. P. Lebedev and M. E. Postnov. Neander does not have a definition of the subject of church history. In the preface to his five-volume study, “The General History of the Christian Religion and Church” (Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche), he defines his task as follows: “to present the history of the church as a proof of the divine power of Christianity, as a school of Christian instruction, as a voice of edification, teaching and warning resounding through all ages to all who will listen.” 81 Neander's goal was "to understand the history of the Church as the interaction of two factors: divine and human, based on a careful study of individual historical figures and the centuries of their lives" 82 . He traces the genetic development of various aspects of church history, taking into account the mutual influence of Christianity and the history of all mankind. At the same time, Neander considers Orthodox teaching and heresies as a relative approximation to the truth. The Protestant historian correlates the Church with the external social aspect, and religion with the internal, spiritual aspect; their difference is reflected in the very title of his work. Patristics occupies a significant place in Neander's legacy - as a study of the best individual examples of approaching the image of Jesus Christ. The most important question for him is how divine action and human life come into contact in history. He sees an image of this process in the Gospel parable of leaven: “Christianity, as a heavenly ferment (leaven), through the power of divine life (coming into humanity), causes a process of fermentation in human nature - this process begins in the inner depths of human nature, extends its actions both to thought and to external life, in order to make everything self-similar, transform everything, rebuild everything” 83. At the beginning of his teaching career, A.V. Gorsky was really passionate about Neander's methodology. In his notes from the 1930s, he assigns an exclusive place in historiography to his essay “General History of the Christian Religion and Church,” which he calls “an important guide” 84. At this time, Archimandrite Filaret (Gumilevsky) criticized his younger colleague for abstract speculation, which, in his opinion, “flowed from the swamp of the rationalistic, Gnostic, Schleiermacherian, Neanderian,” complaining, “but the German wolf also firmly planted its claws in you, of course, without your knowledge. ... You yourself, without knowing it, become an apostle of an alien spirit" 85 . In the early 40s, A.V. Gorsky wrote that in the person of Neander, “Germany saw the first historian revealing his subject in a complete harmonious whole. For him, all phenomena and events are closely connected, the system is visible everywhere. ...His history is presented by periods and centuries. The most important part is the study of the doctrine” 86, but at the same time, he drew attention to the tension in his construction of a strict sequence of events 87. A.V. Gorsky notes that in his characteristics of historical figures, the German historian “is carried away by newly inculcated opinions and pursues the more visible human side of actions rather than the internal Divine one, with which, in fact, the main figures of the church are presented” 88 . Alexander Vasilyevich assessed the Gospel story of Neander most critically: “his writing largely disagrees with the truth of the Gospel and the Orthodox view of the events of the Gospel. The spirit of the times has taken such hold of the Germans that, wanting to speak the truth, they do not speak. Some choice and preference of one Evangelist over another, some criticism and the idea of ​​allowing the miraculous as little as possible, harmed even the most well-meaning writers, like Neander, and did not allow them to see the truth” 89 . A preliminary comparison of the texts of the Gospel history of both authors did not reveal any identity even in the systematization of the material. Taking into account the comments of A.V. Gorsky regarding the concepts of his predecessors, it can be assumed that he will follow Neander, viewing history as a continuous process of collaboration between God and man, but he will see the determining significance in the internal Divine action. Definition of the subject of church history in the lectures of A. V. Gorsky A systematic presentation of the material of any discipline is determined by the definition of its tasks. In the earliest summary, A.V. Gorsky writes that church history should “depict how the Christian Church, fighting against a hostile world, spread, in what relations its visible body, filled with human infirmities, was in all centuries to the spirit that revived it and what forms it took, what actions it finally produced through its struggle from time immemorial with errors in its members, and in the whole of humanity.” 90. This position, judging by the pneumatological emphasis, dates back to the time of A.V. Gorsky’s passion for romantic ideas characteristic of Neander. Romanticism is also evident in his early diary entries, often quoted in literature: about the development of the dogma of 1836 and in the description of the dispute with St. Filaret (Drozdov), made a year later. The Metropolitan of Moscow draws attention to the novice teacher’s use of romantic terminology: “What is spirit? Have you been able to embrace and explore the spirit of Christianity yourself? Could you fit this into the heads of your students? This is a strange direction in history today. They look at humanity as one person, and assimilate this or that general direction to it” 91. Lebedev baselessly claims that A.V. Gorsky did not take into account the comments of St. in his lectures. Filaret (Drozdova). Alexander Vasilyevich’s texts from the 40s indicate the opposite. In 1838, he writes that “the history of the Church represents, on the one hand, God in the closest relation to humanity, on the other, man in the highest of his aspirations,” 92 and in 1842 he adds that it is also necessary to take into account the action of the forces of evil 93 . From that time on, he defined the history of the Church as “a depiction of the state and changes in the society of people, led by God himself to the most blessed union with Him, from the very time of the origin of this society to our times” 94. In this definition, the emphasis clearly shifts towards a dogmatic understanding of the events of church history and the priority of the action of Divine Providence in it. A.V. Gorsky always emphasizes that the course of history represents the implementation of the Divine plan for the salvation of man, but for its correct understanding it is important to establish the factual circumstances as accurately as possible. As he begins his course, he notes that church history is certainly useful for other theological disciplines: hermeneutics, dogmatic and moral theology, and theological polemics 95 . They, in turn, contribute to solving problems facing church history: moral theology helps to understand the actions of people, polemics help to discover the manifestation of the forces of evil, hermeneutics and dogmatic theology help to understand the action of Divine Providence. In the theology of history, A.V. Gorsky emphasizes the importance of the spiritual interpretation of Revelation in the Orthodox tradition, which allows us to comprehend the connection between the events of the Old Testament and New Testament history. He constantly turns to patristic literature, often quoting the texts of St. Philaret of Moscow - “Commentary on the Book of Genesis” and sermons. The point of view of A.V. Gorsky is opposite to the opinion about the need for historical interpretation of the Holy Scriptures of the majority of Protestant authors and others. Gerasim Pavsky, whose hermeneutic approach caused discussions in the late 30s and early 40s 96. For the church-historical concept of A. V. Gorsky, the foreshadowing in the Old Testament of the triple ministry of Jesus Christ - Prophet, High Priest and King - is of particular importance. He challenges not only the rationalists’ ideas about Him, but also Neander’s dual position: in a letter to Archbishop. Eusebius (Orlinsky) in 1854 by A.V. Gorsky notes that his “very concept of the face of Jesus Christ is very vague” 97. Systematization of the discipline by A.V. Gorsky includes, firstly, a detailed division of history into chronological periods, and secondly, an independent consideration of individual aspects of the life of the Church in each specific period. Periodization of church history The periodization of church history is the main issue in the systematization of the discipline. Traditionally, church history is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. In domestic textbooks, based on the sources used, it is presented in “Outline of Church Biblical History” and “Outline of Church History.” The part of St. Philaret (Drozdov) ends with the events of the Gospel and Apostolic times, and St. Innokenty (Borisov) begins his narrative from the 2nd century, further dividing events into centuries in each period. This principle, which originated in the “Magdeburg Centuries” (the name of the collection is “Centuries” from the Latin word 100), is also preserved by Neander. A.V. Gorsky pays considerable attention to the rationale for the periodization of the discipline, taking into account both the shortcomings and advantages of the authors of domestic textbooks and the German church historian. He views the course of history as the history of the salvation of the human race by divine Providence. According to A.V. Gorsky, the basis for the periodization of church history are changes in the relationship between God and man: the internal state of the Church corresponds to a special action of Providence. The main divisions are due to the Fall, after which people deviated from the direct path to achieving the goal determined by the Creator, and its subsequent correction through the Incarnation: at first man was innocent, then he fell, and finally was restored. Detailed periodization is determined by particular changes in the external life of the Church and the tasks that, in connection with this, it needs to solve. The most detailed explanation of the features of each period, as well as the connections of each subsequent stage with the previous one, is revealed in the manuscripts from fund 304.2. According to A.V. Gorsky, the basis for the periodization of church history are changes in the relationship between God and man: the internal state of the Church corresponds to a special action of Providence. The main divisions are due to the Fall, after which people deviated from the straight path to achieving the goal determined by the Creator, and its subsequent correction through the Incarnation: at first man was innocent, then he fell, and finally was restored. Detailed periodization is determined by particular changes in the external life of the church and the tasks that, in connection with this, it needs to solve. The most detailed explanation of the features of each period, as well as the connections of each subsequent stage with the previous one, is revealed in the manuscripts from fund 304.2. A.V. Gorsky believes that in the periodization of biblical history, St. Philaret of Moscow needs to combine the time of Moses and Joshua into one period, since they both solve the same problem - the education of the Jewish people, and also to unite the Evangelical and Apostolic times, since the Apostles completed the dispensation of the Church begun by Jesus Christ. He draws attention to the fact that from the creation of the world to the last Patriarchs, all peoples were called into the Church, “therefore the execution of the world was universal, while subsequently, although the human race in parts fell to the same vices that appear in the antediluvian world, but since times of ignorance came for those peoples, God’s justice was more lenient towards these fallen people” 98. In addition, he substantiates his disagreement with attempts to periodize Old Testament church history according to particular characteristics. First, the church regulations: the time of the tabernacle, the existence and destruction of the first church and the creation of the second. Secondly, according to doctrine: the introduction of the Law, the establishment of prophetic schools, the period of the prophets, the period of synagogues. The disadvantage of the first option is that “one period will include events of different types” 99, the second approach is one-sided, since “the teaching is only part of the history of the people” 100. In his historical review, A.V. Gorsky singles out the works of I.M. Schreck, a historian of the second half of the 18th century, and, following him, refuses to divide history into centuries. Since history is not a discrete sequence of events, but a continuous process, the chronological boundaries of centuries do not matter. A significant difference between the course of A.V. Gorsky in terms of New Testament history from the domestic textbook is that the Archbishop of Penza in each century examines in parallel the state of individual parts of the Church. According to Alexander Vasilyevich, church schisms fundamentally change the internal state of the separated parts, which is the basis for independent study of the history of the Eastern and Western churches, then Catholic and Protestant, and, finally, the history of individual peoples in modern times also deserves separate study. Following the authors of the “Inscriptions”, A.V. Gorsky believes that the destinies of peoples are decided in history - everyone is called by God in their own time. Just like St. Innocent (Smirnov), he emphasizes the special importance for us of the history of the Russian Church. In his diary on January 14, 1853, A.V. Gorsky writes about its special role in the history of Christianity: it was the Russian Church that was “entrusted with primacy among the Slavic tribes” 101 and entrusted with “the special burden of representing and protecting Orthodoxy” 102. Here he comments on the periodization of Russian church history by Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov), who identifies the following periods: “1, the period of complete dependence of it [the Russian Church] on the Patriarch of Constantinople (988–1240). 2, the period of her gradual transition from this dependence to independence (1240–1589). 3, the period of its independence from 1589.” 103. Alexander Vasilyevich notes that “1) the idea of ​​dependence or independence of the Church does not explain much in our History. Because an external relationship cannot serve to determine the internal course of events, with its modifications, a sufficient basis for dividing periods. 2) The characteristics do not always correspond to the periods” 104. In his course, he, like St. Filaret (Gumilevsky), correlates the division of Russian church history with changes in the church structure: from the beginning of Christianity to the invasion of the Mongols, then to the division of the Metropolis, then to the period of the Patriarchate, and, finally, the establishment of Synodal rule. Systematization of the material of church history in certain periods The next important question is the systematization of the various manifestations of the life of the church within each period. St. Innocent of Penza, prefacing his work, complains about the imperfection of the sources of the time he is studying, which “mark incidents more on their surface than on the inside, more on their size than on their own measure, in relation to a world more sensual than spiritual” 105, and in this he sees the need for a comprehensive consideration of the life of the Church. He highlights the following aspects: “The external state (prosperity) of the Church, including the “Promotion of Providence”; "Disasters of the Church"; "The State of the Church's Doctrine"; "Rituals and Worship"; “Hierarchy state”; “Memorable Persons” (History of Persons); “Heresies and Schisms” 106. In his early lectures, A. V. Gorsky argues for dividing the consideration of church history into individual aspects of the life of the Church within individual periods simply by their diversity, while noting that they have already received independent scientific development in Western church historical science and include the history of the Christian mission, Christian life, Christian archeology, including the history of church administration and Christian worship and the history of teaching. Unlike St. Innocent of Penza, he believes that heresies and schisms do not need to be separated into a separate section, since they relate to the issue of teaching, but from a negative side. The idea of ​​A.V. Gorsky about the predominant action of each person of the Trinity in the destinies of individual peoples, which is also highlighted by Archpriest. Sergius Smirnov, and A.P. Lebedev, based on various archival sources, concerns specifically the theological understanding of various aspects of the life of the Church in connection with the New Testament economy. Dating of texts related to this issue from different storage units allows us to trace the chronology of its formation. In the notes of 1840, written down by his students, A.V. Gorsky still retains the early argumentation of the subject division, but for each nation he proposes to reveal them in chronological order. Church history should show “how one people after another entered the Church, how they were formed under a certain leadership, what fruits came out of this for them” 107. Therefore, A.V. Gorsky considers it useful to highlight five chapters in each period: 1) how, when and where the Church spread and how it felt the reduction of its limits, or what persecution it suffered; 2) state of teaching; 3) information about the service; 4) church decrees; 5) the life of Christians as the fruit of the guidance of the Spirit of God. In a summary dated 1842, he proposes to consider five sides, connecting it with various directions of Divine action and the opposition of the forces of evil to it, but in relation to an individual: “1. The calling of the Divine man into this union in various circumstances and by various means - the following of man, the spread of faith, enmity against this spirit of malice (persecution). 2. Divine guidance of man: a) teaching, faith, human considerations, false wisdom, heresies; b) worship: sacraments, actual prayer institutions, superstition; c) through the hierarchy, which well governs the Church and gives the whole body a form of unity; attitude towards other government agencies, splits. 3. Transformation of life - not only by these means, but also by the general ways of providence and special institutions, chosen by God, the vices of time" 108. Moreover, according to A.V. Gorsky, in the calling under divine guidance, the state under it and its consequences, “there is some (my italics - L.K.) correspondence to their actions of the Persons of the Trinity. Calling by God the Father, threefold ministry of the Son and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Everywhere we must keep in mind the action of the Divine and the human attitude towards it - right and wrong" 109 . In a lecture of 1844 from another storage unit, this idea is revealed in relation to the history of Christian peoples. It is this fragment that A.P. Lebedev cites with a slight abbreviation in his article. Here it is already said quite definitely that God the Father calls people into the Church, the Son of God leads them, and his leadership is completed under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Quote from the work of Rev. Sergius Smirnova refers to the latest material - a summary of church history, which can be dated no earlier than the mid-50s 110. A. V. Gorsky could have borrowed ideas about the identity of the actions of the persons of the Trinity in relation to man and the Church from the “Commentary on the Book of Genesis” by St. Filaret (Drozdova). The Metropolitan of Moscow believes that since “in the universal Church, every person who turns to God is, as it were, His private church, then it should not seem like a confusion of concepts if the path of Providence and faith in the visible church is accepted as an indication of man’s inner path to union with God” 111. Thus, the idea of ​​the predominant action of the persons of the Trinity in history appears in the handwritten notes of A.V. Gorsky in the early 40s and persists in the next decade. However, in the introductory lectures of the list of Hieromonk Gideon, only the identification of three acts of Providence in history is preserved, but without their connection with specific persons of the Trinity. Perhaps this was done on the recommendation of A.V. Gorsky himself, who was wary of those materials that went beyond the academic audience. The position of A.V. Gorsky differs significantly from the point of view of Joachim Florsky, which Gavryushin mentions, since the Catholic author highlights the sequential action of the persons of the Trinity in history, and Alexander Vasilyevich considers their simultaneous participation in various aspects of the life of Christian peoples. So, in his lecture course, both aspects of systematization - both chronological and substantive - receive theological justification. In the history of the Church, according to A.V. Gorsky, the Divine plan of salvation is revealed, not in theory, but in its very implementation. In comparison with the authors of domestic textbooks, A.V. Gorsky not only does not belittle the importance of Divine action in history, as modern Protestant authors do, seeking to reduce everything to natural causes, but shows that it permeates all aspects of the life of every person and individual parts of the Church, which correlate with nations and kingdoms. Unlike St. Innocent of Penza, A.V. Gorsky discovers in Providence the action of not just the Holy Spirit, but each person of the Trinity. Historical aspect of the lecture course by A. V. Gorsky The priority of the theological nature of church history does not detract from the attention of A.V. Gorsky to its historical aspect. The method of church history, in his opinion, should be the same as for any historical discipline. This presupposes the reliability of sources, the truth of events, the harmony and systematic presentation of the material. Alexander Vasilyevich considers it useful to use the developments of related church disciplines - chronology, geography, diplomacy and statistics. In addition, A.V. Gorsky emphasizes that especially in the history of the New Testament, “one cannot help but enter into close connection with a new vast area - civil and political history” 112. These provisions, in contrast to his theology of history, are reflected in sufficient detail in the literature, including in A.P. Lebedev. Quoting a fragment about the tasks that the teacher sets for himself in his course, Alexey Petrovich excludes the last paragraph from it. Here A.V. Gorsky characterizes his own methodology for studying church history differently than A.P. presents it. Lebedev: “The method is not skeptical, but judicious and practical, not to collect only facts, but to describe the internal connection between them, not to idealize, but to extract ideas of fact from the fact itself, to develop primarily what is useful for us” 113. For A.V. Gorsky, Russian church history was his favorite part of the course, obviously as the most useful. There were significantly more opportunities for deep independent research, both on the basis of archival documents introduced into scientific circulation, and in the study of various aspects of the life of the Russian people - language, way of life, culture and art. A.V. Gorsky actively collaborated in the field of paleography and archeology with representatives of secular science. A. V. Gorsky saw the weak side of domestic textbooks on church history in the methodology and considered it advisable to use the achievements of modern Western historical science, but did so with caution. His notes mention numerous works of modern authors of various faiths and nationalities, whose names are not found in other domestic historiographic reviews, for example, in A.P. Lebedev and others. Alexandra Ivantsova-Platonova A.V. Gorsky believes that “at every time it is necessary to pay attention to the development, means and degree of development of teaching, faith and piety and its relationship to the whole area of ​​Christian history. Where did the course of development stop in the previous period? Who continued his movement in the present? On what main principles? How was it formed in these very movements? Who or what did you encounter and fight? And what was the consequence of this collision? 114. Just like Neander, he considers it necessary to independently examine individual aspects of the life of the Church, since they have their own historical logic. Among the various above-mentioned already formed areas of church history, following the German historian, he especially highlights the history of teaching and its part - patrolology. However, A.V. Gorsky’s approach to understanding them has changed over time. In his notes from the 1930s, Alexander Vasilyevich defines the history of Neanderian teaching as “the genetic development and depiction of various ways of understanding Christian teaching under the influence of personal characteristics and forms of education of people and an explanation of their attitude to the original apostolic Christianity” 115. It is the history of doctrine, in his opinion, “of all the particular church-historical sciences that most deserves a separate presentation” 116, since within the framework of general church history, rather, the consequences of the development of dogmas that manifest themselves in the life of the Church are considered. The own tasks of this discipline are to identify “the first beginning or germ of any understanding of Christian teaching”, to present “various dogmatic directions, especially in terms of their internal genetic development, in terms of their beginning and internal relationship with each other” 117. Only after the history of dogmas in the list of issues related to the history of doctrine are “Christian Symbols and Confessions; history of Christian theology and theological science; patristics or the history of the subjective development and depiction of the life of excellent teachers of the Church, the methods of their education, Christian and human characteristics in general, the properties of their spirit, their attitude to their age, their actions in word, deed and writings; history of heresies" 118. In 1840, P. U. Palimpsestov’s notes noted that “there is no need in each period to cite passages from writers who expounded the doctrine of faith in their writings; it is enough to present it at length after the times of the Apostles. Because the Orthodox Church again did not invent anything, but defended and preserved the true teaching. The dogmas of faith have been the same at all times. Here we must also present teachings contrary to Orthodoxy, show how the Church defended its Orthodoxy, refuted false teachings, what exactly the controversial subjects were, on what occasion, who the defenders were, what works they wrote and what Church orders were made” 119. In 1844, A.V. Gorsky singled out the tasks of the history of teaching as follows: “a) to observe the very preservation in the Church of everything communicated to it by Jesus Christ. ...b) (observe) the gradual revelation of Christian truths; ... c) she has to depict private arbitrary changes in the teaching of truth ... introduced by famous individuals or entire societies, on the other hand, she must show how the Church protected itself from such willful changes so that they did not spread harmful influence on other members of it, as it admonished those who were in error; as with great rigor and certainty she affirmed arbitrariness" 120. Thus, in understanding the phenomena occurring in the life of the Church, including in the history of teaching, by the mid-40s, the main thing for A.V. Gorsky was not identifying the genesis of the natural course of events, but the gradual revelation of Christian truths in the Church Tradition through the works of fathers and teachers, thanks to the ongoing triple ministry of its Head and the action of the Holy Spirit. The concept of church history, which was identified on the basis of A. V. Gorsky’s published introductory lectures on church history, differs from the ideas about his lecture course that have formed to date in the literature. A comparison of texts from different years makes it possible to trace significant changes in the main provisions and methodology, clarification of assessments in the historiography of the subject by the mid-40s. Church history as presented by A. V. Gorsky is an integral theological discipline, covering the Old Testament and New Testament times, which is based on the Orthodox understanding of soteriology as the Providential action of God to save the human race in collaboration with it, overcoming the resistance of the forces of evil. Internal changes in the state of the human race determine the periodization of church history. The original idea of ​​A.V. Gorsky about the predominant action of each person of the Trinity in history, quoted in the literature without connection with his general concept of discipline, is a development of the position of Saints Philaret of Moscow and Innocent of Penza that the destinies of individual Christian peoples are decided in history. Alexander Vasilyevich correlates the action of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the New Testament economy with the systematization of materials in the history of national churches, highlighting a special place in Russian church history. A. V. Gorsky’s own assessments of Neander’s works in the 40s do not correspond to A. P. Lebedev’s statement about his deep dependence on the German historian. It can be said that in the methodology A.V. Gorsky combined two approaches that S.I. Smirnov adopts from Neander and the Catholic theologian Bossuet: the use of modern scientific methods for studying private events, taking into account, among other things, natural cause-and-effect relationships, allows him to form the most complete objective basis for their theological understanding. A. V. Gorsky's lectures represent an original example of a holistic presentation of the entire volume of church history, in which the Orthodox theological understanding of history is in organic connection with modern scientific methodology. Solving the question of their scientific value requires a more detailed study of individual sections of the course, taking into account the identified general principles of its construction and methodology. Gorsky A., prot. Lecture materials on church history Brief comments on published sources The published archival materials are, firstly, the author's manuscripts of individual fragments of the introductory part of the course from different years, stored in the Manuscripts department of the Russian State Library in the collection No. 78 of A. V. Gorsky: cardboard 4, storage units 1 and 2. Both sources refer to the period of teaching the discipline in full and contain notes from different years, combined by Alexander Vasilyevich himself in separate notebooks, which do not represent sequential presentation of the introductory part. In storage unit 1, the first entries date back to the 1930s, the second half is dated September 3, 1842. In storage unit 2, the first part is undated, the second fragment dates back to September 2, 1838, and the third to September 7, 1844. The archival covers of both storage units indicate the 30s and 40s. The latest of the published materials is also the author’s manuscript of A. V. Gorsky “Lesson program for the class of General Church History” - contained in storage unit 1 cardboard 2. It may also date back to the end of the 50s, when this section of the discipline remained the only one in his teaching activity. A.V. Gorsky’s own handwritten materials are written in small detail and contain insertions in the margins, including those made in pencil. Therefore, in some cases, it was unfortunately not possible to completely restore the text. A complete sequential presentation of the introductory lectures is contained in the notes of his course on church history, written in another larger and better readable hand, dated 1840-1841. It consists of three storage units (5,6,7) in landscape format in hardcover. Introductory lectures precede the presentation of Old Testament history and are located in storage unit 5 cardboard 2. Most likely, this summary was made by A.V. Gorsky’s student Pyotr Justinovich Palimpsestov. Two more versions of the introductory lectures by A. V. Gorsky are included in the lists of Old Testament history stored in fund 304.2 of the Additional Collection of Manuscripts of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra under numbers 125–129, attributed to his authorship, and 274–278, listed as a work by an unknown author. But inside the notes there is an indication from the copyist, Hieromonk Gideon, that this material is also notes from Alexander Vasilyevich’s lectures. Introductory lectures are included in storage units No. 125 and No. 274. They are almost identical and, apparently, represent a later version of A. V. Gorsky’s lectures than that presented in P. I. Palimpsestov’s notes, since they contain additions to his text. These materials have been translated into electronic format. The published version offers a combined text, in which the 1840/41 abstract is taken as a basis, supplemented by fragments from the abstracts of fund 304.2, in italics indicating places of citation. A literature review will also be presented for these two manuscripts. This illustrates the process of finalizing the lecture course by the author in the mid-40s. A.V. Gorsky also mentions in it little-known authors of modern times, whose names were written down by students in Russian transcription in some cases differently in all manuscripts, some of them could not be clarified from other sources. Underlining in the text is the author's. In all manuscripts except P. U. Palimpsestov’s outline, the numbering is sheet, while his is page numbered. podpisPublication preparation –– L. A. Karelina Church history. Inaugural Lectures (1830–1840) OR RSL. F. 78. K. 4. Unit. hr. 1. The history of the Christian Church has as its object to depict how the Christian Church, fighting against a hostile world, spread, in what relations its visible body, filled with human infirmities, was in all centuries to the spirit that revived it and what forms it took, what actions it finally produced through its struggle from time immemorial with errors in its members, and in the whole of humanity. All materials pertaining to the accomplishment of this task can be presented in four main respects, of which the first must deal with the history of the expansion or contraction of the limits of the Church; the second - the history of church regulation and administration; the third - the history of teaching (or the formation of the thoughts of the Church) and the fourth - the history of Christian life and worship. The sources of the Christian Church are partly mediocre, partly direct. The mediocre ones are church historians, because they do not directly present the material of history, but only narrate in accordance with their knowledge and views, and then the direction of historical criticism must extract pure facts from them. Direct sources, on the contrary, are the materials of history themselves, i.e. monuments and inscriptions or written monuments. The latter come in various genera. For all parts of Church history, and mainly for the history of government, Christian life, the correspondence of famous teachers of the church is important, which was especially abundant in the formation and beginnings of the Greek Empire; for church government, especially state laws relating to the Church; for church administration, worship and teaching - acts of councils and correspondence of popes; for life and teaching - sermons of teachers of the Church; for worship and teaching - liturgy; for the history of doctrine - apology and confession of faith; in general, purely dogmatic and polemical writings of the fathers and teachers of the Church. The auxiliary sciences of church history include: 1. Historical sciences in general, namely: A. For the history of the spread and administration of the Church - world history and political history of peoples, then the history of law, especially knowledge of legislation, especially those countries where the Church spread and was formed. B. For the history of the spread of the Church and teachings - the history of enlightenment in general, the history of religions, especially knowledge of the religions of those countries where Christianity spread. S. For the history of teaching - the history of philosophy and literature. The following sciences are closely related to church history: 2. For understanding ancient church sources - church philology. 3. For a critical study of the authenticity, integrity and reliability of sources of church history (not yet particularly processed) - church diplomacy. 4. To get acquainted with the locality of church events and the order of time in which they took place - church geography and statistics, and (also especially not yet processed) church chronology. Individual parts of general Church history can naturally be considered in it only in general terms without being unduly burdened with details and particulars in their entirety. Therefore, some parts of Church history were treated separately from the whole. Thus, we compiled: 1. From the history of the expansion and contraction of the Church - the history of the Christian mission. 2. From the history of church administration and Christian worship - Christian archeology or the genetic development of the image of the most important rites and forms of the ancient Church, especially during the first six centuries, since then the basis for the development of the church in all directions - both in relation to teaching, and in relation to worship and external structure - reached its full formation. Everything later only asserted on this basis. @3. History of Christian life.@ @4. History of Christian teaching@: a) The history of Christian dogmas or the genetic development and depiction of various ways of understanding Christian teaching under the influence of personal characteristics and forms of education of people and an explanation of their relationship to the original apostolic Christianity. b) of all the particular church historical sciences, the history of dogma deserves a separate presentation, because it has very little place in general history. Although general church history considers Christianity as a doctrine, church history and the history of dogma have very different interests. General church history has an extensive interest. The history of dogmas is an intense interest. The latter explores the very first beginning or germ of any understanding of Christian teaching, represents various dogmatic directions, especially in terms of their internal genetic development, in terms of their beginning and internal relationship with each other. Whereas the first concerns these special understandings only when they arouse significant attention and give rise to external church events, the external course of which it is obliged to present. Therefore, if we were to depict history dogmas in their order, according to their periods, determined by the appearance of any new general dogmatic trends, then such a development of the history of dogmas in the history of the universal church would disrupt the connection or would be detrimental to the thoroughness. c) Christian Symbols and Confessions. c) History of Christian theology and theological science. e) Patristics or the history of the subjective development and depiction of the life of excellent teachers of the Church, the methods of their education, Christian and human characteristics in general, the properties of their spirit, their attitude towards their age, their actions in word, deed and writings. The beginning of the Church or the union in which man is with God is hidden in the very creation of man. Moses says that God 121 formed the human body from dust and “breathed into him the breath of life.” When God had only formed the human body from the earth, which was the source of life in itself, according to the word of God it brought out living animals; - then, although the body of man was not dead, he was not yet a complete man, the image of the invisible God, and there was still no union between this creature and the Creator. But when He breathed into him the breath of life, and this breath of the ever-present Spirit became an eternal part of man’s being, then the formation of man was completed, and at that moment a close, continuous union was founded between God-created man and God himself - the Church. With this breath imprinted on a person, in the depths of his being, the image of his Creator or the eternal living testimony of a person about the True, Holy and All-Perfect God. When this consciousness was revealed in a person, recognizing it with the soul as truth, goodness, bliss, the person internally entered into union with God, recognizing that God is in him, as in God the foundation of the Church. (The dogmatic definition of what the image of God is is not included in the scope of our studies. In Scripture, this is spoken about in addition to Genesis in the epistles of Apostle Paul Eph. IV, 23 and Col. III, 10. Both epistles were written at the same time and the words of one in a broad context are explained by the words of the other. But is the complete teaching about the image of God in man exhausted by these [inaudible]?). One can imagine the Creator speaking, seeing, having a face (with which he breathed breath), hands (with which he created the body), legs (he brought animals to Adam, walked in paradise). Therefore, to represent the Creator in a bodily image. So, when the Creator says: Let us create man in our image..., then we can deduce from this from the Divine words that God assimilated to man those forms in which he himself acted during creation. But did the Creator really take on bodily forms and how did He subsequently appear to people? But is all this said about him by Moses in a human form? Why does the Creator take the forms of man when there was no man yet? Breath of life - Heb. the plural form is more often used than the singular (Genesis III, 14,17 and many other cases in Geselius). How was this union supposed to come about? The concept of the history of the Church. It differs from the history of religion both in the sense that it refers only to the true religion, and in the fact that it is not limited to the fate of one doctrine, but also pays attention to the external state of the society professing it. The most detailed disclosure of the subject of the history of the Church: three main divisions are presented in it - God who calls, the person who is called and his salvation. The history of the Church represents continuous activity - the struggle of light with darkness, sin with the truth of God, man or the human race under the influence of one force or another. There are five main aspects from which this struggle is viewed in the history of the Church: 1) the calling of the Divine man into this union in various circumstances and by various means - the following of man, the spread of faith, enmity against this spirit of malice (persecution); 2) Divine guidance by man: a) teaching, faith, human considerations, false wisdom, heresies; b) worship: sacraments, actual prayer institutions, superstition; c) through the hierarchy, which well governs the Church and gives the whole body a form of unity; attitude towards other government agencies, schisms; 3) transformation of life - not only by these means, but also by the general ways of providence and special institutions, chosen by God, the vices of time. The history of the Church is an image of the state and changes in the society of people, led by God himself to the most blissful union with Him, from the very time of the origin of this society to our times. Changes are of two kinds: those occurring according to the law of internal disclosure of the power of the human spirit in the pursuit of the shown goal; - and having their origin directly in the Divinity, which commensurates its omnipotent orders with the course of the human spirit in its time. The first are the complex action of his entire life, since the foundation of the Church in the spirit of man himself and this foundation according to the structure of nature is the center of his life, then all its branches are in a necessary connection with them, and as they emanate from him, they act back on him. Just as a seed develops sprouts from itself and through its sprouts takes into itself an extraneous force akin to itself, it itself suffers changes in its development: this happens here too. The latter are the main and universal ones relating to the whole Church, or some part. But besides these two types of changes, a third must be allowed - from the direct influence of the spirit of evil. This is how it was at the beginning of the history of the Church, during the time of Moses, and especially during the time of Jesus Christ, and so it will be in recent times. From here the historical epochs or various states of the Church are determined. In depicting the guidance of the Divine, we must distinguish: the calling under this guidance, the state under this guidance, the consequences or fruits of this in relation to the main goal, like in every thing there is a beginning, a middle and an end. Moreover, in this there is some correspondence with their actions of the Persons of the Trinity. Calling by God the Father, threefold ministry of the Son and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Everywhere we must keep in mind the Divine action and the human attitude towards it - right and wrong. Invocation and introduction. From one blood He made all men, He settled nations over the entire face of the earth, defining the days of each of them with a designated time and limit, so that they would seek God, whether they would feel and find Him: although, however, He is not far from each of them: for by Him He lives, and moves, and exists. Some are called in the time of the Law, others in the New Testament. Nature, the destinies of nations, special messengers from the Lord as nations (they should not be confused with messengers in the Church) their prophets. Actually, the preparation and revelation of the human spirit. Doctrine, sacraments, hierarchy. Life Old Testament history – lectures (with additions) (1830–1840) OR RSL. F. 78. K. 4. Unit. hr. 2. When starting to study the history of the Church, we should not imagine this work to be quite easy for our strength. On the contrary, at the present time, moreover, with the zealous assistance of all branches of learning to compile the particular civil history of each people, we find very little that is satisfactory in the creations that were recently considered the very perfection of their kind, then much less can one expect the desired success for one who takes the trouble to survey all times in the totality, and in all times to observe the course of development not of citizenship, not of learning, not of art, but what is above all this - the Church. What constitutes a significant difficulty in studying the history of the Church lies in the nature of the subject itself and the sources from which materials must be drawn. The subject is of extraordinary height and vastness. Sources are sometimes scarce, sometimes numerous and poorly researched. 1. The subject of Church history surpasses all other types of history. If many stories have man as their subject, generally serve to depict all the different aspects of his internal and external being, the activity of the forces bestowed upon him by the Creator of his nature under the watchful eye of his Providence: then, according to the indication of the same experience, the highest affiliation of his most excellent being, his highest demands and forces, having as their goal one infinite beginning and prototype, and to present the attempts and successes of his activity on this path not under mortal, but under the immediate and most powerful influences Deities - this is the subject of the history of the Church, which therefore can be called the history of humanity in the highest kind of activity and the history of the Divine in the purest closest and clearest relation to humanity. What, then, will all other types of history be before it? Just as the idea of ​​an infinite being in man surpasses everything else that is in him, so history, representing its development under the animating, fulfilling principle of the Spirit of God, rises above those stories that people have been given to notice the short-term manifestation of its lower level - in the fragile body of his citizenship, or to follow its diverse insights in the field of the philosophizing mind. Here, in these phenomena, she is a guest, for a while, and there - until now. Here everything is built for her [inaudible] through the Holy Spirit. This is how she herself opens up and becomes enlightened. This is the general meaning of the history of the Church, which it receives as a result of its purpose! What else can we contrast in the entire field of human knowledge with the multitude of pure, immeasurably high and inexhaustibly rich internal drives and objects that it presents to us? We will not find a single era in the history of the Church that would be equal in this respect to the era of Moses. Whose spirit will it take to measure and exhaust all the abundance of divinely sublime phenomena in the private history of the life of the One Son of the Virgin? At the same time, the history of the Church does not forget that since it is concerned with depicting the fate of the Church in the natural course of its development, it must concern such extreme subjects of the descent of humanity. One must go through with them all the degrees of his spiritual humiliation and all the illumination and false light, so as not to hide the spark of any predisposition in the person himself, but to preserve the coal from the heavenly altar brought, not to take everything away from the person, but to guard and guard the glory of God; she must introduce a narrow area of ​​evil, always opposed to the heavenly principle, with all its entrances, paths and outcomes, guile and violence, eternal triumph and eternal destruction. So, she needs the eye of the seraphim in order to read so freely in the depths of human hearts, to look so fearlessly at the glory of God. If in general the observation of phenomena occurring in the depths of the human spirit is associated with great difficulty, it is exposed to the danger of many errors and delusions; then what is worth such a deep revelation of all the powers of the human spirit in both its directions to heaven and hell, which belongs to the pen of church history! 2. The subject of Church history presents an important challenge to study due to its vastness. The history of the Church must embrace: a) all times; b) to some extent all peoples and c) at all times in the history of each people many different aspects are subject to consideration. A) Starting from the first moment of the existence of the world, she leads the thread of her narrative through all centuries, and, while all the stories of the world and humanity will disappear with the last picture of this world, on the day that God judges man, her thread will not yet be interrupted. On earth, the Church is only in its first initial period; its next history was only the beginning here; it will take an entire eternity to complete it. There, when the first features of it are revealed to the eyes of the blessed, contemplation of the observation of divine paths in guiding each and every one to salvation, i.e. to the development in each and every one of the genuine true life of the spirit, of universal and pure paths, the development of many known ones will amount to as now, to some extent, constitutes the divine pleasure of the worthy. But not to mention this final limit of its continuation, hidden in boundless eternity, it would be impossible for the short-term human eye to reach with its vision and from the very beginning to see the first millennia of its continuation, at such a distance to distinguish between the very times, to discern in each time its own individual features - if more than two-thirds of time were not depicted by the Spirit of God Himself. So sacred history alone can boast that several notebooks of it were written by the finger of God. B) All nations. This thought, undoubtedly, is allowed in relation to the scope of the history of the New Testament Church, and becomes true in relation to the history of the Old Testament in the sense that even after the economy of God, leaving for the time being the direct leadership of the whole world in the affairs of the Church, chose a special people for this, and in this chosen people one can and should see only such a temporary instrument for the union of all fallen humanity with the Supreme principle of its life, which did not liberate industry divine from the gradual preparation and other parts of it. The cause of God did not stand when, apparently, so many tribes of pagans were left to themselves. This is proven by the fact that they prepared very well for their time of action. The only thing is that, since providence had special goals regarding their tribes, special ways were used to achieve them. But the history of the Church is obliged to reveal them whenever possible. What kind of effort will be required to to shed at least some light on this part of the Church, still in the chaos of primitive fermentation, in order to discern what and how much of their preparation for entry into full membership of the Church should be attributed to the lessons of their own experience, experienced in evil and reaching the darkest consciousness of blindness, what and how much to the lessons and instructions of teachers. Without any doubt, not without the will of Providence, the revelations of their unbelief and wickedness are revealed to them? Or when these deeds were not quite bold, at least through doubt, the foundations of blind credulity in blind reason were undermined and aroused to seek the beginning of the highest certainty to rush towards evidence of true Divinity - such directions were very clearly expressed in the faith of the pagans in the first centuries of Christianity, and thus, imperceptibly and indiscriminately leading to the very source of truth - and finally, in what gradualness they reached the lot destined for them. C) Several different parties. We are asked to pay attention to the Church at every particular time: a) as a society subject to the conditions of all human societies; b) as a society distinguished from everyone else by the teaching of faith and piety; c) their own external life structure, power and legislation, their morals. In the first case, we are talking mainly about the history of the New Testament. It is impossible not to enter into close connection with a new vast area - civil and political history. In the latter, when it is necessary to consider the state of the teaching, one should not be content with just counting the latest thoughts rediscovered in each department of time, in the history of the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, in the history of the New Testament a saying that not only reveals the general course and state of the teaching of the Church: it is necessary at every time to pay attention to the development, means and degree of development of teaching, faith and piety and its relationship to the whole area of ​​Christian history. Where did the course of development stop in the previous period? Who continued his movement in the present? On what main principles? How was it formed in these very movements? Who or what did you encounter and fight? And what was the consequence of this collision? In general, humanity, deluded in its blindness, achieves conviction in any truth revealed to it by Holy Providence to the full consciousness of its dignity in no other way than through a long series of mistakes and stumbling blocks on the way to it. All this has application more for the history of the New Testament Church, but it should not be ignored in the history of the Old Testament Church. Is it important for us in Holy Scripture to explain the prophecies and indicate the Face of the Messiah? Why has the course and direction of the subject of the teachings of the prophets not been explored at all? Why have the riches of the Psalter of David not been revealed? And its hymns, which are so vast and must have an influence on the spirit of the Church? Isn’t this necessary to form a complete concept of the state of the Church in its periods? c) requires a separate presentation of the history of rituals and church regulations and administration; but even here, one is not satisfied with just a dry extraction from books or ancient monuments of information about the beginning and establishment of certain rituals, festivals, etc., about the degrees of hierarchy, their power, councils, their rules; it must [inaudible] that history is not archaeology, canon law, what is presented here in a brief and dead form must be depicted there in all the fullness of life, along with the advantages and disadvantages with which it appeared in reality, should not be omitted out of sight of the spirit itself, on which all the appearances of the church were supported, as they were in themselves. From the history of inner life and morals it is known that religion has as its subject the moral wealth of the human race, that the very theoretical truths it offers lead only to this latter. The Church is the school of this education, and shouldn’t we also see the successes of this higher education in the history of the Church? So, an article on life and morals in the history of the Church is as necessary as an article on teaching: otherwise it would mean that, having presented only half of the subject, we would assure that we have shown everything we could. So, this is how many important demands appear at our first glance at our object, which we cannot refuse to satisfy. Why and where can these be satisfied? The sources needed for this in the entire history of the ancient Church can serve almost exclusively as Holy Scripture, which, due to the extraordinary brevity of the narration in the history of the first times of the Church before Moses, and after the time of Moses, due to the merging in its narration of the element of the civil chosen people and the church, and in general, due to its essential purpose of being a kind of school in life, does not tell us much that we need to present in clarity this or that period of previous times, and to explain the internal affairs of the Church. In the history of the New Testament Church, in accordance with the indicated requirements, it is necessary to turn to the most original sources, to the monuments of the Christian Church, which she left to us: because the historical outlines already made from them are in many parts unsatisfactory, and because they are borrowed from the hands of people who of different faiths have reasons in some cases to clearly speak against the truth, in others, at least, they do not speak out, these cannot be essential guidelines. What will your own study of the more numerous monuments of Christian antiquities require? This is how not only years are consumed, but also the lives of the most hardworking exponents. – One important guide in this case is “History of the Christian Religion and Church” by Neander. Having presented to you all these difficulties of studying the history of the Church at the first step along it, I had the goal: 1) to have an apology to you in the event that my efforts to meet all the requirements do not prove satisfactory for your desires; from this, at least, you can see that I understood the importance of my duty, and subsequent experience will show whether I had enough zeal to comply with it; 2) to arouse in you a love for a subject so important in the circle of your education, which seems to only need food, only needs an opportunity to open it, and finally, 3) to unite our hearts in a common prayer to the Lord, so that he would give us in [inaudible] in those contemplations of his many glorious deeds to taste so much sweetness that we wish with all our soul and with all our hearts to be involved both in the Church of the firstborn in heaven and in experiences human leadership, revealed in the history of the Church, to find so many instructions for ourselves so that we ourselves unswervingly adhere to the rules and the closest path to it. On the importance and benefits of historical church studies 1. Importance in itself. The history of the Church represents, on the one hand, God in the closest relation to humanity, and on the other, man in the highest of his aspirations. To the extent that a person’s religious aspiration is higher than that of others, so much is his history superior to others. How much tenderness arouses the contemplation of the divine Face of the Redeemer in His public service and suffering, contemplation from the beginning of the world to the present day, the Spirit of God active in the Church and uniting everything within itself! Not in miraculous actions alone is His presence revealed, but especially - 1) in this general government of the entire human race, according to which at one time one or another part of it is subjected to His special influence, and thus the whole body of the Church, one Adam, is constituted; 2) in institutions established from time to time for the benefit of the Church, for example, the Old Testament prophetic schools, in the New Testament - in schools, monasticism; 3) in the private education of some special persons in the Church (Abraham, Moses, David, Apostles: Peter, Paul, Church Fathers Augustine, Chrysostom). Since the Church from its beginning until now constitutes one great union, then each member of this union, as soon as he has the opportunity, should take care to become acquainted with it, each heir to the spirit of former times. For those who, in this union, are chosen to be builders of the mysteries of Christ, history serves as a necessary guide, both in science and in life. Church history contains materials for all theological sciences: A) Study of Holy Scripture - 1) history shows the circumstances of the origin of the famous books of Holy Scripture and explains their content: this is so in the books of the prophets, so in the last. Ap. Pavel. 2) history introduces various directions, interpretations and, thus, opens up a way to properly use them when explaining Holy Scripture. Alexandria School, Antioch School; B) Dogmatics. What is dogmatics as a non-systematically compiled revealed teaching about God and his relationship to us, revealed in the Church during its existence. There is no place for one’s own image in the content of dogma; C) Moral theology - history introduces the best spiritual works, examples of life; D) Through polemics, history shows the enemies of truth, how they were overthrown and how they can be overthrown in the future, teaches condescension towards those who differ in their views, E) In life and pastoral ministry, history is also an excellent teacher. The human heart - its illnesses, the way of acting to heal them - moreover, arouse and maintain zeal of the spirit, devotion to one’s service. In particular, the study of church history is useful for the Russian theologian. It makes it possible to see: 1) what we have and what we still do not have in comparison with other churches, for example, independent theological and church-historical scholarship; 2) how they should act in our time. Comparison of the present position of the statutes and teachings of the Church with the ancient: a) leads to an invariable conviction in the truth of the Orthodoxy of the Greek-Russian Church, b) the influence on our Church of the movements that took place in others closest to us and teaches us to observe caution in the very borrowing from others of their own, and finally, a look at the past and present position of our Church puts us in the correct attitude to our time. The subject of our studies is the history of the Church, and, in fact, Christian history. When starting this matter, we must form a more separate concept about it. The Church is a society led by God himself towards blissful union with him. From here it is clear that in the Church the union of people is assumed not only among themselves in certain relationships, but also with God. The beginning of this union is in the Creator himself. But just as it is true that at creation itself the foundation of the Church or his union with the Divine was laid in man, therefore, there is no doubt that this union was not preserved by man in its original strength. He was torn apart by sin, everyone feels it [inaudible]. Sin became the basis of a new union of man with a force hostile to the Divine, hostile to our own nature. Thus, sin revealed in man a series of new phenomena alien to him, set [inaudible] forever, as long as he is on earth, always disrupting his initially established union with the Divine. The Divinity did not want to completely dissolve this union, but at the same time, it decided not suddenly, and not here on earth [inaudible], to restore it to its original purity and strength. Now, in time and here on earth, only preparation must be made for that state when we will all be one with God, when the words of the high priestly prayer of the Redeemer of the world are fulfilled: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” This preparation is carried out according to a previously established plan, some features of which are revealed to us, but everything will be revealed only in eternity. Some, because, for example, we do not know how many peoples in the ancient world and millions of people were brought and will be brought into this blissful unity after the appearance of the Sun of Truth, who used His light. Thus, the history of the Church available to us is the revelation of the divine plan by which humanity will be raised to a blissful union with the Divine. It reveals this plan not in its theoretical design, but in its very implementation. The materials of Church history are divided into the following main sections: We must see: A) How God calls one people after another into his bosom, how, willingly or not without resistance, people follow this attraction. If, according to the Word of the Savior, no one comes to Him, and if the Father calls him, then here we must see the predominant action of God The Father who wants all mankind to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Having produced all people from a single blood, He settled peoples throughout the entire world of the earth, determining the residence of each of them, delineating times and limits so that they would seek God, and when, according to the plan of the general world government, the turn comes for one or another people to become part of the renewed humanity, then, through the common paths of his providence or through well-known strong figures, he sticks the wild raspberry to the fruitful root. This was the case at the very first appearance of Christianity, and in subsequent times. A new order usually does not suddenly take the place of the old one, darkness does not suddenly give way to light. Depending on how a person is addicted to his past way of life, how his spirit has opened up to the acceptance of religion, truth, love and goodness, it can be more difficult or easier for him. Often, like a blind man, he arms himself against what constitutes his essential good. This happens to entire people. Thus, the history of the spread of the Church is closely connected with the history of persecution against it, which is pacified by the patience of the martyrs, the thorough defense of the Divine truth (Apologists) and the special actions of Divine Providence. People finally recognize their error and stop persisting. Now Church history must show B) as the people brought into the fence of the Church, they are guided in it by the Head of the Church, the Son of God Jesus Christ, who, as the Great Prophet, revealed the light of true knowledge of God to the whole world, as the true High Priest gave humanity the means of grace-filled sanctification, as the King rules through its servants with the entire body of the Church according to the laws of His Divine will. The Church at the same time is both a school of truth for those who are guided, and a church for their sanctification, and a spiritual kingdom, in which each person is assigned his own place and everyone submits to one Supreme invisible power, governed on the basis of its laws by the visible hierarchy. So, here attention should be paid to: a) the teaching of the Church, b) worship, c) hierarchical government. True, everything that needed to be revealed for the enlightenment of people was revealed through Jesus Christ and his Apostles once and for all, the means of sanctification were also offered once and forever the same, the main foundations for government laid in the beginning must be unchanged. Therefore, it would seem that there can be no history here; it is only necessary to show in history the formation of the Church, what was done for it by its Divine founder and the chosen builders of the mysteries of his Church. But history must: a) observe the very preservation in the Church of everything communicated to it by Jesus Christ. She must notice how at different times, with different education of people in different circumstances of the Church, the truths of Divine Revelation and all the essential institutions of Christianity under the influence of the Supreme Ruler of the Church were maintained in their immutability, although they sometimes received different external expressions; b) the gradual revelation of Christian truths and institutions. In the history of the hierarchy - how the relationship of the Church to the State before Constantine the Great, and how after; c) she will have to depict private arbitrary changes in the teaching of truth or in sanctified institutions introduced by famous individuals or entire societies that have separated from the unity of her body; and on the other hand, it must show how the Church protected itself from such willful changes, so that they did not spread a harmful influence on its other members, as it admonished those who were in error; as she asserted arbitrariness with great severity and certainty. Heresies and schisms [further the pencil in the margin is hard to read]. C) The renewal begun under the leadership of the Church is completed under the influence of the Holy Spirit and with the assistance of the same grace-filled institutions, in each person’s own activity in various relations of present temporary life. The teaching of faith determines the way of thinking of individuals, the laws of piety determine the way of life, grace-filled benefits, healing infirmities and strengthening strengths, form in various classes of society more or less strong actors who, with their examples, their instructions, their authority, improve the direction of minds, introduce or at least support various institutions that serve to preserve and spread piety. The history of the Church brings together into one whole these various phenomena of Christian life, which constitute a series of previous actions of Divine leadership on earth. But since, on the other hand, evil does not cease to live among people and suppresses the seeds of [inaudible] good, and this calls the Church to various saving measures both regarding those infected with evil influence, and is preserved by the grace of B., then history must pay attention to these detections of evil in the more general vices of time, as well as to those measures that are opposed to them by the Church. Thus, the history of Christian life should constitute an essential and final part of the history of the Christian Church. From these considerations it is revealed that all the materials of Church history can be presented in the following five sections: the history of mission, administration, worship, teaching and life. An experienced mentor may want from someone studying history at the Academy not to know in every detail, which is impossible, but to: 1) the student knew the essence of science, 2) sources from which information should be obtained, Ex omnibus aliquid, et in toto nihil - not good, non multa, sed multum. It would be the height of desire for a mentor if he manages to arouse in his students a love for science and a desire to study it thoroughly himself. The method is not skeptical, but judicious and practical, not to collect only facts, but to describe the internal connection between them, not to idealize, but to extract ideas of fact from the fact itself, to develop primarily what is useful to us. A careful study of Church history can: 1) provide the minister of the Church with complete conviction of the highest Divine dignity of Christian teaching; 2) reveal to him the spirit of Christianity; 3) facilitate his theological education; 4) show purity and closeness to the Church of the first centuries - our Orthodox Church; 5) endow him with the spirit of zeal and experience of the shepherds of the original Church of Christ. 1. We mean here not only the Divine and highest dignity of the Christian religion: the first is common to it with the Jewish religion, the last belongs to it alone, which was brought to earth and preached on earth by the Divine Himself. And it is revealed in the clearest way only through the historical demolition of everything that was given to the Jewish Church and that was subsequently given to the Christian Church. Only a careful delving into history can show that the entire Old Testament economy during the development of the Kingdom of God on earth was only a preparation for its fullest revelation, which neither the Patriarchs with all the simplicity of their faith, with all the firmness of hope with all the wealth of love; neither the entire Jewish people, with all the law of Moses, with the Temple of Solomon, had a complete calming consciousness of their fate and final fate, could not enjoy the life of the spirit resting in the bosom of the love of the Heavenly Father, who did not spare His Son for us. Their only joy was in the future, which means that they had not yet been given what Christianity was left to reveal. When the teaching of Jesus Christ suddenly appeared on earth, it suddenly filled all the vessels that were waiting for him and poured out in abundance through the dilapidated fence of the courtyard of the Jewish religion - in uncontrollable abundant streams over the face of the whole earth and watered the thirsty land. The religion of Moses was not a universal religion. Its church institutions, on the contrary, imposed a barrier to the communication of peoples in the spirit of religion: Christianity merged all languages ​​and tribes into one family of children of the Heavenly Father. The religion of Moses, no matter how long his people were brought into communication with all the then famous peoples, both through enslavement and through alliances, who were already beginning, so to speak, to push towards the doors of the Kingdom of God, as it appears on earth - the religion of Moses, however, could not give them any of those truths that the human spirit necessarily requires, complete living confidence. Christianity revealed them to the world in its first lessons. The blind sages of the world still wanted and could not argue with him, but seeing that they were deceived when the simple and ignorant were far ahead of them on the path of truth, they themselves had to resort to the light of Christian teaching, and then the darkness of paganism was hidden. All the powers of the human spirit arose in the whole world, everything began to transform, or, at least, to be filled with a new spirit. The most formidable upheavals that took place in the political world at that time did not restrain the development of Christianity; on the contrary, it filled new peoples with new life, who entered the line of action in the Christian world. This is indisputable evidence of his highest Divine dignity - and it is revealed by the history of the Church. Let us note, in general, that the revelation of the internal dignity of the Christian teaching, which anyone can achieve through studying it in books containing it, would not have all the power if it were not so decisively supported externally and historically from the side obvious to everyone, because we often see very strong theories, however, not at all suitable for application in experience. 2. By observing the various forms of manifestation of the spirit of religion in the history of the Old and New Testaments, and with special care examining its manifestations in the history of the Christian Church, a minister of the Church can achieve a complete understanding of the spirit of Christianity. Carrying his consciousness through a long line of centuries in which people suffered under the yoke of the law, so expressively called by the Apostle Paul “the power of sin” (1 Cor. XV, 56), the history of the Church will force him to experience in his soul all the torments of freedom, which has enslaved itself to sin, and admiring its irresistible power in the very first attempts to free itself from this slavery, will force him to know that in this state the soul is in captivity will not have a bright, joyful look at God, nor the full love of an open heart for all humanity. Always oppressed by the weight of her situation, she both works for the Lord with fear and rejoices in him with trembling. Then, tormented by his weakness, burdened with the curses of the law, the restless and gloomy spirit will lead him into freedom, declare to him the forgiveness of all his sins, point out the very handwriting of sin, nailed to the cross, tell him that henceforth, in gratitude for his deliverance, he should serve his Redeemer in spirit and truth, fearlessly in freedom and love. Then he will understand what the spirit of Christianity is, what requirement he must fulfill according to the meaning of the name that he bears. If at all it is possible to find the features of this great and joyful spirit in brief outlines of theological teachings and more fully in the sacred Scriptures of the New Testament, but nowhere are they more vividly recognized than in the Holy monuments of the history of the Church. Here they are presented not in a cold, dead extract, but as in the living, sharply different characters of entire Churches, in two continuously formed communities of the Jewish Church and the Christian Church after a whole millennium. So it is in the internal course of the development of Christianity of many famous persons of the Church, who they left as if to explain portraits of their Christianity in works in which sometimes deliberately, by the very point of their view of objects, they show in what state they themselves were. But the history of the Church can take him even further. She will depict this spirit in its beautiful unfolding throughout all branches of the Church, presenting what each title, every ministry, every deed in the Church means, animated by the spirit. Finally, having revealed the true spirit of Christianity, it will reveal to his eyes many different deviations from it, sometimes too deeply looking for a special path from the general path of the Church, on which it is not difficult to be seduced, and by a complete, so to speak, [inaudible] study of them, it will lead the inexperienced away from the paths of error. Anyone preparing to be a shepherd of the Church, both for himself, and even more so for the most convenient correction of the needs of his flock, should approach as much as possible the realm of the spirit of Christianity in all its fullness and become familiar with at least its most important deviations, which are dangerous because they concern the very essence of Christianity, and all the more inconspicuously because they have their origin in the depths of the deepest of all feelings - the feeling of religion, since he does not know with whom in his ministry he will deal. 3. The study of Church history greatly contributes to the theological education of those preparing to be a minister of the Church. The truths of Revelation are communicated historically and are revealed historically. To interpret the books of the New Testament, knowledge of history in Apostolic times is necessary, which is determined partly by the [inaudible] New Testament itself, partly by those that followed. What are theological systems? This, unless it is said too boldly, is like the remnants of classes or cuttings of grapes in a field or vineyard after the harvest or the plundering of the history of the Church, which the Lord did not order the owners of the field or vineyard to remove to give to the poor. In fact, how were they formed? Looking at the sacred everyday life writers depicting the entire course of the Church, some observer of the teaching that was revealed and developed in the Church noticed traces of this development: thus, his observations were always limited to the area of ​​history. When history, following the Church, was still in the Old Testament - and theology was not given. The more Christianity developed later, the more disputes about certain points of Christian teaching were recorded in the history of the Church and decisions were collected on them, the more complete theology became. So, in the field of Church history, if only it is a true and complete mirror of its subject, theology necessarily lies. And observing the truths of Christianity in the form in which they are revealed here gives us the following advantages: 1) seeing them here, as if at the very root, we can more clearly see from what principles they were formed and arose; 2) we see experience here incomparably in a greater fullness of life, like berries [inaudible] plucked from a branch, which have not yet lost their aromatic fragrance. Therefore, a thorough, complete theological education cannot exist without a deep study of the history of the Church. 4. Delving into the monuments of the history of the Christian Church, a minister of the Church will find in them the best proof of the purity of Orthodoxy, therefore the surest grounds for affirming his own and others’ faith and hope, which in each of us is united with the holiness and divinity of the Church to which we belong. He will see the Church of Christ in its original splendor, will examine this building of God from its foundation to the last fortifications attached to it, with love and zeal will delve into the spirit and image of all the institutions of the Church, will consider the rights and actions of spiritual authority, will listen with his ears to the spiritual songs proclaimed in the holy churches - will be surprised how, despite the many centuries separating it from the time of that original structure of the Church, everything is so close to it in that Church in which The Lord appointed him to shepherd his flock! These sounds that he hears there are sounds that are familiar to him. This fiery prayer, which he was taught in childhood, came from the lips of such and such ancient shepherds, who through their prayers on earth acquired the grace of praying for us and in heaven. This humble hierarchy is still the same unchanged in its spirit, too alien [inaudible] to the spirit of the Western rulers, in whom one can say from the first glance that they are the humble servants of Jesus Christ. The sacred sacraments, all the sacred services with which ancient Christianity was rich, are the same ones for the correction of which he was appointed. The teaching of faith is also all in inviolable purity. With reverence for this family resemblance of his mother-Church with the common of all Christian churches, the mother of the primitive Church, which after several centuries remained in peace and inseparable union, he will open the chronicles of the unfortunate division, read with pain in his heart the matter of the dispute between East and West and thank God for putting him on the side of the offended, and not the offending, and giving him along with them boldly in his sense of rightness and fidelity the teachings of Jesus Christ, to offer prayers for the unification of all in the bosom of a single Orthodox Church. But [inaudible] it is comforting to achieve this certainty; for this it is equally necessary to carefully study the entire course of the matter, as it is extremely difficult both in its complexity, and in the confusion, and in the cunning of the opponents. 5. Finally, we said that the history of the Church can endow those who, preparing themselves for the service of the Church, turn to the study of its monuments, with the spirit of zeal and experience of the shepherds of the original Church of Christ. There is no need to prove how necessary these two qualities are for a minister of the Church. Without the first, he will be a hireling, not a shepherd, not what he should be, what Jesus Christ demanded and expected when he entrusted him with a part of his Church. Without the latter, the former can do a lot of harm. How to acquire them? How to warm up and intensify? One of the best examples of studying the actions of the first shepherds of the Church of Christ, so rich in these and other gifts, is the surest path to the awakening and revelation in us of the same gifts, the first fruits of which we have already received through our servants of Divine grace when the hands of the most holy ones were laid on our heads. We will use your word here, great teacher of the Church, just as someone who enters the world pan is involuntarily filled with the fragrance that fills the church, so he cannot receive at least some benefit from dealing with the great Christian shepherds in the sacred traditions that tell us about them and their own works, which tell us so clearly about them - even those who would read them without deliberate attention. Whoever loves Jesus Christ, loves his salvation, will constantly learn from the examples of these shepherds how to love his brothers, his flock, entrusted to him by Jesus Christ. He will learn from them how to correct all his duties and will learn to be just as thorough and vigilant in his service, relentless in the supplication and admiration of the stubborn and condescending to the weak, [inaudible] in need, to sympathize with the hearts of those who mourn, to lovingly give medicine to souls sick with sins, to sacrifice their salvation with all of us. When, marveling at their fiery zeal, he will not consider unattainable for himself that great quality of a shepherd, which the Supreme Shepherd has assigned to all shepherds: the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. Here he teaches how to divide among all the burdens of the yoke of Christ, so as not to make it too light for some, or unbearable for others; he will learn from their example how to recognize the internal properties of each of their flock, or how to discern private illnesses, how to discover in them their strengths that remain neglected - in a word, he will find a way to fulfill another important duty of a shepherd: to call his sheep by name, that is, to speak in the hearts of his flock the true properties of their inner state are so vivid and convincing that everyone can recognize themselves in them as in their name, proclaim by name the virtues or passions living in them, and lead everyone according to the type of their condition to their pasture from the courtyard - from the calm fence of the visible Church, to which the bad and the good are included. And should we neglect the study of such great examples, when even in the times of the Church Fathers themselves, i.e. in those days, when there was not yet a significant number of such leaders who later became known to us, was it already the custom of those preparing for ministry to carefully study everything left over from the father-writers of previous times? Jerome at one time made a remark about his friend Negotian that from constant reading of the writings of the fathers and teachers of the Church he acquired the skill of repeating their words on any occasion. This is how Tertulian thinks about this, he said, and Cyprian this way, and Lactatius this way. Lesson program for the class of General Church History (1860s) OR RSL. F.78. K. 2. Unit. hr. 1. 1. The subject is science - the history of the Christian Church itself. The concept of the Church as a union of people led by God himself to a blissful union with Him. The significance of the appearance of the Son of God on earth as the restoration of this union. The assimilation of His work and teachings by mankind within the limits of historical conditions. Light and dark sides. 2. The main aspects from which we should reveal the subject: a) the calling of peoples into the bosom of the Church, b) leadership in the Church, c) the fruits of this leadership in life. A) In vocation there is a special action of God the Father. Connected with the history of calling and conversion is the history of persecution, martyrs, and apologists. B) Leadership is the work of the Head of the Church, whose threefold ministry continues in the Church. Accordingly, the history of the Church’s teaching, worship and administration is revealed here (The Church is a school, a church and a kingdom) - Teaching. In what sense is a history of dogma possible? Heresies. Cathedrals. Fathers and teachers of the Church. – Divine service. God-established means of sanctification, and institutions, and rituals, superstitions that arose from the Christian spirit. – Management. Internal structure of the Church. Attitude to the state. Schisms. C) Disclosure of the established principles in [Christian] life under the special action of the Holy Spirit. Institutions related to the life of Christians, for example, monasteries. Knowledge of the saints. The main features of the dominant trend in social morals are good and bad. 2. Division of history by periods. Period I – the creation of the Church: a) the time of Jesus Christ; b) the time of the Apostles. Period II - the struggle of Christianity with the pagan world within the Roman Empire. Period III - the establishment of the Church in its dogmas and institutions under universal unity. Division in the Church, with the fall of its Western half from the Orthodox and the beginning of Christianity in Russia. Hence the division of history into its periods: a) the Eastern Church, b) the Russian Church, c) the Western Church. 3. Auxiliary sciences and sources for General Church History: Ecclesiastical Geography (Wilcha), Statistics (Steidlenn, Wiggers) and Chronology (L`art verifier les dates des Faits historiques). History of the Christian Mission (Fabricien Lux Evangelii, Blumgard, Henrion). History of dogmas (Dionysus, Natalis, Munter, Neander), Symbols of confessions (Wiener, Meler, Guericke, Han), Patristics and Patrology, History of Heresies (Walch). Ecclesiastical archeology (Bingham, Augusta, Binterim). Acts and rules of the councils and their history. History of Christian life (Cheti Menaion, Acta JJ., Rinnarta Acta martyrum sincera). 4. Review of works on Church history. The most ancient: works of Hegesippus, Eusebius, ep. Caesarea (analysis of its history. What did he use? Its advantages and disadvantages), Rufina, Sulpicius Severa and Orosius. Continuers of the works of Eusebius: Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Theodore the Reader, Evagrius (their characteristic differences). Medieval: in the east the works of Byzantine writers and Nikephoros Callistus. In the West: Gregory of Tours, Bede, Adam of Bremen, Historia Tripartita; annales of different places, times and persons. Towards the end of the Middle Ages the beginning of critical works: Valla. Since the Reformation. Polemical direction: Centuries of Magdeburg: the concept of them, advantages and disadvantages. They were opposed by the Church of the Roman Chronicle of Baronia. Their assessment. A) Roman Catholic scientists, especially monastics, in France - on the publication of ancient historical monuments, writings of the Fathers, acts of Councils, histories of monastic orders, in the 17th - first half of the 18th centuries. Actually, the church historical works of Alexander Natalis, Tilmon, Fleury; in recent times Rohrbacher, Henrion, Abbot Goethe, Abbot Min edition. Of the Germans in the past century: Stolberg, Katerkampf, Döllinger, Alzog. B) Protestants of the Lutheran confession: Gottfried Arnold, Weisman, Buddey, Mozheim, Walchow, Schreck. Reformatsky: Göttinger, Spangheim, Kave, Udin, Bingham, etc. Since the half of the last century, new trends in Protestant theology have been reflected in church historical works: Zemler, Genke, etc. The merits of Neander and his school and the most important shortcomings in his works. The significance of Geseler's historical works. B) Orthodox writers. From the Greeks: Dosithea, Patr. Jerusalem, Meletius, Met. Antioch. We have: St. Demetrius, Methodius of Pskov, Innocent of Penza and others. Church history. Lectures... Part I. Old Testament History (1840/1841) OR RSL. F. 78. K. 2. Unit. hr. 5. Italics – fragments from the Old Testament history. OR RSL. F. 304. 2. No. 125 (No. 272). Introductory lecture (1840 August. 31 days) The history of the Church represents, on the one hand, the Divinity in its closest relation to humanity, on the other, man in his highest aspiration. God, by His goodness, reveals Himself to man everywhere - both in nature and in conscience, but most of all - in the Church. Man has many aspirations - for the sciences, the arts, but the noblest and highest aspiration is for God. The history of the Church must show how he, nourished by the concepts of religion, rises to the state to which he is destined. For us, those moments are important and sacred when a person enters into communication with God, when his spirit, through clinging to Him, feels the peace and tranquility that this communication alone brings to him. History presents us with this closeness of man to God from the first moment of existence until our last times. It will reveal how the all-wise Spirit of God arranged the destinies of man, it will reveal not only His extraordinary manifestations in humanity, but also His fiery ways in teaching the nations. Sometimes the power of the all-active Providence seems to be reduced in one people, and therefore it will especially pay attention to those institutions that served to reveal the spiritual life in the Old and New Testament Churches; then we will turn our attention to individuals in which the destinies of the Church developed. This spectacle is all the more important for us because it is not alien to any of us, since everything that came before us in the Church belongs in part to us - we are the heirs of the past. All the events of the Church form one chain, so we turn to people who lived in ancient times with prayer and other feelings. Just as everything developed then with the assistance of the power of God, so it is now. For those preparing to be ministers of the word, the history of the Church presents many instructive things both for science and for life. The history of the Church is part of all theological sciences: 1) To St. Hermeneutics she shows the origin of those books that her science explains. Without consideration of historical monuments it is completely impossible to explain some books of Scripture, such as the books of the Prophets and the Scriptures of the Apostles. She introduces us to the explanations of the teachers of the Church, who were divided into two schools: the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools. The wealth of materials actually related here provided the means and opportunity to compose a special science: Introduction to Holy Scripture. 2) To dogmatic theology, as we will see below, Church history is also closely related and important to it. Dogmatic theology sets forth the truths of revealed teaching concerning the knowledge of God and the worship of God, and, therefore, it does not invent these truths itself, but borrows them from Revelation, conveys how they came to us through the historical path. 3) Moral theology borrows from here high examples of life, experiences of morality, introduces the best works that serve to advance in spiritual life with various societies in places formed for this purpose. 4) Theological polemic learns from church history the thoughts of former opponents and becomes acquainted with the weapons that were anciently used against them, and thus provides a way and means to fight against them for the truth at the present time. Bearing in mind this important benefit of church history, of course, everyone will pay due attention and strength to studying it. Introduction to Church History When starting to study church history, one must determine the subject, division, sources, aids and experiences of presenting it in a systematically processed form. The history of the Church must show the fate of the Church. The Church is a society of people led by God himself to a blessed life. Therefore, the history of the Church must show the fate of this society. People were at first innocent and stood on the straight path to this goal, then they fell and were then restored again through the Redeemer. The first lived by faith in the coming Redeemer, the second were saved by faith in the one who came. It is the duty of the history of the Church to show all this, to imagine how the Church was structured and governed over the centuries. There is no need to say that church history is subject to all the conditions that are required of such works, i.e. that the sources must be reliable, that the events in it must be true, and presented harmoniously and systematically. All these are demands that no history can refuse. The main division of Church history lies in its very content. A man's condition when he was innocent is naturally different from when he fell and when he is restored. The first part will talk about the state of innocent people, the second - about the centuries preceding the appearance of the Redeemer, the third - about the actual act of Redemption or the restoration of man and his condition in the Church after the Redeemer. In the state of history before the coming of the Messiah, nine main divisions can also be noted. At first we see the Church as universal, then constrained, limited to one chosen family, tribe, people. The first state of the Church continues until the time of Moses, although towards the end of this section we notice the foundation of a new order of things, which was to be revealed in subsequent times. In accordance with the internal state of the Church and the special dispensation of providence, each of these eras is divided into new periods. Previously, man lived in oral conversation with God, and until his strength completely abandoned him, he was left to his own strength with the help of Revelation. Then the written Law is given to him as a guide, from here a new basis for the division of history is revealed until the time of the coming of the Redeemer. The first branch is called the Patriarchal Church, the second - Sub-Legal. The history of the Patriarchs already serves as preparation for the history of the private Jewish Church. Here the first section decomposes even more for important world-historical reasons the state of the church - the period from the creation of the world to the flood, and the second from the flood to the time of the last Patriarchs. In relation to the Church here, both in the first and in the second sections, we see that all nations are called to the church, and therefore the execution of the world was universal, while subsequently, although the human race in parts fell to the same vices that appear in the antediluvian world, but since times of ignorance came for those peoples, God’s justice was more lenient towards these fallen people. It persecuted mainly the sins and vices of the chosen people, who from that time became the Church of God. . According to the main events, the first can be divided into three parts, which will show the state of the church before the flood, after the flood - before Abraham and Moses, the last state serves as a transition to a new state - the legal one. In the history of the Church under the Law, one special period consists of 1) the times of Moses and Joshua, as the times of the formation of the Jewish people 122. After the conclusion of the Church in one people, Moses gives new legislation, in accordance with the present state, since the church was in one people, so that its election is not destroyed by outside influence, Joshua gives the people special legislation, a special premises in which this people could more conveniently achieve their goals. In our textbook, the period of Moses is separated from the period of Joshua: this is allowed only on the basis that the main characters were different, but the matter was one. Moses gives legislation and, at the same time, leads into the promised land, Joshua does the same - leads into the promised land. The state of the church under the judges seems completely different. There is a special character here, different from the time of Joshua. 2) Then they represent a special period, the troubled times of the judges. There is a special character here, different from the time of Joshua. After the Jewish people received special legislation and special premises, we do not suddenly see them in that flourishing state that their new institution, their new organization promised them. The decline of the newly established religion, the attacks of the peoples among whom he was placed, kept him in an unpleasant position for several centuries. 3) The Time of the Kings, together with the reign of Samuel, through whom this reign was introduced. With the strengthening of religion under Samuel, with the formation of the Prophetic schools, the people are given a transformation and civil division of the tribes and tribes of the people, which are under the control of one king, and in this case the people are at a level of power that they no longer achieved. But this power lasts no more than three reigns. . 4) The time of division of the Kingdoms of Judah before their enslavement. The Jewish people, hitherto united, are divided into two halves, which, one after the other, are subjected to enslavement. 5) The seventy-year captivity in Babylon also constitutes a special period, because the Church at that time was obviously in a state different from the previous and subsequent ones. The Jewish people have not only the purpose of preserving within themselves the seeds of the true faith until the time when all nations are called to accept the new world religion in due time, but also the purpose of gradually preparing those excluded from the church to accept the new world religion in due time. So this division of the Jewish people into two kingdoms and the gradual enslavement of one kingdom after another can be looked at as the preparation of pagan tribes to join the world church. Members of the church who belonged to the kingdom of Israel, scattered throughout the East, brought with them very sound concepts. If we now find in these hints echoes of the times of Moses among the peoples who declare themselves descendants of the sons of the kingdom of Israel, then all the more can we assume this influence in the first centuries of their dispersion. But if this is the end of the purpose of the kingdom of Israel, then the purpose of the Jewish kingdom itself is not entirely contained in this; it should not have been scattered forever among these pagan tribes. Part of it had to return again to finish the affairs of the Old Testament Church. 6) The state of the Church upon its return from captivity until the coming of the Redeemer. This period should be divided into two halves, on the basis that the Jewish people were first dependent on the surrounding pagan peoples - first on the Persians, by whom they were released from captivity, then - sometimes from the Macedonians, sometimes from the Syrians, sometimes from the Egyptians. But, finally, the Jews, tired of dependence, especially Syrian, decided to throw off the alien yoke; the Maccabees appeared, who, after a long struggle, redeemed their freedom and independence with blood and used it until they submitted to the worldwide dominion of Rome. This time of submission, struggle, freedom and again submission will also constitute a special period, lasting until the coming of the Messiah. After a short enslavement, the Jews return again and begin a separate civil existence again, and at the same time regain full ecclesiastical independence. At first they are under the protection of the surrounding strong peoples, i.e. the Persians, from whom they received freedom, then the world conqueror King Alexander of Macedonia, then the two monarchies formed from his world monarchy, i.e. sovereigns of the Egyptian Ptolemies and Syrian Antiochus. But under the latter, the true faith is oppressed, the people strive to free themselves from the yoke of the earth. After twenty-five years of struggle, he manages to overthrow this yoke. After 70 years, he enjoys complete freedom, then he is enslaved to the rule of the new worldwide Roman monarchy, deprived of his independence forever. This time was a sign of the approach of the time of the Messiah or the formation of a new world kingdom. Thus, with the separation of the history of the Church in the innocent state, and with the separation after the fall, ten periods are formed, as in our textbook 123. The basis for the division, as we see, is a change in the internal state of the Church and the special dispositions of Providence that guided the Church. Note 1. Some people divide the history of the Church in the Old Testament into four periods. This division is based on the times of the tabernacle, the first church, its existence and destruction, and finally, the times of the second church. But with such a division, one period will include events of different types, for example, the times of the tabernacle under Moses and the times of the tabernacle under the Judges. In general, this division is a stretch. Note 2. They also divide the history of the Church according to teaching, namely: from the introduction of the Law of Moses to the establishment of prophetic schools, then the period of the prophets before the captivity of Babylon, during and after it, finally, the period of the Synagogues and acquaintance with its Greek education. If this division is considered in relation to teaching, then it is correct, but teaching is only part of the history of a people. since the history of the Old Testament Church is closely connected with the history of the Jewish people, it is therefore correct and more convenient to divide by events, as we have done. The history of the New Testament Church can be represented in the following periods. 1) The history of the formation and structure of the New Testament Church during the ministry of Jesus Christ and the life of the Apostles, that is, from the 30th year of the first century to the last years of it 124. The years from the Nativity of Christ to His worldwide ministry were only preparations for the formation of the Church, the establishment of the New Testament Church. In essence, the same Old Testament order continues, and the same law is maintained in full force, as shown by the example of the Savior, who Himself, until the time of the establishment of the New Testament Church, strictly observed the ancient Law. The apostles carried out what was taught in the instructions of the Savior Himself: they poured out, so to speak, everything that had hitherto been contained in the secret instructions of the Savior and that was also taught to them through the Holy Spirit. Their institutions are not new, but are a continuation and revelation of what, in fact, was decreed by the Savior. 2) After the times of the Apostles until the times of Constantine, the Church appears in one state - persecuted and persecuted by the people, priests and Emperors. In the subsequent continuation of the history of the Church, we see its struggle with the pagan world in the first two centuries after the time of the Apostles, since the Church was mainly established by the Apostles in the Roman Empire, in which partly Greek, partly Roman education dominated, then we see the Church initially dealing with both the morals and the education and power of this Greco-Roman world. The struggle ended with the establishment of Christianity in the court of the Roman Empire under Constantine. 3) From the time of Constantine, the prosperity of the Church within the Roman Empire began. Here is a new period, which continues until the separation of the Western Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church. Already in the 4th century, the Roman Empire began to be divided into Eastern and Western, and from that time on, one can already notice a certain coldness and, for the time being, a division of East from West also in church affairs. Church historical literature is especially rich in the East and scarce in the West. Therefore, observing the history of the Eastern Church itself becomes more possible and more interesting for us, in addition, as we said, that it is closely related to us according to our confession. We consider this remark necessary here, because in the further continuation of the history of the Church we will dwell on such eras that are especially remarkable in the Eastern Church. Since this period is very extensive due to the many events contained in it, it can be divided into two halves by the appearance of Mohammed, by whose teachings many countries that formerly belonged to the Eastern Church were partly deceived, partly by force brought to him. Mohammedanism, which conquered many tribes wandering in paganism, also touched Christian peoples, drew many from individual sects into its confession, and stretched the yoke of its dominion over others. Thus, from 622 the other half of this period of Church history can be dated. In the history of the Western Church, almost from the same time, Gregory III has been the most important historical figure, whose institutions are especially important for the history of the Roman Church. Since the separation of the Western Church from the Eastern Orthodox, history itself must be divided into two parts. The history of the Eastern Church must be presented separately from the history of the Western Church, because the fate of the Eastern Church is divided into its own periods. This is where the existence of our Russian Church begins. Its church history, due to its special importance for us, should be reviewed and divided into its periods. Because the life of the Slavic-Russian people developed in a special way, and if we decided to subordinate it to a special division, then we would begin to divide it according to the internal course of its events. Although the Greek-Russian Church received its education from the Apostolic Church, their destinies for the most part go separately, therefore, without much of a stretch, one cannot put historical events into the same frames and limit oneself to one period. Also, since the separation of the Western Church, the fate of this church was formed and proceeded separately, therefore, here too we will look for our reasons for dividing the history of this church into periods. The history of the Eastern Church since its separation from the history of the Western Church presents a little comforting, but at first still quite a strong struggle against the Latin Church. In its state one can distinguish three main periods: from the time of Photius to the enslavement of Constantinople, then from the enslavement of Constantinople to the fall of the Empire of Constantinople, and, finally, from the rule of the Turks to our time, when the dawn of the liberation of the Greek Church began with the restoration of the civil independence of Greece. We will figuratively divide the history of the Greco-Russian Church into its own periods, the basis of which will be the internal events of this church. Before the time of St. Vladimir, we see from time to time experiments in the spread of Christianity, but the complete conversion of the then most noble Russian cities belongs to his time. From this it is impossible to create a special period, but by counting these first experiences of conversion before the time of St. Vladimir to the era of his time, we will create a special period from the beginning of the 9th century to the beginning of the 13th century or until the time of the Mongol enslavement. Further, the state of the Russian Church can be considered based on the most important hierarchical changes. In the half of the 15th century, the hitherto united Russian Metropolis was divided into two, of which one established itself in its old place in Kyiv, the other in Moscow. This may serve as a basis for the separation of a new period, especially since this hierarchical change subsequently had an impact on the fate of Orthodoxy itself in the Church of Kyiv. At the end of the 16th century, the Moscow Metropolis was transformed into the Patriarchate. Under the Patriarchs, two separate, previously divided Metropolises united during the time of Alexei Mikhailovich. The Kyiv Church again submitted to the Metropolis of the Russian Patriarchs. Thus, from these times of patriarchy, one can create a special period in which the church, hierarchically, reached its highest development and united what had previously been divided. Finally, the formation of the Patriarchate of the Holy Synod will serve as the beginning of a new period, in many ways already different from the previous state of the Russian Church. In the history of the Western Church, since the separation from the Eastern, we notice the gradually increasing, intensifying power of the Roman rulers. It reached its zenith under Boniface VIII. Thus, at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries, we have the right to begin a new period, from which the strict power of the pope begins to fall. The Reformation completed this decline and introduced a transformation not only in the government, but also in the dogma of Western Christendom. In essence, it is possible to indicate in the past century the beginning of a new period for the Western churches. In the half of the last century, through the force of neologism, on the one hand, even complete disbelief intensified - neologism, in fact, in the Protestant church; unbelief and freethinking in the Catholic Church, especially in France. This was accompanied by a worldwide upheaval and had an impact on the way of thinking of the entire world at that time, and even in subsequent times, and produced both a civil and church transformation. Especially the view on objects of faith has changed due to the influence of this neologism and the freethinking of the French. These are the main periods into which we consider it necessary to divide the materials of church history from the beginning of the world to the present time. Division of church history by subject. Now let us pay attention to how church history should be presented in each period specifically. Appreciating all the news that is communicated to us about the Old Testament Church in the Holy Books, appreciating the order in which they are presented, they usually present it in the order they see there. But the diversity and multitude of objects in the New Testament Church force us to admit a more specific division in each period. The history of the Church shows how one people after another joined the Church, how they were formed under known leadership, and what fruits came out of this for them. On this basis, the events of the New Testament church can be divided into five chapters: The 1st must say how, when and where the Church spread and how it felt the reduction of its limits, or what persecution it suffered; 2nd must pay attention to the teaching. However, in revealing the teaching, there is no need in each period to cite passages from writers who expounded the doctrine of faith in their writings; it is enough to present it at length after the times of the Apostles. Because the Orthodox Church again did not invent anything, but defended and preserved the true teaching. The dogmas of faith have been the same at all times. Here we must also present teachings contrary to Orthodoxy, show how the Church defended its Orthodoxy, refuted false teachings, what exactly the controversial subjects were, on what occasion, who the defenders were, what works they wrote and what church orders were made. In the 3rd section, information about the state of worship should be presented, since the introduction of everyone into the Church and the formation of the internal Church are accomplished through the sacraments and worship. Of particular importance to us, as members of the Eastern Church, primary attention should be paid to the worship of the Eastern Church and to the disputes that arose on this subject. Both teaching and worship presuppose the management of the affairs of the Church, which is entrusted to people who have the power to bind and decide. The consideration of these orders of the church hierarchy constitutes a special 4th section, which will talk about the decisions of the Ecumenical and local Councils. They enter the history of teaching as ways of resolving disputes that existed in the Church. Here they should be considered in a hierarchical relation, because here it will be stated by whom, on what occasion the councils were convened, and who took part in them. In the last, 5th section, it will be shown what kind of fruit appeared in those nations that were formed under the guidance of the Spirit of God, i.e. Attention will be paid to the life of Christians - what are the common virtues and ailments, and what measures were taken to heal these ailments. Who, under the influence of these means, completed his education on earth and was awarded the name of the Saint. Here is a detailed content of each period of New Testament Church history. In the history of the Old Testament Church, it is not convenient to divide the periods in this way, because their order is determined by the very importance of the Holy Books. The primary source for most of the history of the Old Testament and New Testament Churches should be the Holy Books. There is no need to talk about this source, because information about these books is presented in another science. For the history of the Old Testament Church, in addition to the Holy Books, one should point out 1) the writings of Josephus, especially needed where the Holy Books stop. Josephus Flavius ​​was born in the year 37 after the birth of Christ. The son of a priest, by his very origin he had to enter this rank. But before entering, he recognized not only his own, but also Greek education and imitated Greek historians in his writings. He himself studied the opinions of his sects and settled on Pharisaism, for which he prepared through an ascetic life. At the age of nineteen he entered into public office, at the age of twenty-six he was in Rome and interceded for the Jewish priests who were innocently imprisoned by Festus, and, through Pompeia, Nero’s wife, he managed to obtain their release. In the thirty-sixth year he returned to Jerusalem and found there preparations for an uprising against Rome, tried to deviate his compatriots from this intention, but not only did not have time, but still had to take part in it. He was entrusted with the defense of Galilee, and he performed the duty entrusted to him well. But when Vespasian, sent by Nero, took the house where Joseph was, he, freed from the danger of losing his life, surrendered to Vespasian and was received by him graciously, sent to Rome and here imprisoned in chains, from which he was freed by Vespasian the Emperor. Instead of all the treasures, he asked for Jewish books for himself, wrote twenty books of Jewish antiquities, the history of the last war and two books against Opion, who condemned the Jewish people and disputed the history of Josephus. Through Josephus Flavius, the pagan world became acquainted with the fate of the Jewish people. His writings were such a success that, despite all the aversion of the Romans to the Jews, a statue was erected in his honor. The Romans read his works avidly and in general they were considered so important that since the beginning of printing there have been more than a hundred editions in various languages. Although Jewish antiquity was somewhat known in the ancient world according to the translation of the LXX, it gained greater fame through Josephus. Even prophecies about the Messiah passed through him into the books of Roman writers. So, the face of Josephus is remarkable, therefore it is necessary to pay attention to his writings, to consider what historical importance they have. Those books in which he remains the only witness to the fate of the Jewish people are especially important because they represent an excellent commentary on the prophecies of Jesus Christ on the fate of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. What was said by Jesus Christ, what was conveyed to us by St. Matthew, Mark and Luke, we see all this fulfilled in Josephus. In them, the famine, the circumstances of the siege, and in general all the disasters of the Jews during the destruction of Jerusalem are described correctly and beautifully. As for the antiquities of the Jews, as for that part of Jewish history that is set forth in the Holy Books, its fidelity to the Holy Scriptures is not everywhere visible. He, catering to the taste of the Romans, knowing their disgust with the Jews, and thinking that they would not agree on many things when he told them about the wonderful events in the Jewish people, had the weakness of hiding the bad deeds of his people, reinterpreted some events, did not fully convey others and left miracles to the faith of the people, without defending them. Here are several cases about which he is silent: about the killing of an Egyptian by Moses, about the cunning of the sons of Jacob in relation to the inhabitants of Shechem, he performs circumcision from the Egyptians, speaking about Moses, he is silent about his ascent to the mountain to receive the Law and additions to the Law, he does not talk about the idolatry of the Jews in the desert. In addition to these shortcomings, it must be said that he did not always use the pure source of Holy Scripture, and accepted the traditions of the Rabbis, therefore he attributed exercises in magic to Solomon. Speaking about the passage of the Jews through the Red Sea, he adds that he conveys it as he found it in the Holy Books, but otherwise let everyone think as he wants, whether he considers it an act of God, or similar to how Alexander the Great walked around the shore of Paphlogon. He makes the same remark about the prophet Jonah, who was delivered from the belly of the whale. All these omissions, reservations and additions from unclean sources do him no credit. We do not count other Jewish writers, ancient and recent, as insignificant, and there is also nothing to point to Philo. He uses history to confirm his allegorical dreams. Pagan writers have quite a few indications of sacred history, but they are not always accurate and for the most part are the most unfavorable in relation to the Jews 126. Works serving for biblical archeology, for the interpretation of the books of the Old Testament, and especially for geography and chronology can also serve as sources for the history of the Old Testament. Instead of counting such sources, we will point to works where this subject has already been treated. The history of the Old Testament Church was studied in the first centuries of Christianity, starting from the 3rd century. Then they wrote temporary books, setting out events by year. These are: Julia, Eusevia, Zonara, Kedrina. This is still the infant state of the Old Testament Church. Since the restoration of the sciences, scholarly studies have turned to commentaries on the Holy Books, but there were also separate works that set out the actual history of the Old Testament Church. From among such writers we will point out Noelius. His history, Old Testament and New Testament, consists of 8 volumes, but the method of presentation is rather boring. The best of the works of the Middle Ages is the history of Buddha, who, being a professor of moral theology at the University of Jena at the beginning of the 18th century, among other things, studied Old Testament history and published it in two volumes. The purpose of this work was to refute the objections to the Holy Books of the Englishman Delgis Zolland. Just as Buddha in general enjoyed excellent respect, so for this work it deserves special attention. In his writing he is moderate throughout. Having a very extensive scholarship, when resolving controversial points, he cites the opinions of other famous writers. The manner of his presentation is as follows: the events are presented briefly, but what is needed to explain them, he sets out extensively in the notes. After each period, he reveals the history of worship, teaching, civil structure, and, finally, the state of the pagan world. There is a lot of scholarship in this story, but for classical use it is inconvenient, because it is aimed at protecting the truth of biblical history, and therefore one-sided. Other similar works have this drawback. After freethinking armed itself in the past century, especially against the Holy books, placing the history of the Eastern Testament on an equal basis with any other and in the Holy Traditions began to look for the mythology of pagan peoples, began to blasphemously reject everything that disagreed with its principles, apologetic works appeared in various types, useful for history. These are Lamenthal's "The Just Cause of Revelation", several books in German. This work is very useful for Old Testament and New Testament biblical history, because it examines and refutes the objections of freethinkers with great scholarship. The characterization of the Neander Bible in Book V is written partly in this vein. It contains extracts from the Holy Books and depicts the character of church historical figures. For example, David is spoken of in the book of Kings, Chronicles and the book of Psalms. From all this Neander extracts one character of the face, examining it from the beginning of life to the last years. This is what he does with every historical person. As much information as possible about St. face, brings together essential features into one extract, depicts the character in the colors in which he is presented in the Holy Books. We say that in part it can serve to protect against the attacks of free-thinkers, because he is carried away by newly inculcated opinions and pursues the more visible human side of actions rather than the inner Divine, with which, in fact, the main leaders of the church are presented. After Budday there are wonderful stories of Prideaux and Hess. The history of the first is not complete, starting from the time of Ahaz and ending with Jesus Christ. He was an Englishman by birth and the purpose of his writing was to defend Jewish history. To do this, he compared it with pagan stories and everything that he found in them about the Jews, and among the Jews about them, he collected and explained all this. Hess deserves more attention for his extensive and new method. His method is historical. Hess's extensive work comes closer than others to the true history of the Old Testament. Describing the history of the Jewish people before Abraham, he deals little with it, but actually begins the history of the Patriarchs, in two books the history of Moses, in two - the history of Joshua and the judges, in two - the history of kings and in two the history of divided kingdoms, then, so called the history of rulers. We said that this work approaches the requirements of true history; here we see not a separate depiction of events one after another, but also a disclosure of the internal plan of history, the transition from one period to another. In addition to the Old Testament history, Hess depicted the life of I. Christ and the times of the Apostles. The work related to Old Testament history was written and published by him once, but he studied the history of I. Christ a lot. In total, he devoted 50 years to composing it, and during this time up to 7 editions were published, each with revisions. Especially the latest edition is distinguished by its completeness and new look at the sacred books. His goal was not to write a scientific work or interpretation, but to reveal the fate of the Jewish people, in fact, in a historical form, but even here a polemical direction is clearly evident. He belonged to the Swiss church and wrote at the time when Voltaire's writings against everything sacred and especially against the history of the Jewish people were published. Hess, according to the feeling of his heart, according to his religious conviction, considered it his duty to defend the truths of Revelation. In this tone, he wrote the history of the Church in 1727 from 12 volumes, of which three books are for the history of I. Christ with additions and three for the history of the Apostles. In all his writings, a strictly historical plan is visible. He believed that the fate of the Jewish people, governed by God himself, was completely different from the fate of other peoples. He followed this from the very beginning of history to its latest development, trying to follow and point out the thread of God's destinies. Faith in true belief is enough for him. Only the political direction and the critical spirit of the times forced him to yield to himself. In general, he wrote in such a way that there was nothing in his work that his opponents could find fault with. In relation to Orthodoxy, Lemental's work is stricter than Gessovo's. After Hess, foreign writers' works on Old Testament church history are not so extensive. The new neological trend further damaged works in the historical field. Neological critics have not spared the history of the Jewish people. Because of this, in subsequent times they limited themselves to publishing children's historical books. This is the recently published work of Zall. The first part of this work contains a brief guide to reading the Old Testament, the second - the harmony of the evangelists. This is the story of Schmenberg, a Catholic, written with good feeling. Of the domestic histories of the Church, one can only point to the story of Filaret. This whole story is nothing more than an abbreviation of Buddha. The difference is that there the text of the story is short and explained in comments, but here the text of the story is more complete. It is impossible not to notice our author's caution in many dubious cases. Here he usually refers to the opinions of others. In his presentation, he is strict and definite, but he does not clearly reveal the internal connection of events; separately, he sets out each event fully, but the general course of events, the fulfillment of God’s plans, is not visible. It stops only at the most important points and points to God’s goals. Some parts are presented too briefly and require more disclosure, for example, the times of Samuel, when schools of the prophets were established. This deficiency is especially felt when history is filled with the writings of the prophets. Here there are enough explanations from the books of the prophets, but only in the history of the Babylonian captivity. Both Buddey and our Author lack geography and chronology, which are necessary for the distribution of materials held by Buddey. The history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is presented together and is therefore confusing. For clarity, they should be separated. There would be little repetition here; an event would be described extensively in one place, but in another it would be possible to only briefly mention it. Among the shortcomings of our textbook, one can, firstly, notice the lack of chronology, although the periods indicate the continuation of time described in each period, but often in the distribution of events contained in one or another period there is not enough order and this makes the book not entirely convenient when you need to compare biblical events with events of extraneous history, and even the idea that the Author adheres to in the chronological distribution is not always accurate. He keeps the number of the Seventy, which from the beginning of the world to the Nativity of Christ is supposed to be 5508 years and the observation of this order is not precisely indicated, probably because the author found it difficult to figure out what was not indicated in the previous period. This is the period of Samuel and the first kings. As for the chronology of the Seventy in general, it is difficult to achieve such accuracy that it would be possible to say in each case in what year a certain event occurred. It is possible to define centuries, but such an accurate calculation to determine each year of events, especially in ancient history, is impossible to achieve. At least an approximate value would be useful for the history of knowledge. Further examining the presentation of events in the textbook, we find it consistent with the order in which church-historical events were presented in other works before his time, i.e. one event after another is told in full, the difficulties of the biblical narrative are considered and explained chronologically or actually hermeneutically, but the gradual disclosure of the plan by which all this moves, considerations of how everything goes towards this plan, how the main goal is gradually achieved, how people called to a special service in the church are gradually prepared for inner perfection, is mostly omitted. The author limits himself to a simple narrative in which the events are presented, and, as if deliberately avoiding conjectural judgments about why this happened and what it led to? Of course, it is necessary to allow quite a bit of arbitrariness in determining the merits of events and proximity to the main matter, but without such a view and judgments, history becomes too dead and dry. Of course, it was not in accordance with the Author’s purpose to place Criticism and Geography in his history, but consideration of the locality of events is necessary everywhere, and this can be called a shortcoming of our book, so when teaching history in higher and secondary institutions, it is necessary to separately provide preliminary information, especially about Palestine, which would most appropriately be revealed to man, how He introduces the people of God into the promised land, where the people of God already become the owner of this country, to introduce a country that is given to the people of God. But he doesn’t even have the briefest information about this subject. Many events, because the Author wanted to be complete, present them too dryly, so that another period is nothing more than the driest list of historical events, such as, for example, the history of the Gospel. The history of the times of the Apostles, the history of Moses, is incomparably more complete; in the times of the judges, each event is quite vividly and thoroughly revealed. In other, less important periods, the discussions are much more extensive, but in the Gospel history only hints are given of the main events. But here there would be room for at least a partial disclosure of considerations of the course of events as important as the events of the Gospel time. As for the distribution of historical materials into periods, there are inaccuracies. These inaccuracies include others as well. For example, at the end of the period of the kings, a rather detailed description of the Temple of Solomon is given, based on the presentation of events in the same period, at a time in which the destruction of the church is already described. For our teaching at the present time, other articles may be unnecessary, for example, an article in each period, contained in the Holy Books, about pagan modernity and traces of the stories of Jews, pagans, and outside writers. As an apology for the sacred books, the article can have significance, but if it contains historical information, then it should be included in the general order, and separately it is not of particular importance. For the history of the New Testament Evangelical Church, the only source is the Four Gospels. Subsequent writers of this story did not complement it, but each only presented it according to his own plan. Among the most recent works, one can point to the history of Hess, written regarding the disputes in Germany, and then to the history of Neander. However, his last work in many ways does not agree with the truth of the Gospel, with the Orthodox view of the events of the Gospel. The spirit of the times has taken such hold of the Germans that they, wanting to speak the truth, do not speak. Some choice and preference of one Evangelist over another, some criticism and the idea of ​​allowing the miraculous as little as possible, harmed even the most well-meaning writers, like Neander, and did not allow them to see the truth. The sources of church history after Jesus Christ are partly works, partly monuments. The latter have mostly been preserved in the West and give an idea of ​​ancient churches and their decoration. The collection and description of monuments of Christian antiquity were carried out especially in Rome; among others, Roma [inaudible] is known, which describes monuments of sculptures and paintings and ancient church architecture, which were discovered from time to time in Rome. Recently, Munter, Bishop of Denmark, collected from various writings such images as were found on coffins or ancient things and places in Rome. Such a meeting could also be useful in our country in relation to schismatics, and in some writings against them one can find indications of the folded finger, the cross of a blessing hand, and a praying hand. In these Monumenta veterum and in the extracts from Munter there are many ancient images, from which one can formulate ideas about the ancient icons used in churches and houses. There were no such studies in the east, although such work would be very important for the history of the Orthodox Church. Further, the direct source for the history of the New Testament Church can be called all church literature. The historian of the Church should know the smallest characteristic features of persons active in the Christian Church. Of course, he cannot do all this. Reading everything that was written by church writers is work that exceeds human strength! But after many years of work by scientists, all that remains is to cope in the places they point to. In particular, for the history of teaching in the Christian Church, Apologies written at the beginning of Christianity, confessions of faith, symbols and, in general, dogmatic and polemical writings of the Fathers of the Church serve. For the history of the Church's worship, collections of acts of conciliar councils, correspondence on this subject of popes and other important church figures, not only the ancients, but also those close to us from the 9th and 10th centuries and beyond, can serve. For church administration, both the rules of Ecumenical and local councils and state laws regarding the church can serve. The cathedral rules were collected by many, especially Catholic scholars; the latest and best collection consists of more than 30 volumes. Actually, there is not much here for the history of the Eastern Church. In addition to the rules of local councils and the Ecumenical Council itself, with their acts of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th. Apart from these acts, few in this huge collection can serve for the history of the Eastern Church. Most of this collection is filled with a statement of acts of Western councils that took place at various times in Rome, Britain, Germany, France, etc. To get acquainted with state regulations, especially those related to the Roman Church, two main collections can serve, the so-called Code of Theodosius the Younger and the Code of Justinian. The Code of Theodosius consists of 16 books, of which only the last concerns the affairs of the church. It constitutes apparently a small part of this code, explained by learned men, especially Godfrey, and constitutes the 6th part of the whole collection. Our library has such a codex, which is very useful for the history of the Church. It depicts the circumstances of the times of Constantine the Great until the end of the Kingdom of Theodosius the Younger (less than 150 years). In many cases this book can be useful. Here the purpose for which this or that resolution was given, changes, decrees on these resolutions is determined. Justinian's Code contains, in addition to novels, one 13th share of regulations concerning the church. The first book contains decrees, while the others relate to the church, and are selected from the Code of Theodosius. In the novella one can find more decrees of this emperor. After him, Leo the Philosopher, Basil the Emperor, his father, Alexei Komnenos and other Greek emperors issued decrees to the church. There is no separate collection of them, but they are contained in the so-called work Jus Graeco Romanum. This can be called the complete helmsman of the Eastern Church. There are some parts of it in the ancient Slavic translation of Alexy Mikhailovich, which in its literalness in many places is completely incomprehensible. In extreme cases, you can use it. For the history of the Russian Church, collections of laws and state acts recently collected by the Archaeographical Commission can serve: collections of conciliar definitions and correspondence can also serve for the history of worship and the teachings of the church. The correspondence of the Popes by Catholic writers was published in many collections, one of them, the most complete, called Amplissima collectio bullarum, consists of 28 volumes. We do not have it, we only have some in the Bunnian collection of councils. Also the complete collection of works of the Fathers of the Western Church, for example, Pope Innocent, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great and others. State laws regarding the Church can be found in the codes of Theodosius and especially Justinian. For the history of Christian life, collections of rules of monastic orders and the biography of St. serve as manuals and sources. husbands. These are the direct sources that must be used. In addition to these sources, all historical sciences can serve as aids for the history of the Church. For example, for the history of the spread and contraction of the limits of the church - world and political history, the history of citizenship and legislation in those countries where the church spread. For the history of teaching - the history of education, religion, in particular, the history of philosophy and literature. This latter is useful in the sense that the course of literature indicates the direction of morals and explains a lot in the works of church writers. Church philology is also closely related to the history of the church. This is Charles Ducange's Glossarium et scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis in six volumes. It helps explain Latin words used in the Middle Ages. Another glossary of his serves to understand the words of Eastern writers. Switzer's Thesaurus Ecclesial serves to explain theological words. This is a lexicon in which ecclesiastical words are explained in passages selected from writers of the Eastern Church. Each word is examined from as many sides as it was used by church writers of ancient times, and all this is explained according to the writings of the fathers. This "Thesaurus Ecclesial" is useful for history. After Svintser, no one studied this subject. More archaeologically, Diocanterus' two lexicons can serve: one Greek, the other Latin. Greek remains in the same form, and Latin is replenished from manuscripts. This is the lexicon "Glossarium ad scriptores sacros latinos". Here are collected words that are not found in common lexicons. For the Eastern Church, the extensive works of Meursius are very important in this regard. . For critical study The authenticity and reliability of church acts is served by church diplomacy, Foukon's paleography and the collection of Kepnen's monuments. The first one is especially useful for the history of the Russian Church. To get acquainted with the place and time of church events, church geography and statistics are used. These are the statistics of Stegenn, published in 1804. Church chronology has not yet been processed. Individual parts of history should also be considered as auxiliary sciences for church history. Thus, for example, the history of the church mission was formed from the history of the spread of the church. This story can serve as a good guide for the history of the Church. Among previous works, it is necessary to include here the history of the spread of the church since the time of the Apostles “Lux Evangelica” by Fabricius. But there are events in it that do not have complete reliability, and it cannot be called history, but the key to more extensive books, where you can read all this in more detail. Blumgard wrote a history of this subject, but there is little new in his writing other than his own considerations. However, he brought the history of the mission to the Reformation. For the history of church administration and worship, those works that present church archeology are used. This is the work of Bingham, “Origines ecclesiasticae,” who wrote it in defense of the ancient ecclesiastical institutions. It is especially important for the history of the Eastern Church. Of the new works of this kind, Augusti, a Lutheran, and Binterim, a Catholic, deserve attention. The first goes further than Bingham's research and adds his own considerations, but not always well. Christian antiquities are often looked at as pagan or Mohammedan. The second wrote his fourteen volumes of collections of antiquities in favor of the Western Church. He was preceded in archaeological works by Felicius, who also wrote three volumes. The history of Christian life has for the most part been told in fragments. This is the description of the sufferings of the martyrs of the first four centuries by Ruinart “Acta martyrum sincera”, Bolland’s “Acta sanctorum”, which describes both the sufferings of martyrs and the exploits of hermits, and most of the glorified saints of the Roman Church. Note The biographies examine and determine the time of their compilation, the reliability of the history of these biographies, and explain the difficulties. These are not just our menaions, where the actual life of the church or the lives of the Saints of God are set out. But the work of the Bollandists remained unfinished, despite the fact that the whole collection reached 50 volumes. They stopped, or the circumstances of the time forced them to stop in the month of October. Moreover, you can supplement your previous works. For example, the month of January has only two volumes, and for August-September there are 8 volumes each. When developing materials, they found a lot that could be replenished and were put aside until the end of the work, but it was not destined to be completed. The French Revolution hindered their work; for a long time they did not know where the materials they collected were located. Finally found recently in Holland and Belgium. Arnold - a true depiction of the life of the first Christians and Neander - all of them, it should be noted, borrow their information from the Fathers of the Church. For the history of teaching, the history of dogma serves as follows: Dionysius, Neander and Munter, but this latter is partial to his religion. His work is important due to the lists of the Church Fathers contained in it. In addition to the history of dogmas, the history of the theological sciences can serve for the history of the Church. Such are Flukki and Shettila, but both of them are not even faithful to Protestantism and are infected with neologism. Patristics, for the compilation of which the works of Kave, the scientific history of the church of Udina, Alberg, Lumner, Dunis can serve as aids. All of them provide brief ideas about the life of the church fathers, point out their true and false writings, and Lumner and Ahlberg are still engaged in presenting the content of the fathers’ writings. It should be noted about Kava that his works are only a list. Fabricius's Greek library can also be included here. Here are church history aids. The first to work in collecting information about the Church was the Evangelist Luke, who set forth the first formation of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles. The acts of the other apostles, which he did not speak about, remained unknown to us. Already about a hundred years later, in the middle of the 2nd century, Egesippus collected the monuments of the Christian Church and presented them in five books. Only fragments from this work have reached us, preserved by Eusebius. After Hegesippus, the history of the Church was almost not studied. Persecution prevented such activities. When Constantine and Lucinius granted peace to the Church in 312, they began to work on this again. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, wrote ten books of church history. He begins with the time of Jesus Christ, briefly outlines the history of the Apostles, then deals with the history of the Church after the Apostles. In compiling it he was used by Egyptippus and other writers, and therefore many works of ancient writers have survived in its history. He studies in particular detail the history of the Church of Alexandria and its school, because he himself was attached to it. Well-read not only in church, but also pagan literature, access to all sorts of monuments, all this helped him in compiling a history, which he brought to the year 325. He added a biography of Constantine to the story, but this is a more magnificent speech than a discussion of his actions. Having lived in the East, Eusebius was more concerned with Eastern history; he says little or almost nothing about the Western and African Church. After Eusebius, the disputes between the Donatists in Africa and the Arians in the East attracted general attention. Therefore, his example remained without imitation for more than a hundred years. Only Lactatius wrote the book “De mortibus persecutorum” around the same time. In this work he adds information about times of persecution. At the end of the 4th century, Rufinus and Severus, originally from Aquinas, appeared from Western writers. The first reworked history for the Latins and brought it up to 395, and the other wrote an abridgement of the world history of conversion to Christianity. After them, Pavel Rosa brought the history of the world to his time. Here he talks about Christianity from an apologetic side. It proves that the disasters that exist and have existed do not come from Christianity. The first worthy imitators of Eusebius among the Greeks are found in Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret. Previously, Philostorgius wrote them as an Arian; he sinned in many ways. Socrates and Sozomen were Konstantinovsky lawyers. The first, in his seven books, carefully described the events of the Church from the time of Constantine to the Third Ecumenical Council of 439. The second one starts a little later - since the time of Arius, and ends before the Third Ecumenical Council. He added little new to the history of Socrates and it is difficult to even decide which of them used one another. Most likely, they both used the same sources. The story of Sozomen is better known, but it contains less criticism than that of Socrates. But Socrates does not exactly enjoy a good name in the discourse of Orthodoxy. Namely: he is suspected of Novocianism, although this schism, as is known, did not differ from Orthodoxy in the reasoning of dogmas, but this did not allow him to be given full value to church leaders. Theodoret describes the same time as Socrates and Sozomen described, starting from the time where Eusebius stopped. He was an educated man, collected many church acts and set out his history so well that his style can be an example of a historical style. In the 6th century, Socrates was continued by the reader Theodore. His work has reached us only in fragments. Evagrius of Antioch, the Lawyer, brought the history of Sozomen and Socrates to the end of the 6th century. It consists of a series of Greek historians who continued one another. Another thing to note about him is that he was quite gullible. After this, in the West they began to compile collections from previous historians. In the middle centuries, both in the West and in the East, we find only chronicles. Of these, we have already mentioned some - Zonara, Kedric, Gregory Amartal. Byzantine historians presented the history of the Church in this form until the end of the Empire of Constantinople. Since the transformation of the sciences, the history of the Church began to be processed there in a new form, and the Reformation intensified the study. Melanchthon's student Flacius in Magdeburg, conspiring with his like-minded people, proposed to write history in a new form, precisely so that it could serve as a stronghold for the Evangelical teaching. It began to be published in 1559 under the name “Magdeburg Centuries” and thirteen volumes were published. Each volume contained church incidents Despite the many difficulties with which the authors of the Centuries had to struggle, namely: they did not have enough sources at hand, there is much in their work that is useful for the history of the Church. The history of the doctrine of faith is set out in particular detail and it is shown in dogmatic order how the Western Church retreated from ancient decrees. However, apart from its predilection for Lutheranism, it is not good in its method, in which it looks more like a collection of materials than a history, and the materials themselves are scattered in it. Heretics and heresies in two different branches and others like that. But the most important drawback is the polemical direction. This tone forced them to make violent explanations of the opinions of the Church Fathers. When the Centuries came out, the Lutherans were so pleased with them that for about a hundred years they read or wrote nothing except them. Many of them were extracted, the most important by Osiander, who continued the history of the Church. But written in a polemical tone, this work also brought Catholics into the field of history. Of these, Baronius, who worked for thirty years to compile a history that was equally extensive and rich in a collection of historical documents. He composed an essay known as Annales Ecclesiastici. He tells his story year by year. As a result, his narrative is fragmented. In addition, in favor of his Church, he produces unreliable and even completely false opinions, makes mistakes in chronology and cites incorrect translations from Greek writers. All this caused many opponents against him, not only from Protestants, but even from Catholics. However, these shortcomings do not take away from his work the merits of a rich collection. In the 17th century, few books of this kind of lasting merit were published, because everyone was busy arguing among themselves and with Catholics, only meager extracts from the Centuries came out. The best of them is Betler's Compendium, which contains the history of the Old Testament Church. Subsequently, this work was continued by other Protestant writers. At this time one man showed what he could have done for church history if there had been no such controversy. This is Gregory Kallistus. He served this science both by oral teaching and writings of this kind. Exceeding his contemporaries' abilities and wealth of knowledge, he lovingly studied Christian antiquities to unite his fellow believers. His works are mostly polemical, however, there are also historical ones, but there is no complete history, only fragments remain. So he owns a fragment of the Western Church in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries. From him many of his students borrowed a taste for Church history, among them Hildebrand is famous. When the debate began to subside at the end of the 18th century, many scientists and intelligent people turned to processing church history. So Shumsileikhen in Witenberg, a learned and educated man, as much as possible in his time, knew the Fathers of the Church, and was distinguished by moderation. He showed all this in his academic discussions, written on various occasions. His lessons bore good fruit, his example found imitators. Christian Courthold is famous among theologians; his works are still important. He wrote about persecution, about the censure of Christians by pagans, about the respect of the first Christians for Holy Scripture, and explained the apologetic writings of the Church Fathers. His direction is good, his learning is extensive. At the same time, Kaspar Sigitarius lived. His famous Introduction to Church History. His contemporary Schmidt corrected many absurd opinions that had previously appeared in Church history. His Compendium was published many times, and Protestants called him the restorer of Church history. Reigesburg and Thomas [inaudible] were famous in Leipzig. The latter left a lot of works, but was too ardent. He studied the history of the Church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but his criticism and judgments are generally unfounded. However, history has been going smoothly so far. Everyone thought that if they wrote and are writing anything regarding church history, it was correct. But at this time, at the end of the 17th century, two people appeared in the field of church history. They decided to retrain Protestants to write church history. One man was smart with great talents and merits, witty and enterprising, but an enemy of the Protestant clergy, a man capable of perverting everything, a man almost incapable of moderation. This is Thomasius. He entered the field of church history in order to humiliate the clergy and wreak havoc on their systems and comments. Another, completely devoted to the first, not so much educated, but just as much an enemy of the clergy, a pathetic dreamy head, incapable of following the middle path, was Gottfried Arnold. Thomasius wanted to purify Lutheran church law and even destroy it. He found so many remains of the papacy that when he uncovered them, everyone was surprised. Among these remnants, he attributed the certain importance of the clergy in the affairs of the church that was preserved in the Lutheran church, while he wanted to subordinate all church administration to secular power. He especially attacked the opinion that heresy should be viewed as a civil crime and wanted to show in his history how the name of heretics was abused. Since Thomasius generally looked too strictly, he everywhere found a lot of bad things in the Lutheran Church, both in the clergy and in the teaching. But Gottfried's enterprise Arnold was even more excited. By nature gloomy, sick of imagination, however, kind-hearted, struck by the corruption and lack of dignity of teachers, he wanted to take part in the correction of the Church, about which Thomasius was working. He thought that the obstacles to the correction of the Church were within the Church, namely in the clergy, that the clergy always hindered and resisted when other people who did not belong to this class entered the field of teaching and correction of morals. This thought led Arnold to the fact that he wanted to prove in the history of the Church that the clergy had always been the cause of unrest and disorder in the Church. His determination was wonderful. a service for Thomasius in the fight against theologians, and although he himself later did not approve of him for mysticism and attachment to certain fables, he recommended his book as the best after Holy Scripture. This book is known as the impartial history of heresies and was published in 1799. The ancient history is short, the new is extensive, but soiled by the dirty hands of Arnold. He made it his duty to reveal all the shortcomings and vices in Christian teachers, tried to show how much harm their love of power and greed caused to the Church and religion, he wanted to tear down everything that had previously inspired them with respect. On the other hand, he tried in every possible way to prove the innocence of heretics. But this very intention was the reason that he became the most biased writer. In his work, he became a defender of all heretics, enemies of the church and a condemner of its defenders. Heretics were always superior to him both in intelligence and morality. To prove this, he extracted from the darkness their defensive speeches; on the contrary, the Orthodox are always wrong with him. Arnold's writing created extraordinary excitement. He was looked upon as a satire, and Arnold himself was considered an atheist. Writers of the Roman Church soon began to use his work against the Protestants. Therefore, everyone who could wield a pen took up arms against Arnold. Cyprian Erasmus Solomon was the first to write against him. In other matters, it is necessary to say about Arnold’s work that, if it itself was not impartial, it taught others to better look at heretics and write their stories with indifference. Arnold proved with his other works that he could be a good writer. This is his collection about the life of Christians in the first centuries. After Arnold, known are Soleys, a church and civil historian, in the 17th century Buddeus, Abbot Fabricius, who wrote a Greek library. Around this time, Weisman published an “Introduction to the Christian Memorabilia of Church History.” This essay is worth attention because it served as a guide for compiling our textbook. He wrote as much for pious motives as in order to become scientifically acquainted with the history of the Church. Moderate, cautious, impartial with a pious direction and at the same time a scientist, he always strives for the grain, everywhere he tries to expose the high and instructive, and also, where he could not carry out similar studies, he writes from other, even Catholic writers. The best part of his work is the section on the teachers of the Church. However, his work is not a complete church history, but a manual for it. Weismann was surpassed by Mosheim and Pfaff; they paved the way for themselves to study Church history. The first, in addition to talents, knowledge of languages, Jewish and civil history, knew the world. Hardworking and tasteful, he previously compiled private histories, from which an extract was made by his friend Miller, and it was published under the title “Institutionen Historiae Ecclesiasticae.” This extract is based on evidence only witty, but in places the sharp spirit of Arnold is visible. Two years before the publication of this work, Mosheim undertook extensive historical work, but death prevented him. The latter published only one volume, but with the title “Commentarium de rebus Chritianis ante Constantin”. Pfaff, his contemporary, combined with his teaching a great deal of knowledge in all branches of science, and wrote the Compendium Historis Eclesiastical, a complicated work. They were followed by Baumgarten and Erizgtin, who provided service with private historical research and Zemler. This man, with his extensive reading and his free-thinking, did a lot for hermeneutics, through strengthening the literal meaning of Holy Scripture. Dogmatic theology has lost a lot from his idea that dogmas were gradually formed and appeared in the form in which they are now. His dogmatics is the first of its kind, characterized by free-thinking, and therefore serves as an arsenal for neologists. There is a lot of good in his story, but also a lot of wrong. His “Commentatio de demoniacis” was written in the same spirit. A number of neological writers, both in history and in theology, begin with him. After him, the Walchs father and son worked. Both are remarkable for their many years of work and used all the works that were published before them. The elder's church history of the first two centuries, based on extracts from other historical works, is very useful. The son wrote and collected about heresies. His writing is highly elaborate. One of those who worked on church history was Schreck in the second half of the 18th century. He began to publish his history, not thinking of making it as extensive as it came out still unfinished in forty-five volumes. He did not follow the method of the Magdeburg Centuries and processed homogeneous the materials are in chronological order and not only did he draw from previously untouched sources, but he also included biographies of remarkable people with their opinions and teachings. Because of this, his story is drawn out. Of the church historians in the spirit of Zemler, Genke is known, whose work was continued by Vater. But opposition has opened up against this poisonous trend. This should include the historical works of Neander and Gieseler, both of which are not yet completed. Neander began his church historical works with private research. Then he began to publish the full history and has so far published twelve volumes of it. Its history is presented by periods and centuries. The most important part of it is the history of the doctrine. To him belongs the honor of restoring respect for the ancient church teachers. In him, Germany saw the first historian who revealed his subject in a complete, harmonious whole. For him, all phenomena and events are closely connected, the system is visible everywhere. In spirit, his work is not purely scientific, it is partly edifying. It cannot be said that his goal of presenting everything in strict sequence did not lead him to tension. Gieseler brought church history to the Reformation. It was published in two volumes, each of which is further divided into two parts. This work is rich in a collection of extracts from the works on which it is based. And although its text is short, the notes contain all the passages in Greek, Latin and German necessary to reveal the thoughts of its text. The extracts multiply gradually as history approaches the time of the Reformation. However, Gieseler’s direction is worse than Neander’s; he seems to be one of the neologians. Here are the works of Lutheran writers on Church history. Of the Reformed writers, many processed church history piecemeal, especially in France and England. In France - because they were given complete freedom to write, and in England - the efforts of the episcopal Church to determine its structure forced attention to the history of the church. Here we can point to Dulley’s writings “De usu patrum”. As the work of a Lutheran, it is distinguished by an incorrect view of the Fathers of the Church. Another of his works is “Dissertations ad”, in this work there is a lot of learning, but there are also stretches in favor of his opinions. Many people worked to refute it, but did not quite succeed. Diopressi-Mornaeus and Faumasius wrote against the papacy. Piarion wrote the history of the Apostle Paul. Cosambon v. Baronius. Kave published a history of church teachers. Ussey published a church chronicle, and Fon published a history of Pelagianism. Koenigen wrote a book useful for the Eastern Church. Barat Jacob and Samuel: the first described church government, and the second refuted Baronius. Bingham studied Greek antiquities. Lacrosse, a Frenchman, wrote a history of the Eastern Churches that separated from the Orthodox. Jablonski, a Pole, wrote “Institutiones historiae christianae antiquioris,” an extensive and learned work, but poorly directed. He is ready to explain everything naturally and look at Christianity as paganism or Mohammedanism. In the Roman Church, after Baronius, they studied the history of Salmasius, who wrote “Antiquitales Ecclesial Christianal”, Lipsius, who published many monuments of Christian churches - a total of fifty-five volumes. Muratorium, which published an ancient copy of the Roman Liturgy. Ossius, Bextius also wrote church history, Paolo Santi, who wrote an impartial history of the Council of Florence. Frenchman Petavius ​​- the history of Christian dogmas. Balusius and Martin, who belonged to the Benedictine society, wrote about part of the Church history. Lubillon, Dionen, Seliger and Alexander Natalis, who made extracts from ancient writers. More than criticism and labor in the work of Kilmon, he worked on his work for forty years, collected a lot and presented it with a heretical approach. Fleury is a favorite French author, [inaudible] of the presentation with which he wrote his history of the Church. The Germans have Stober, who began publishing history and is still publishing. Katerkam, who combined church history with civil history, with a philosophical view, but does not pay attention to doctrine. Ritter wrote the Compendium. Of the newest Greek writers, one can point to Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Meletius, Metropolitan of Athens. Dosifei uses sufficient sources. His history is a polemic against Catholics. Meletius has nothing sacred. 1. Gorsky A.V., prot. Lesson program for the class of General Church History. Without end. (60s) // OR RSL F. 78. K. 2, Unit. hr. 1. 2. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Lectures...Part I. Old Testament history. (1840/1841) // OR RSL F. 78. Cardboard 2, Unit. hr. 5. 3. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Introductory lectures. (1830–1840) // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 4. Units. hr. 1. 4. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history - lectures (with additions) (1830–1840) // OR RSL. F. 78. K.4. Unit hr. 2. 5. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history // OR RSL. F. 304. 2. No. 125. 6. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history // OR RSL. F. 304. 2. No. 274. 1. Gorsky A.V., prot. History of the Gospel and the Apostolic Church. Academic lectures. Moscow, 1883. 2. Gorsky A.V., prot. History of the Gospel and the Apostolic Church. Academic lectures. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1902. 3. Gorsky A.V., prot. Unpublished passages from the “Diary” // Theological Bulletin. 1914. No. 10/11. 367–423. 4. Barsukov N. P. Life and works of M.P. Weather. T. 1. St. Petersburg, A. D. and P. D. Pogodin, 1888. 5. Gavryushin N.K. Features of the historical school in theological academies/ Historical culture of imperial Russia. Formation of ideas about the past. Moscow, 2012. 6. Gennady (Gogolev), bishop. Giant of learning. The life and works of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky (1812–1875). Moscow, 2004. 7. Glubokovsky N. N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. Warsaw, 1928. 8. Eusebius (Orlinsky), archbishop. Letters to A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1914. T. 3. No. 10/11. pp. 534–610. 9 . Innocent of Penza, St. Outline of church history from biblical times to the 18th century: in 2 parts. St. Petersburg, 1817. 10. Kazansky P.S. Memories of A.V. Gorsky // Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him at the Moscow Theological Academy on the 25th anniversary of his death. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archive of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900. pp. 178–195. 11. Kuzoro K. A. Scientific school as a form of organizing the research activities of church historians at the Moscow Theological Academy (second half of the 19th – first quarter of the 20th century) // Bylye gody. 2019. Vol. 53. Part 3. pp. 1167–1177. 12. Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th to the 20th centuries. St. Petersburg, 1903. 13. Lebedev A. P. A brief outline of the progress of the development of church historical science in Russia // Theological Bulletin. 1895. T. 4. No. 12. P. 289–321. 14. Lebedev A.P. To the memories of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky rector and professor of the Moscow Academy of Sciences // Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him by the Moscow Theological Academy on the 25th anniversary of his death. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archive of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900. pp. 195–222. 15. Lisova N.N. Review of the main directions of Russian theological academic science in the 19th – early 20th centuries // Theological works. 2002. No. 37. P. 5–127. 16. Lyutko E.I. Experience of Christian understanding of history using the example of church historian Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky (1812–1875) // “Let the descendants of the Orthodox of their native land know the past fate”: Materials of the VIII International Forum “St. Tikhon’s Zadonsk Educational Readings” (December 7–8, 2012). Lipetsk, 2013. pp. 42–43. 17. Lyutko, E.I. Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky and the formation of scientific theology in Russia // Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's University for the Humanities. Episode 2: History. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2016. No. 5(72). pp. 129–146. 18. Lyutko E. I. Archpriest Alexander Gorsky and foreign intellectuals: between scientific and confessional interests // Filaretovsky almanac. 2018. No. 14. pp. 147–167. 19. Lyutko E.I. The first Russian textbooks on church history: the problem of origin // Filaretovsky almanac. 2021. No. 17. pp. 49–67. 20. Melkov A. S. Giant of knowledge: biography of the prot. A. V. Gorsky. Moscow, Pashkov house. 2012. 21. Muretov M.D. From the memoirs of a student of the Moscow Theological Academy of the XXXII year (1873–1877) // Theological Bulletin. 1914. T. 3. No. 10/11. pp. 646–676. 22. Nikolai (Ziorov), archbishop. My memories of MDA. Warsaw, 1914. 23. Popov S.G. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1897. 24. Posnov M. E. August Neander as the founder of the school. New types of construction of ancient church history // Christian Reading. 1908. No. 11. pp. 1490–1501. 25. Postnikov P., prot. Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky / At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914." Moscow, 1914. pp. 252–341 26. S-ov. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1954. pp. 75–80. 27. Smirnov S.I. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him at the Moscow Theological Academy. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archives of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900, pp. 15–76. 28. Smirnov S.K. History of the MDA before its transformation: 1814–1870. Moscow, 1879. 29. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. Moscow, 1996. Book 8. Part 1. pp. 433–436. 30. Spassky A. A. The first lecture at the department of general church history (in March 1896 about Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky), Archpriest A.V. Gorsky and Prof. A.P. Lebedev as teachers of church history) // Theological Bulletin. 1903. T. 1. No. 2. pp. 278–296. 31. Sukhova N.Yu. The case of Prot. Gerasim Pavsky // Filaretovsky almanac. 2014. No. 10. pp. 88–107. 32. Filaret (Gumilevsky), St. Letters to A.V. Gorsky // Soulful reading. 1896. No. 9. pp. 319–323. 33. Filaret (Drozdov), St. Outline of Church Biblical History. St. Petersburg, 1827. 34. Philaret (Drozdov), St. Commentary on the book of Genesis. Moscow, 2004. 35. Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. Moscow, 2009. 36. Khondzinsky P., prot. The concept of church history in the works of Russian academic theologians of the first quarter of the 19th century // Christian Reading. 2018. No. 5. pp. 16–23. 37. Khondzinsky P., prot. Theological portraits. Moscow, 2021. 38. Neander A. Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche. V. I, Abth. 1. Hamburg. 1825. Golubinsky E. E. Memoirs of E. E. Golubinsky. Kostroma, 1926. P. 27. Philaret of Moscow, St. Outline of Church Biblical History. St. Petersburg, 1827. Innocent of Penza, St. Outline of church history from biblical times to the 18th century: in 2 parts. St. Petersburg, 1817. Philaret of Moscow, St. Letters to Filaret Gumilevsky. Moscow, 1885. P. 24. Eusebius (Orlinsky), archbishop. Letters to A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1914. T. 3. No. 10/11. P. 535. Gorsky A.V., prot. History of the Gospel and the Apostolic Church. Academic lectures. Sergiev Posad, 1902. Gorsky A.V., prot. History of the Gospel and the Apostolic Church. Diaries. St. Petersburg, 1999. Gorsky A.V., prot. History of the Gospel and the Apostolic Church. Academic lectures. Moscow, 1883. Gorsky A.V., prot. History of the Russian Church // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1976. No. 1. P. 62–70; No. 2. P. 61–70; No. 3. P. 68–76; No. 4. pp. 69–77. Kazansky P.S. Memories of A.V. Gorsky // Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him by the Moscow Theological Academy on the 25th anniversary of his death. With the attachment of unpublished papers from the archive of A.V. Gorsky. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1900. P. 178. A student with this last name is not on the list of graduates of 1842. Apparently, it was Vasily Petrovich Palisadov. Kazansky P.S. Decree. op. P. 182. Smirnov S.K. History of the MDA before its transformation: 1814–1870. Moscow, 1879. P. 35. Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th to the 20th centuries. Moscow, 1903. pp. 372–373. Lebedev A.P. A brief outline of the development of church historical science in Russia // Theological Bulletin. 1895. T. 4. No. 12. P. 312. Lebedev A.P. To the memories of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky rector and professor of the Moscow Academy of Sciences // Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him by the Moscow Theological Academy on the 25th anniversary of his death. P. 198. Popov S. G. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1897. Lebedev A.P. “To the memories of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky...S. 195. Smirnov S.I. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Prot. A.V. Gorsky in the memoirs of him at the Moscow Theological Academy. P. 37. Spassky A. A. First lecture at the department of general church history (in March 1896 about Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky), Archpriest A. V. Gorsky and Prof. A. P. Lebedev as teachers of church history) // Theological Bulletin 1903. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 279. Glubokovsky N. N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. Warsaw, 1928. P. 32. Nikolai (Ziorov), archbishop. My memories of MDA. Warsaw, 1914. P. 10. Muretov M.D. From the memoirs of a student of the Moscow Theological Academy of the XXXII year (1873–1877) // Theological Bulletin. M., 1914. T. 3. No. 10/11. P. 660. Postnikov P., prot. Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky // At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914. Moscow, 1914. P. 255. Florovsky G. Ways of Russian theology. Moscow, 2009. P. 465. S-ov. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1954. P. 75. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. Moscow, 1996. Book 8. Part 1. P. 433. Lisova N.N. Review of the main directions of Russian theological academic science in the 19th – early 20th centuries” // Theological Works. 2002. No. 37. pp. 23–24. Gennady (Gogolev), bishop. Giant of learning. The life and works of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky (1812–1875). Moscow, 2004. P. 45. Melkov A. S. Giant of knowledge: biography of Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky. Moscow, 2012. Gavryushin N.K. Features of the historical school in theological academies / Historical culture of Imperial Russia. Formation of ideas about the past. Moscow, 2012. P. 202. Kuzoro K. A. Scientific school as a form of organizing the research activities of church historians at the Moscow Theological Academy (second half of the 19th – first quarter of the 20th century) // Bylye gody. 2019. Vol. 53. Part 3. P. 1170. Lyutko E.I. Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky and the formation of scientific theology in Russia // Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's University for the Humanities. Episode 2: History. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2016. No. 5(72). pp. 129–146; Lyutko E.I. Archpriest Alexander Gorsky and foreign intellectuals: between scientific and confessional interests // Filaretovsky almanac. 2018. No. 14. pp. 147–167. Lyutko E.I. Experience of Christian understanding of history using the example of church historian Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky (1812–1875) // “Let the descendants of the Orthodox of their native land know the past fate”: Materials of the VIII International Forum “St. Tikhon’s Zadonsk Educational Readings” (December 7–8, 2012). Lipetsk, 2013. P. 43. Philaret of Moscow, St. Outline of Church Biblical History. 1827. Khondzinsky Pavel, prot. The concept of church history in the works of Russian academic theologians of the first quarter of the 19th century // Christian Reading. No. 5. 2018. P. 18. Khondzinsky Pavel, prot. Theological portraits. Moscow, 2021. P. 78. Khondzinsky Pavel, prot. The concept of church history in the works of Russian academic theologians of the first quarter of the 19th century // Christian Reading. No. 5. 2018. P. 21. Florovsky Georgy, prot. Paths of Russian theology. Moscow, 2009. P. 2009. 142.219 Lyutko E.I. The first Russian textbooks on church history: the problem of origin // Filaretovsky almanac. 2021. No. 17. P. 60. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history // OR RSL. F. 304.2. No. 272. L. 18. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Lectures. Part 1. L. 31. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history // OR RSL. F. 304. 2. No. 125. L. 19. Quote from: Lebedev A.P. Church historical science in its main representatives. pp. 350–351. Posnov M.E. New types of construction of the ancient history of the Church. P. 1498. Quote from: Lebedev A.P.: Church historical science in its main representatives. P. 349. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history - lectures (with additions) (1830–1840) // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 4. Units. hr. 1. L. 7 turns. Filaret (Gumilevsky), St. Letters to A.V. Gorsky // Soulful reading. 1896. No. 9. P. 323. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Lectures... Part I. Old Testament History (1840/1841) // OR RSL F. 78. K. 2. Unit. hr. 5. P. 19. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament church history. Introduction to the History of the Church (1840/1841). L. 21. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history... L. 16 ver. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Lectures...Part I. Old Testament History (1840/1841). P. 7. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Introductory lectures // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 4. Units. hr. 1. L. 1. Gorsky A.V. prot. Diary: [1830 – June 28, 1840] / Ed. With notes prot. S. K. Smirnova // Additions to the Works of St. Fathers. 1884. Part 34. Book. 3. P. 133. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Lectures...Part I. Old Testament History (1840/1841). S. 1. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Introductory lectures. L. 19. See Sukhova N.Yu. The case of Prot. Gerasim Pavsky // Filaretovsky almanac. 2014. No. 10. pp. 88–107. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Lectures...Part I. Old Testament history. (1840/1841). P. 3. Notes. Gorsky A.V., prot. Unpublished passages from the “Diary” // BV. 1914. No. 10/11. P. 376. Gorsky A.V., prot. Unpublished passages from the Diary. P. 377. Innocent of Penza, St. Outline of church history from biblical times to the 18th century: in 2 parts. St. Petersburg, 1817. b/n. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Lectures...Part I. Old Testament History (1840/1841). S. 4. Gorsky A.V., prot. Lesson program for the class of General Church History. Without end. (60s) // OR RSL F. 78. Cardboard 2, Unit. hr. 1. L. 1. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Moscow, St. Commentary on the book of Genesis. Moscow, 2004. P. 295. Gorsky A.V., prot. Old Testament history - lectures (with additions) (1830–1840) // OR RSL. F. 78. K. 4. Unit. hr. 2. L. 6. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Introductory lectures // OR RSL. F. 78. Cardboard 4. Units. hr. 1. L. 2. Gorsky A.V., prot. Church history. Lectures...Part I. Old Testament History (1840/1841). S. 4. Moses represents the Creator as speaking, seeing, having a face (with which he breathed breath), hands (with which he formed the body), legs (he brought animals to Adam, walked in paradise). Therefore, it represents the Creator in a bodily form. So, when the Creator says: Let us create man in our image, then we can conclude from the Divine words that God also assimilated to the human body those forms in which He himself acted during creation. But is the Creator really clothed in bodily form, as he subsequently appeared to people? But is all this said by Moses in a human form? Why does the Creator take the forms of man when there was no man yet? ... We combine the times of Moses and Joshua into one period because the history of Joshua is nothing more than the end of the history of Moses, and both of them are much more closely connected with each other than the first is connected with the history of the judges. The action of I. Navin is the continuation and completion of the works of Moses, and in general the state of the Church under I. Navin is more similar to the state in the time of Moses than in the time of the Judges. The most miracles of this time, in their majesty and importance, belong to the times of Moses. A.V. Gorsky means “The Outline of Church Biblical History” by St. Philareta (Drozdova) Here we connect the times of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, because they do not differ in essence. I. Christ accomplished the atonement, laid the foundation, and the Apostles completed the structure of the Church on this foundation. The character of this period is creative; the subsequent times closest to the Apostles do not have such a character, for no one after that had either such talents or such responsibilities. Isn't there a need for a special section for the history of heresies and schisms? No. Because heresies constituted the negative side of one and the same teaching, and that they are not anything essential in the Church. Where does the disgust of the pagans and hatred of the Jews come from? It seems due to the difference in religion. The Jews turned away from the pagans as unclean, and therefore they paid them the same. Of course, the hatred of the pagans is excusable, for it was combined with hatred of the elect.