III том.

§ 72. Naming I. Christ the Son of Man (pp. 20–24). This entire section is borrowed from an article by I.M. Gromoglasov on the same topic, published in Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment for 1894. This article is, of course, significantly abbreviated and placed by Archpriest Malinovsky in his dogmatics. Sometimes the author abbreviates, retelling in his own words, but having the text of the article in front of his eyes, sometimes he only literally copies one or two phrases from the page. Page 20 Malinovsky – 107. 108, 109–110, 132, 133, 134, 136 ff., 114 articles by Gromoglasov. Page 21-page 114, 115, 116, 117–118, 123, 124,125–126, 136 of the same article, and literal borrowings were made from pp. 114, 115, 116, 123, 125. Page 22-page 136, 140, 141, 150–151, 152–153, 219, 220, 222; from pp. 136, 140, 222 literal borrowings. Page 23-page 222–225, 227,248, 249; from the last two pages the borrowings are literal. It is noticeable that the article was compiled hastily; hence the errors. According to the author, the name “Son of Man” is used 77 times in the Lord’s speeches in the New Testament, in general in the Gospels up to 84 times and 4 times in other New Testament books (p. 20). In fact, this name, in addition to the speeches of the Lord, is used 3 more times in the Gospels, and a total of 80 times. Summary 84 applies to the entire New Testament. On page 22, Schoettgenius turned to Schoetgen and the exact quotation from Gromoglasov turned into too general - Horae hebr. II. Does Fr. Malinovsky understand what department he is borrowing? He gives and he hides. When listing the literature (p. 20, note 1), he only names Gromoglasov’s article, indicating, however, the year of its appearance in 1884, but does not cite it anywhere. Moreover, almost at the beginning of the section there is a note: “An analysis of these opinions (about the meaning of the name) can be read from Prof. Sollertinsky. S.A. Shepherding of Christ the Savior. St. Petersburg. 1896 Ch. “About the Son of Man” (p. 20). Since the author proceeds with an analysis of various opinions, one might think that he is using the book of Prof. Sollertinsky. In fact, I doubt whether Fr. Malinovsky's book Sollertinsky. At least there is no chapter about the “Son of Man”. The “Son of Man” is discussed in chapter II of this book - “The origin of Christian shepherding from the depths of the theanthropic consciousness of Christ the Savior” (pp. 60–117), but this chapter does not contain at all what Archpriest Malinovsky has. § 74. History of the dogma about the face of I. Christ (pp. 26–60). In this paragraph, page (27–28), dedicated to the teachings of the Judaizing heretics, is compiled quite close to the text of the book. V.A. Snegireva. The doctrine of the face of I. Christ in the 1st-3rd centuries. Christianity. Kazan 1871, pp. 22–27, 63, 64. 2 notes are also taken from here. on page 27. The next two pages are dedicated to the Gnostics and are compiled from the same book, pp. 99, 80, 100, 101, 95, 96. 98, 91, 101, 104, 115, 132. Here the author has a mosaic: a phrase, a line is taken from each page, often with literal accuracy. Also, on page 29 the Gnostic Valentinus became Valentinian. Speaking about the patripassians (pp. 31–32), Fr. Malinovsky takes several phrases from the same Snegirev from pp. 192 and 194, and almost verbatim repeats what he himself wrote in the first volume of his dogmatics. The conclusion to the speech about monarchs on page 33 is literally copied from page 197 by Snegirev, and then the author immediately moves on to the book by D. 0. Gusev - Heresy of the Anti-Trinitarians of the 3rd century. Kazan 1872, and retells from it pages 250 and 251 on pages 33 and 34, and extremely unsuccessfully corrects one word: “the teaching of the monarchists,” writes Fr. Malinovsky, required the disclosure of the following aspects of the dogma about the face of Jesus Christ” (p. 33) and further, among these “sides of dogma,” he points out “the hypostatic difference of the three persons of the Divine Trinity.” Is this really a side of the dogma about the face of Jesus Christ? Gusev (p. 250) is talking about dogmas, and not about the sides of a dogma, which, of course, is incomparably more accurate. Speaking about Apollinaris (pp. 36 – 39), Fr. Malinovsky literally copies more than a page (on pp. 36 and 37) from A. S. Lebedev’s article. The false teaching of Apollinaris and its significance in the history of Christian dogmatics, Christian Readings e, 1878, vol. 2, pp. 266, 267,269. Two phrases from Lebedev’s article (pages 580 and 581) also appeared on page 38 of Malinovsky. But only by copying the note on page 39 from this article did the author make a vague reference to the article used. About Nestorianism (on pp. 40–42), with the exception of a few lines, everything is literally copied from A.P. Lebedev. Ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. Ed. 2. Sergiev Posad 1896, pp. 158, 159, 158, 159, 161, 159, 160–161. The most important anathematisms of St. Kirill (on pp. 42–43) were probably copied from the dogma of Bishop Sylvester, § 90, vol. 4, p. 83, since the Greek words in the Russian text are exactly the same as in Sylvester. The words of Eutychius on page 44 in Russian and Greek are taken from Lebedev. Ecumenical Councils, p. 199. From myself, Fr. Malinowski introduces only a few typos in Greek words. Lebedev took from pp. 266–267 (on pp. 45–46) the definition of faith of the fourth ecumenical council with several Greek words, in which again Fr. Malinovsky did not fail to introduce a sufficient number of typos. A whole 47 pages about monothelitism are literally copied from Lebedev. Ecumenical councils of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries. Ed. 2. Moscow 1897, pp. 73 and 74. From here (p. 84 note 1) the reference to Galin’s work in 2 note is taken. on pp. 47–48. The books from which the literal borrowings are made are only listed as “literature” at the beginning. paragraph (page 27 note 1), but they are not quoted, so the degree of dependence on benefits is hidden. On page 52 there is an extract from the book of St., not listed at the beginning of this paragraph. M. Zlatoverkhovnikova. The teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ about Himself as the Messiah and Son of God. Chernigov 1876, p. 5. The end of the paragraph is filled with short speeches about the Tübingen and Riechlian schools. Here the author is mainly based on the work of prof. Archpriest P.Ya. Svetlova - Christian doctrine in an apologetic presentation, vol. 2. (I have the latest edition, the author has the previous one). Speech by Rev. Malinovsky is sometimes close to the speech of Archpriest Svetlov, and sometimes identical with it. Srvn. pp. Malinovsky 53 with II, 587 and 589 Svetlova, 54 and notes. 2 from II, 579 and 591 approx., 55 from II, 580, 56 from II, 581 and 600, 58 from II. 737 and 738, 59 with II, 739. But what is especially remarkable is this: on pp. 54–59 Fr. Malinovsky is very generous with various references to “literature,” books and articles. These instructions are given in abundance on every page except 56, but I was never able to discover any indication of Archpriest Svetlov’s work. § 75. Lord I. Christ is true God by nature, as the Son of God (pp. 60–78). The previous paragraph ends, and this one begins, with a literal extract from the ancient article by Archimandrite Alexy - On the face of our Lord and Savior I. Christ, published in 1847 in the 5th part of the Addendum to the edition of the works of the Holy Fathers (pp. 399, 400). Then follows on seven pages a set of texts of the Holy Scriptures, sometimes close to the dogma of Macarius (note to p. 65 of Macarius, vol. 3, p. 65), and from p. 68 Fr. Malinovsky begins to copy the article by Archimandrite. Alexia. On page 68, more than half is copied literally from this article - Addendums - V, 435–436. 466–467. Between the two excerpts, the middle paragraph consists of numerical quotations from the Holy Scriptures. Quotes copied from pp. 440–452 5 hours of additions, where the full words of Scripture are given, were copied hastily, which is why the impossible quotation “Col. 15.1". It turns out on page 446 of the Additions, contrary to custom, the verse is placed at the front of the chapter: “in 15th Art. Chapter 1 Apostle”, etc. Selecting quotes and hastily leafing through an old magazine, Fr. Malinovsky opened the 15th chapter in his letter to the Colossians. Page 69 also begins with a selection of titles and quotations from pp. 468–471 of the Additions, and then follows a half-page literal extract from pp. 474 and 477. A small note copied from Sylvester, vol. 4, p. 58 is also added here. From page 70 the testimonies of ancient church writers begin. The transition is made with the words of Archimandrite Alexy’s article (Additions, V, 477) and many of the testimonies themselves are borrowed entirely from the same article. So on page 70, quotations from Ignatius the God-Bearer are reproduced with documentary accuracy, even in italics (Additions, V, pp. 481–482), and on page 71 there is an excerpt with introductory words from Polycarp of Smyrna (Additions, V, 490–491). Note 2 literally contains excerpts from the letter on the martyrdom of Polycarp (Additions, V, 491) and from 2 last. Clement (V, 479). Quotes from Hefele are also saved here twice. What kind of Hefele this is is not explained. This ancient edition is Patrum apostolicorum opera (Tubingae 1847), which is quoted by Archimandrite. Alexy, who wrote in the same year of 1847, when this publication first appeared. To quote this publication in 1909 is a mauvais ton, unacceptable not only in a doctoral dissertation, but also in a student essay. On page 72 of Archimandrite. Alexy partially copied excerpts from Justin the Philosopher and St. Irenaeus Lyunsky, and on page 73 according to Alexy the words of St. are reproduced. Dionysius of Alexandria, to which, however, approx. 2 quotations were found based on the new Russian translation (Kazan 1900). On page 74, a brief note about the Antioch councils against Paul of Samosata is literally taken from Sylvester, vol. 4, p. 72; note 3 copied from Snegirev’s book, page 8, although the copying cannot be discerned from the quoted quotation. On pp. 75–76 the answer to the question is given: why did the Son of God become incarnate for salvation? Both of these pages represent a literal extract from the article by Prof. Leporsky - “Incarnation” - in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 2, st. 820–822; only instead of “Logos” there is “Word”, instead of “act” there is “deed”, although the second replacement is not entirely successful. The article by Archimandrite So thoroughly used in this paragraph. Alexia is never quoted; it is only named among many others in the list of “literature”. About the article by Prof. Leporsky O. Malinovsky considered it unnecessary to mention, although he reprinted two pages from it. § 76. I. Christ is a true man (pp. 78–84). Almost the entire paragraph has been copied. Half of the 79th page is taken from the continuation of the same article by Archimandrite Alexy, published in the 6th part of the Additions, in 1848 (See pp. 52, 53). Page 80 is entirely copied from pp. 54, 55, 56–57 of the same article; only a reduction is made: in Archim. Alexy, for example. texts of the Holy Scriptures are given, and Archpriest Malinovsky selects only quotes. The note on this page, with the exception of 4–5 lines, is copied from page 55 of the same article; Moreover, it seems that the Greek word σωμά was inserted completely out of context. Most of page 81 is copied from Macarius (§ 134, vol. III, p. 76, note 115) and from the Additions (VI, 57,62,63). Quotes in the note are taken from Macarius and Alexy (VI, 62 notes). The entire page 82 and the first section of the 83rd were copied from art. archim. Alexei (Additions, VI, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69) and copied literally, with the exception of pp. 6, 82, where it is a retelling. The quotations in the notes on both pages are collected from Macarius (§§ 134 and 137, vol. III, p. 73 note, 114 and p. 79 note 117). The final section of 1 1/2 pages is compiled according to Macarius: 1/2 page is written literally (§ 134, vol. III, pp. 78–79), and then patristic sayings common to Macarius are given, only in a slightly different volume. There are no citations to “literature” in the entire paragraph. § 78. The sinlessness of Jesus Christ (pp. 93–109). Note 1 on 94 pages is compiled from quotations from Macarius (§ 136, vol. III, pp. 97–98). Half of 96 pages and approx. 2 on the same page are literally taken from senior prof. Leporsky-Incarnation (Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 2, columns 830–831). There are no quotes. On page 98, several phrases are taken from Archpriest Svetlov-Christian Doctrine of Faith, vol. 2, pp. 681 and 682, and the end of this page is copied from the book of Priest A. Svetlanov-The Moral Image of Jesus Christ. -N.Novgorod 1880, p. 63. Page 99 and 100 represent only the texts of Holy Scripture, but also citing the texts, Fr. Malinovsky kept before his eyes Svetlov’s book and Svetlanov’s book, why his order of texts and the connecting words between them either literally or quite closely coincide with the books of these authors. See Svetlova, II, pp. 680 and 679 and Svetlanova, pp. 64–65, 67–68, 69. At the end approx. on page 101 we read: “Sn. Yanysheva I.L. Right-Christian scientist on morality § 50.” In fact, the note represents a literal extract from Yanyshev (but published in St. Petersburg, 1906, p. 811), with one clerical error or misprint about. Malinovsky distorts the text (vm. “formerly” - “was”). The large note on page 102 begins with an extract from the article by Prof. Leporsky (Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 2, column 828); then follows an extract from Yanyshev, this time accompanied by a quotation; only it is completely in vain that the quotation was placed prematurely: after all, the words of Gregory of Nyssa that follow this quotation are borrowed from 2 notes. to page 313 of Yanyshev’s book. O. Malinovsky quotes the Russian translation of the works of the Holy Father, but there is no Greek word in this translation; and yet this word is reproduced with the same typo that Yanyshev has: printed - άμάρτίχηυ, i.e. There is a subtle aspiration. Page 103 more than half consists of literal borrowings from Archpriest Svetlova-Christian doctrine T.2, pp. 665–666, 675–676. Page 104 entirely represents either extracts or a retelling from the same book by Svetlov, pp. 684, 669, 670–671. Having made these borrowings, our doctoral student makes a note: “Detailed explanations on this issue can be found in the work of Prof. Tareeva". On page 107 borrowing from the book. Yanyshev is provided with a quotation, but it is not noted that in this case Yanyshev does not have his own words, but Palmer’s words. On page 108 in 1 note. prot. Malinovsky puts a lot of quotes and even wrote a Latin line, but forgets to note that these quotes were taken from Macarius - § 136, vol. III, pp. 100–101 approx. As you can see, in this paragraph our author uses Svetlov’s book quite a bit, but when giving a list of “literature” (pp. 93–94 note), he forgot to mention this book. § 79. I. Christ – the God-man is one person (pp. 109–119). About a page on pp. 110–111 is literally copied from the article of Archimandrite Alexy (Additions, VI, 205, 207). By replacing “human nature” with “humanity” in this extract and omitting the word “glorification,” our author prefers inaccurate speech to precise speech. Page 112 all copied from Alexy (Additions, VI, 208, 212–213); a note from page 213 of this article is inserted into the text and enclosed in parentheses. 1st note on this page taken from Macarius, vol. III, p. 105, and further notes on pp. 112–113 are taken, by the way, from the interpretation on the last, to the Philippians, by Bishop. Feofan. The quotation is blank and literal borrowings are not marked. Here at 5 approx. on page 113. Place of publication of the book by M.M. Tareeva - The Humiliation of Our Lord I. Christ - named Sergiev Posad; this book was published in Moscow. The note, occupying 117 and 118 pages, is devoted to Protestant theology and is half an extract from the just named book by M.M. Tareev, supplied, however. quotation, and half from the book Svetlov-Christian Faith, vol. 2, pp. 720–721. This extract is not accompanied by a quotation, but by a note: “see. also Svetlova P., etc.” When copying from Tareev’s book, two mistakes were made on page 117: unio personalis is translated as “unity of personality” and the Latin words of Brenz are attributed to Luther (see Tareev, p. 146). § 80. The image of the union of two natures in the single person of the God-man (pp. 119–123). This paragraph, with the exception of the first one and a half pages, represents a retelling and even a literal reproduction of §138 of the dogmatics of Macarius - vol. III, pp. 117–120. The identity of the quotations of Holy Scripture and the patristic ones and the literal coincidences in some reasoning leave no room for doubt. § 81. Consequences of the hypostatic union of natures in I. Christ in relation to Himself (pp. 125–137). The small section on pp. 123–124 is taken half literally from Macarius (§ 139, vol. III, pp. 129–132). Here, by the way, are two lines of digital quotations from the New Testament. The quotes are copied from Macarius, but for some reason a rearrangement was made: Mark was placed in front, and Matvey behind him. On the same 124 pages, there follows, albeit a small, literal borrowing from the article of Archimandrite Alexy - Additions, VI, p. 284. Page 126 is compiled from Macarius (§139, III, 137–138), from whom the Latin quotation is also taken in note 2. Page 127 is busy talking about communicatio idiornatuin. Half of the page is a retelling of page 237 from Part VI of the Additions, from the article by Archimandrite. Alexia. The words of John of Damascus are also copied from the same article; The ellipsis, which shortens the shutter speed, is exactly in the same place as Alexey’s (Added, however, another typo). The second half is a retelling of pp. 704–705 from the book, very close to the text. Svetlova-Christian Faith, vol. 2, pp. 704–705. Page 128 half retelling from Alexy (p. 238). half from Macarius (§139, vol.III, p. 123). Alexy has almost only quotes; O. Malinovsky searches for the text itself and preserves the connecting line. On page 129 there is a large, ½ page extract from Svetlov, volume II, page 706. There is also a quotation. Three periods are written out, but only two are in quotation marks and accompanied by a quotation; the third was left free, although he was standing nearby. Note The 2nd on the same page is copied from Alexy (Additions, VI, p. 236) Together with an excerpt from John of Damascus, in which the Greek term is inserted. However, this term is used by Fr. Malinovsky suffered a distortion: it was printed - περίχωρίσί ϛ, but it should be περίχωρησί ϛ. On page 130 a small literal borrowing from Svetlov, vol., 2, p. 708 is not noted. The paragraph ends with a page compiled according to Macarius (Comp. vol. III, pp. 125, 130, 129). There is neither a list of “literature” nor citations for it in this paragraph. On pp. 132–137, Fr. Malinovsky has a rather lengthy discussion about the “Latin cult of the heart and ucy owl. I am perplexed as to what relation this cult has to “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, to the section on “the consequences of the hypostatic union of natures in Jesus Christ.” This cult rather belongs to the field of liturgics rather than dogmatics, as Archpriest A. also admits. A. Lebedev, who wrote specifically about this cult. At the prot. Malinovsky, this entire department, of course, has been written off. Page 132 is based on Tychinin’s article in the VI volume of Orthodox. Theologian Encyclopedias. Page 133 is copied verbatim from Lebedev’s book – On the Latin Cult of the Heart of Jesus. St. Petersburg. 1903 from the book. Vl. Goethe - Heresy of the Papacy. Kharkov 1895. This is noted with quotations, but not quite as would be desirable. The words of Jesuit Richman are taken from Lebedev’s book. The quote supplied, and incorrectly (inc. “4–5 pages,” “3–4 pages”), refers only to these words, but it is not shown that the previous three periods were literally taken from page 23 of the same book. Page 134 was also written off, but borrowings are indicated by at least some quotations. On page 135 there is an unmarked retelling and a literal extract from Goethe, page 80. The last two pages are composed of literal borrowings from Lebedev, in this order of pages: 7–8. 7. 8. 11. 12. 8–9. 13. 39. 40. Note 1 on page 136 is taken from page 3 of Lebedev’s book; The 2nd was written according to the instructions on page 11 from Lebedev. § 82. The dogma of the incarnation of the Son of God from the point of view of reason (pp. 137–150). The paragraph begins with a literal extract, without any hint of a quotation, from “Christian Apologetics” by Prof. N.P. Rozhdestvensky (Ed. 2. Vol. 2, St. Petersburg. 1893, pp. 418–419). A retelling of page 420 of the same apologetics is found on page 138. Quotes from Athanasius the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, given on pp. 139–140, for some reason turn out to be the same as those of Archpriest. Svetlova (vol. 2, pp. 757. 759), and even the most extracts coincide in volume. On the same 140 pages we find an unquoted extract from Gottinger's Apology (Part 2, p. 816). Half of the 141 pages were again copied from Rozhdestvensky’s Apologetics (vol. 2, p. 421), which remained forgotten in the notes of this paragraph. On pp. 141–142 there is a large, ½ page extract from Blessed Augustine, but the quote turned out to be an unflattering curiosity for our doctoral student. The quote is: “August. Tract. XXXVII In Ioan.” Alas! The quoted words of Augustine are not found in the quoted treatise on the Gospel of John; in this treatise there is a place that is only partly similar in thought (See Sancti Aurelii Augustini opera omnia... opera et studio monachorum ordinis sancti Benedicti; t. Ill, pars II. Parisiis MDCCCXXXTII, col. 2063). But Fr. Malinovsky cites the original words, enclosing them in quotation marks. How did he do it? Here's how. Latin works of Blessed. Augustine O. the archpriest, of course, didn’t even hold it in his hands; He borrowed the above extract from Goettinger (Apology of Christianity, part 2. St. Petersburg, 1872, pp. 320–321). In this Apology on page 320 in 5 notes. worth the quote: “L. c.cf.Tract.XXXVII in loan.” Next, Göttinger refers to the previous note, where there are quotes: “Augustin. Serm.CIX in loan". Presented by Fr. Malinovsky’s excerpt is found in Augustine not in the 37th treatise on John, but in the 109th word on John. It is possible that this curious mistake is caused by the shameful inability for a doctoral student to read the abbreviations constantly used in Latin quotations: “L.s.cf.” Following the unsuccessful excerpt from Augustine, up to the end of page 142 there is significant, and almost all literal, borrowing from the book of Archpriest. Svetlova - Christian doctrine vol. 2, pp. 754–755, no longer accompanied by any quotation. Without any quotation there is a literal borrowing from Svetlov (vol. 2, p. 761) also on page 145 and in 1 note. on page 146. The name of Archpriest Svetlov is not mentioned even once in this paragraph. About the forms of incarnation of Vishnu (on p. 147) Fr. Malinovsky speaks partly in the original words of Prof. S.S. Glagolev and † A.I. Vvedensky. For the doctoral dissertation of A.I. Vvedensky made an exact reference, but quote 85 pages of the book by S.O. Glagolev - From Readings on Religion. Sergiev Posad 1905 - the author considered it unnecessary for an unknown reason). The notes on pp. 149–150 are excerpts from Ebrard's apologetics. The last two extracts are accompanied by quotations, but the first one, at the beginning, is left without quotations (need vol. I, pp. 312–313), and at first glance the borrowings are not clear, since a reference is made to Origen, and a number of New Testament quotations are given. § 83. Most Blessed Virgin Mother of the Lord I. Christ (pp. 150–164). This paragraph especially contains a lot about. Malinovsky uses the article by Archimandrite. Alexia - About the Most Blessed Virgin, Mother of Our Lord I. Christ, printed in the Additions to the works of St. for 1848. I have this article in a separate publication. On page 150 at Fr. Malinovsky's retelling of pp. 44–47 of Archimandrite Alexy's book. 52 pages of this book about. Malinovsky kept before his eyes while writing the next 151 pages of his dogma. Here I also added the words of Ephraim the Syrian, cited by Macarius (§ 136, vol. III, p. 90), to which I found only a quotation from the new edition of the works. The first half of page 152 is occupied by an extract from John of Damascus, found at the direction of Archimandrite. Alexia on page 51: the second half is directly copied from the same page of Archimandrite’s book. Alexy, from where the quote from “The Stone of Faith” by Stefan Yavorsky was taken in note 4, but the quote is distorted: “O confession. holy II part 2 chapter 2 – you need: “O call, holy one, II part 2 chapter. page 545." Further, a whole 1½ pages are copied from Alexy, pp. 53. 54–55, along with quotations not in Latin only from the works of Sts. oo., but even to Metropolitan. Philareta. This is immediately followed on page 154 by a retelling from Macarius (§136, vol. III, p. 95), after which our author again returns to Archimandrite. Alexy and writes a whole page (154–155) almost entirely in his words (see pp. 56–59). Here, however, Fr. Malinovsky honors Archimandrite Alexy with a silent mention according to the formula: “see. about this in senior archim. Alexia". End of page 155 written after Macarius (vol.III, p. 93). On page 156 from the book Alexy, all three notes with all quotes are copied: lth from pp. 68–69. 2nd from pp. 6–7 and 3rd from p. 60. But there is no citation to Archimandrite Alexy. On page 157, the 2nd note is curious. "Prof. N.K. Glubokovsky expresses the opinion that the word: τσυ πρωτστσχσυ - first-born (first-born) is probably not genuine,” that is, it was in the original by St. Matthew (see Review of “The Epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians,” St. Petersburg, 1903, 67 pages), but the grounds for this opinion are not indicated.” Regarding this note, a number of notes can be made: 1) The essay “Review of the Epistle of St. Prof. Glubokovsky does not have Paul to the Galatians, but there is “The Good News of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians.” 2) This work was published in 1902, not in 1903. 3) Prof. Glubokovsky wrote for scientifically literate people. πρωτστσχσυ in Me.1.25, because they themselves know that this word is not in the codes § BZ 1.33. a b with g, in the translations of sail sor syr cu, etc., which is why it is not printed in critical editions, ending with the newest edition of Soden (Tubingeu 1913) Note is prot. Malinovsky copied from 1 note on page 22 of the book by Prof. A.P. Lebedev - Brothers of the Lord (Moscow 1905). 5) He changed the year of publication of Prof. Glubokovsky’s work himself, which reflected his independence. On page 158, without quotation, a literal borrowing was made from Archimandrite. Alexia (pp. 66. 67). and approx. 1st, almost everything was also taken without quotation from A.P. Lebedev (pp. 21–22), and from Lebedev, with all the quotes, literally the 2nd and 3rd notes on page 159 were taken (See Lebedev, p. 23. zo.35–36). 4th note also taken from Lebedev from page 55. Here to the words of the blessed one. Jerome from his essay “On Famous Men” is taken from Lebedev’s exact quotation from the Russian translation, but next to it the words from his treatise on Psalm 108 are left without any quotation. Why? Because Lebedev has a quote that is inconvenient and incomprehensible to our author: “Zahn. Op. cit. S. 322. Anmerk", i.e. reference is made to the 6th volume of the Tsanov Forschungen zur Geschiehte des neatest ament, Kanons. The last three (160–162) pages of this paragraph are compiled from §140 of Macarius (vol. III, pp. 141–143), and literal borrowings are also made. The patristic quotations in notes 2–4, pp. 162 are all taken literally from Macarius (vol. Ill, pp. 141–143). The author found several quotes from Russian translations, but, of course, he did not take individual Greek words inserted into the Russian text from these same translations. In addition, with a quotation (in note 3) from Blessed. Theodoret had a misunderstanding. One short extract contains a quotation: N. E. I, 4. Another excerpt follows, and with it only as a quotation: XII p. What is this chapter 12? What essay? Needed: Haeret. lab. IV, 12. In the 3rd note. on page 163 there were several lines from an article by Archimandrite Alexy (Additions VI, 43). All these borrowings without any citations. § 84. Dogma of the Roman Church about the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (pp. 164–191). The question arises: what does “Dogmatic Theology” care about the dogma of the Roman Church? And a paragraph of almost 30 pages is devoted to this “dogma”. But the composition of this extensive paragraph is even more interesting. The first 5 pages (165–169), with the exception of very few lines, are copied, almost always literally, from the book of Archpriest A.A. Lebedev - Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches in the Teaching of the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God. Warsaw 188). Copied one phrase at a time, two from different pages, in that order. 165 pp. Malinovsky-pp. 186, 220–201. 221, 223 Lebedeva. 165 pp. 1 note -page 145, 140 Lebedeva. 166 pp. Malinovsky-pp. 240, 264, 263, 255, 256, 117 Lebedev. 167 pp. Malnowski-pp. 201. 203. 202, 216 Lebedeva. 168 pp. – pp. 217, 282. 169 pp. – pp. 265, 275, 285–286 Lebedeva. With all these borrowings there are no citations; Only excerpts in the notes that I have not mentioned are marked with quotations. Page 170 is half a retelling of the article - An Orthodox view of the new dogma of the Roman Church about the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary - Christian Reading, 1867, vol. 2, pp. 7–8, and half a retelling and literal reproduction from Lebedev’s book pp. 181, 185, 186, 187. A small note on this page is taken from the Christian Readings, 1867, 2, p. 7. The beginning and end of page 171 are borrowed from the book. Lebedeva, pp. 188, 255–256, and the middle is a retelling from Christian Reading, 1867, part 2, p. 8. Page 172 is more than half literally borrowed from Lebedev, pp. 249,256,224,228,19, and p. 173 is a retelling of pp. 19 and 22 from the same book. Note 1 was taken from Lebedev, p. 19, and note 2 from Christian Reading 1867, part 2, p. 3 and from Lebedev, pp. 198–199, 147. 174 pages consists of retelling and literal borrowings from pp. 33,46,52–53, 55, 59 books. Lebedeva. Copying from page 55, the author missed one word, which is why it turned out to be a very awkward phrase. Page 175-retelling of pages 63 and 71 by Lebedev. First note, from pp. 59 and 60. There is at least some quotation here, but in the second note there is no quotation, although this note was copied from pp. 67–68 of Lebedev. The large 3rd note is literally taken from Christian Reading, 1859, part 2, pp. 139,139 note. 394–395, 398. The quotation is in the following form: “see. about this in Art.Chron.Ch. 1859, II volume.” Page 176 is almost entirely copied from Lebedev, pp. 76–79: the next page is also taken from the same book, in some places literally, in others narrated. See pp. 105, 292, 295, 375, 374–375. On page 178, an excerpt in the text and a note are taken from the article - The Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary without original sin before the court of Holy Scripture and the tradition of the holy fathers - Christian Reading, 1858, part 2, pp. 85–86. Large notes on 180 pages were also copied from the same article (See page 120, 236, 125), and illiterately, for example, “Mazareth punctuation.” Almost the entire 181 pages consists of literal extracts from Lebedev’s book, pp. 397, 382, 328, 77, 368. The first half of page 182 is partly literally, partly with changes taken from Christian Reading, .1858, part 2, pp. 185–186, and the second half is almost literally copied from page 367 of Lebedev. Half of the 183 pages were copied from Christian Reading, 1858. Part 2, pp. 256–257, and then a whole 1½ pages were copied almost without any changes from Lebedev’s book, pp. 398–401. On page 185 there are literal borrowings from page 377 of Lebedev, and between them is inserted an extract from Christian Reading, 1857, part 2, pp. 11–12. The note was copied from the quotation, but it was erroneously indicated as Vm. 205 p. 203. On page 186 we have at the beginning a retelling of pp. 405–406 by Lebedev, at the end a literal extract from p. 342, and in the middle a literal extract from Christian Reading, 1857, part 2, p. 35. At the top of page 187 are two brief excerpts from Blessed Augustine, but with the quote it turned out to be a curiosity of a downright scandalous nature. The quote is: “August. De concept.Virg.с.3". The words, indeed, belong to Augustine, but Augustine does not have a work with a title somewhat similar to this quote. The words quoted are found in Augustine's work De peccatorum meritis et hemissione et de baptismoparvulorum (Migne, PL. t. 41), lib. ILcapp. 35, 38. O. prot. Malinowski, under the name of Augustine, quoted the work of Anselm of Canterbury - De conceptu virginali et de originali peccato (Migne, PL.t. 158, coll.431 sqq.). Such an incomprehensible phenomenon, however, may be quite sufficiently explained. O. Malinovsky, as usual, of course, draws, in this case, from an article in Christian Reading, 1858. Part 2, pp. 245–246. Here are Augustine's thoughts on his work De peccatorum. merits. This work is named a little earlier, and further quotations are limited only to: “ibid”. But, as luck would have it, on pages 245–246 the author of the article to the note with a quote on Augustine cited Anselm’s words for comparison and included a quote, so the note ends with a quote on Anselm-De concept. virgin. Seeing in the footnote after the written words of Augustine “ibid”, Fr. Malinovsky looked up, rattled off the Latin quotation and with a light heart, not suspecting any treachery, took it into his book. And, by the way, he could see the same words of Augustine with the correct quotation in Lebedev’s book on page 143. I think that in scientific works such cases are kind of monsters. After Augustine’s words, to the middle of the same 187 pages there are borrowings, partly literal, from Lebedev’s book, pp. 344. 343. 344, and from the middle to the bottom, pp. 36, 37, 39 from Part II of the Christian Reading for 1857 are retold. On pp. 188–189 there is a long, full-page extract from Bernard of Clairvaux; it was taken from Lebedev, pp. 26–28, although this is kept silent. In addition, the quote is distorted: “last. 164", but you need "174". Directly, for this. Malinovsky (on page 189) begins to talk “about the bodily ascension of the Mother of God into heaven,” mainly in the words of Prof. A.I. Bulgakov in the Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy for 1903 Oct. pp. 160–164. At the beginning of page 190 there is a quotation, added from the same Bulgakov, even a German quotation, not particularly successful, however. The only trouble is that the quotation was placed prematurely, since even then an entire half page was literally copied from the same article, pp. 164–165, which remained completely unmarked. Then, to the end of page 190 and at the beginning of page 191, there are extracts from Lebedev’s book left without any quotation, pp. 300–301, 167, 301. So, in the entire paragraph on page 27, only on page 179 I could not find literal statements; the remaining 26 pages are all written off, with the most insignificant exceptions, in a few lines. Old articles and books from which copying is taking place, however, are indicated at the beginning of the paragraph (p. 164 note 2), but the absence of citations creates the impression that the paragraph was written, and not copied, by Fr. Malinovsky. §85. Understanding the Threefold Ministry of Jesus Christ (pp. 192–194). That's what's great about this little paragraph. that almost an entire page (on pp. 193–194) here was copied literally from the article by Archimandrite. Eusebius-On the threefold ministry of Jesus Christ, published 70 years ago in the Additions to the works of the holy fathers for 1844, part 2 (see pp. 115–116). However, there is no mention of this “source”. An extensive and extremely boring department of dogmatics about. Malinovsky, who treats the “threefold ministry of Jesus Christ” (§§86–10З; pp. 194–353), I will not analyze in detail, paragraph by paragraph, although there are quite a few borrowings here. The fundamental content of this section is not only meager, but in some places also poor. I will only note this here. which is typical for Fr.’s writing techniques. Malinovsky and what you wouldn’t want to miss. On pp. 218–219 there is a section of one and a half printed pages under the special title “Prophecies of Jesus Christ.” This entire section is copied without any reservation from the mentioned archaic article by Archimandrite Eusebius in the Addendum to the works of the Holy Fathers for 1844, part 2, pp. 132–134. There are minor changes in the phrase, but sometimes not in favor. O. Malinovsky, for example, writes: Christ predicted “that the whole world would be told about Mary’s good deed (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3; John 12:3).” But if Fr. Archpriest had looked at these quotes, he would not have found any prophecy about Mary in any of them. Mark.14, 3 f.; John 12, 3 f.)", i.e., entire sections about the well-known gospel event are indicated. O. Malinovsky omitted the “sld” three times and he made a big inaccuracy. But where it needs to be changed, Fr. Malinovsky reproduces his source with documentary accuracy. the world will remain undefeated from her enemies. Quote: Me.16, 28. Anyone who is at all familiar with the Gospel knows, even without reference, that the Lord’s saying about the gates of hell is found not in Art. 28, but in Art. 18. Chapter 16 Matveya. Archim. Eusebius (Additions, part 2, p. 138) a typo crept in here, which Fr. It would not have been difficult for Malinovsky to correct it if he copied slowly. These are little things, of course, but, I think, quite typical. On pp. 228–229 there are no borrowings from the book by A.D. Belyaev - Divine Love, ed. 2. Moscow 1884, pp. 262. 272–274, but there are no quotes or any mention of this book at all. On page 242, a note of a philological nature about the preposition υπερ is taken from V.N. Myshtsyn - Account of St. Apostle Paul on the law of works and the law of faith. Sergiev Posad 1894, p. 100 note 1, but again there is no citation. On pp. 245–246 there is an extensive extract from the letter to Diogenes, but it is unlikely that this letter lay before the eyes of Fr. Malinovsky. In his hands he held a book by Prof., open at 320–321 pages. V.I. Nssmelova - Science of Man, ed. 2, vol. 2, Kazan 1907, where the same excerpt is given. It’s wonderful that Fr.’s introductory words, omissions, and even italics. Malinovsky coincide with prof. Nesmelov. On the same page 245, according to Macarius, the sayings of the apostolic men are given and quotes are taken from Macarius in approx. 2 (See §151, vol. III, pp. 184–185). On 247 pages, the author has collected many patristic quotations in eight notes, but these quotations are collected from the book by P.Ya. Svetlov - The Meaning of the Cross, in the Work of Christ, Kyiv 1893, pp. 153–154. 181. 193. 200. 206. To one or two quotes from Fr. Malinovsky found a page from the Russian edition of the works, but could only take others, for example, quotes from St. Augustine, Leo of Rome, Gregory the Great, in untouched form. The note on page 258 is taken from Myshtsyn, note page 102, but there is no citation. On page 260, both notes are taken from the same Myshtsyn; the first note has a quotation, but the second note does not. § 95 “On the universality of the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God” On page 264 it begins with a retelling from the article by Archimandrite. Eusebius in 2 hours. Additions to the works of Sts. Fathers for 1844, page 167, and the next 265 page almost entirely represents a documented accurate reproduction of page 169 of the same article: even the italics are preserved, but one quotation from Holy Scripture is distorted. Stands (in the middle of the page): Hebrews 9, 29; need Heb. 9, 28; like Eusebius; especially since in Chapter 9 last There are only 28 verses to the Jews. 266 pp. free paraphrase from Eusebius pp. 171–173. A not particularly nice phenomenon can be observed on page 274. Here the views of the Socinians are presented. The presentation is in the words of St. I. Orfanitsky (Historical presentation of the dogma of the atoning sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moscow 1904, p. 184). At the end of this section the words of Socinus are given in three lines. These words are enclosed in quotation marks and the quotation is on Orfanitsky, as if only these three lines were taken from him. Page 282–284 have been copied, but quotations are included here. On page 285 the words of St. Leo the Great and St. Augustine are given according to Macario (§125); The words and quotes in the 2nd note are taken from Macarius. on this same page. In the 3rd approx. Augustine's words are translated from the Latin text of Macarius, but the quotation is distorted - delivered; "With. 11”, and follows: “Sar. 11". At the beginning of page 286 and in the middle of page 287, borrowings are made from the work of V.A. Golubinsky - The Wisdom and Goodness of God in the Destiny of the World and Man, ed. 3. Moscow 1885, pp. 396. 394–395, but this book is not mentioned anywhere nearby. On pp. 291–292 there is a full-page literal extract from Orfanitsky’s dissertation, pp. 184–185, but the quotation was considered unnecessary. This extract is followed by another, also quite significant, from pp. 389–390 of O.A. Golubinsky’s book and also without any quotation. From the same book, and again without quotation, from pp. 399 – 400, an excerpt is taken at the end of page 295 and at the beginning of page 296. Page 299–300 are mostly taken from the article by Archim. Alexia - Additions to the works of St. fathers for 1844, m.2, pp. 183–184. 188–190. Half of the 308 pages were literally copied from the book of Archpriest. Peter and Paul - In defense of the Christian faith against unbelief, part I, issue 2. Moscow 1898, pp. 392–393. No quotes. On pp. 310–311, no less than a page is borrowed from the “Course of Theology” by Archpriest. P.Ya. Svetlova (Kiev 1899, pp. 42–43), but a vague reference to this course was lost between other indications of “literature” in a note on page 312. From the same course (pp. 45–46) there is an extract without any quotation on page 316. We should dwell a little on § 100. The descent of Christ into hell and victory over hell (pp. 316–325). While writing this paragraph, Fr. Malinovsky focused his favorable attention on the article by N. Orlin - The Descent of Our Lord I. Christ into Hell and His Preaching to the Dead - published in the April book of the Orthodox Review for 1889 (pp. 744–766). Actually, the entire paragraph with all the reasoning, excerpts and quotes represents only an abbreviation of Orlin’s article, while our author remains true to himself and prefers to copy literally. Srvn. 318 pp. Malinovsky and 749. 751 Orlin. 319 pp. Malipovsky and 752–753. 756 Orlina. 320 pp. Malinovsky and 753. 754. 756. 759. 757–758. 758–9 Orlina. 321 pp. Malinovsky and 760. 764 Orlin. 322 pp. Malinovsky and 760–761 Orlin. 323 pp. Malinovsky and 762 Orlin. 324 pp. Malinovsky and 766 Orlin. Only once is a reference made to Orlin’s article, in a note on pages 320–321, where we talk about Zwingli and Calvin (As if this information was only gleaned from this article) and where there are no literal extracts. And the link is made in the following form: “See. about this in Art. Orlina." To the extracts from Orlin’s article a little has been added from the dogma of Metropolitan Macarius (§159). Quote from Epiphanius regarding Apollinaris on page 318 at the end (in Macarius vol.III, p. 223), words of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian at the end of p. 319 and at the beginning of p. 320; Moreover, for some reason it was necessary to distort a quote from Tertullian to the point of absurdity: “About the soul. VII, 55". Obviously, the author never looked at this treatise by Tertullian; otherwise, what does the Roman numeral “VII” mean? And, by the way, Father Malinovsky here even decorates his work with a quotation on the Patrology Migne, taken from Macarius (vol. III, p. 222 note 403). But Macarius simply says: De anima p. LV! In Macarius, the words of Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian and Eusebius of Caesarea at the beginning of gr. 324 are copied with quotations (in Macarius, vol. III. p. 224), while the words of Gregory are copied with an error: vm. “souls” - “spirits”. These are not the same thing! Numerous quotes in 1 note. on page 325 are also taken from Macarius (vol. III, p. 226). In the next paragraph, an interesting observation can be made on pp. 329–330. Here are Augustine's words in two lines with a quotation in the note. It is also indicated where this quote was taken from: “Sn. Golubinsky, the Wise One, and the goodness of God. 412 pp.” Obviously, only the words blessed were borrowed from Golubinsky. Augustine. In fact, the literal extract from Golubinsky covers 13 lines and is made not from just 412 pages, but also from 411. In addition, the Latin quotation from Augustine is written illiterately: De corupt... On the next page there is a similar phenomenon. 13 lines (end of p. 330 and beginning of 331) are taken literally from Bishop Theophan’s interpretation of 1 Corinth. But for some reason, only seven lines are placed in quotation marks and provided with a quotation. Almost all pages 336–338 are filled with extracts from Svetlov. (The Resurrection of Christ. The Wanderer, 1899, vol. I, p. 629. 635. 636. 639. 640. 643. 644. 647. Theology Course, p. 62. 64. 65). There are no citations. On page 336 in 1 note. an illiterate quotation from Tertullian was substituted from nowhere: Spest. 30. By the way, on page 336 we read: “This explanation is so implausible that it currently has no defenders.” But if so, then why should we talk about it? Is it really only because it can be copied from an article by Svetlov that came to hand? Chapter III. About God the Sanctifier. § 105. The revealed doctrine of grace (pp. 357–369). 357 pp. consists of borrowings from Archpriest. Yanysheva - Orthodox Christian teaching on morality, p. 328, and by Prof. Leporsky-Grace - in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 2, st. 637–638. Page 358, all copied from Yanyshev, p. 330. A large note dedicated to clarifying the term χάρί ϛ, also copied from Yanyshev, pp. 228–230. The whole page 360 ​​was taken from the same Yanyshev, from page 335. It is interesting that almost the same texts of the Holy Scriptures are given here. Yanyshev has them according to the Russian text, Fr. Malinovsky, for some reason, replaces them with a Slavic text, although Rome. XI, 6 (on p. 361) here, in agreement with Yanyshev, is given in Russian. The note on page 360 ​​is also taken from page 334 by Yanyshev. There are no citations. On page 362 there is an extract from page 155 of V.N. Myshtsyn’s dissertation. The note on this page is also taken from Myshtsyn, pp. 155–156, but only on a few lines the borrowing is noted with a quotation. Half of page 363 was copied from page 156 of Myshtsyn’s book, although this is not shown. At 1 approx. Parallel texts from St. Paul are given in two columns. Myshtsyn gives the same texts, also in two columns, on page 157 in Greek; O. Malinovsky replaced the Greek text with Russian and in one case, undoubtedly, made a mistake. He cites Hebrews 12, 28: let us keep grace, and Rom. 8 23: having the firstfruits of the Spirit. In the Greek text the coincidence is closer than in the Russian translation, which in Hebrews 12:28 is not entirely accurate: Greek: εχωμευ, glory, exactly: yes imams, and not: we will preserve like the Russians. A significant part of page 364 was written out without quoting from the article by Prof. Leporsky-Blagodat. Encyclopedia, vol. 2, st. 646–647. We have the same thing on page 366, at the end of page 367 (vol. 2, column 643) and at the beginning of page 368 (II, column 644). The section ends with a special note, almost a page in size. This note in its entirety, with documentary accuracy, although without any quotation, was copied from the same article by Prof. Leporsky. See Encyclopedia, vol. 2, st. 650–651. § 106. Effects of prevenient grace (pp. 369 – 376). In this paragraph, a large, almost full-page note on page 373 is copied from Yanyshev, pp. 399–400. 406. There is a quotation, but it does not indicate exactly the nature of the borrowing: “See. at Yanyshev's." On my own behalf, I also note Fr. Malinovsky does to the Greek words from Heb. 11, 1: ελπί ϛ σμενων υποστάσί ϛ - not only not a profound, but even not entirely correct explanation: “that is, faith gives confirmation in hope.” In addition, the text of Acts is distorted. 15, 11: “we are saved”; necessary - “let us be saved” in Greek. σωθηνάί. Yanyshev is right. On pp. 374–375, the influence of §187 of the dogmatics of Macarius is noticeable, from which there are literal extracts here (See vol. IV, pp. 28–30). (Compare back in § 108 pp. 383–384 with Macarius, vol. IV, pp. 38–39, 43–44). § 109. The relation of grace to freedom (pp. 384–392). When Fr. Malinovsky wrote this paragraph, in front of him lay the book of Prof. A.JI. Katansky - The Doctrine of the Grace of God in the Creations of the Ancient Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church until Blessed Augustine. St. Petersburg. 1902. The paragraph begins with an extensive, more than ½ page, extract from page 13 of this book. There are quotes, but for some reason the initial quotation marks are only on the eighth line and therefore mislead the reader. Page 386–388 are occupied by the texts of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures, and from 389 the patristic testimonies begin. A general note about the ancient fathers and teachers of the universal Church was copied from Katansky, but there are quotations. Further about. Malinovsky writes: “In support, we will cite several evidence from the patristic works.” It would be more accurate to say: Prof. A.L. Katansky cites... In fact, both excerpts from Gregory the Theologian are taken with documentary accuracy from Katansky, pp. 178.183–184. The abbreviation marked with an ellipsis, which coincides with Katansky, is especially noticeable, of course, not by chance. From Basil the Great (on p. 390) the excerpt is the same as that of Katansky (on p. 169), only looked at through the works of St. father. The same page is copied from John Chrysostom as that of Katansky (on page 261), although it was found in the works. Only completely in vain in the fourth line from the bottom on page 390 about. Malinovsky inserted the negation “not” which is not found either in Katansky or in the works of John Chrysostom (See Creations, St. Petersburg ed. Spiritual Academician vol. 5, p. 346). After all, the meaning of the phrase turned out to be the opposite of the true one. The last 1½ pages of the paragraph are occupied by a continuous extract from the bishop’s letters. Theophan - the Recluse. It would be in vain for us to think that Fr. Malinovsky himself read in these letters what he wrote out of them. He found these exact extracts from the same Katansky and reproduces his text. even with all italics (See Katansky pp. 824–325). The quote, of course, indicates only Feofan. § 110. The meaning of faith and good works in man’s achievement of salvation (pp. 392–99). Starting from this paragraph, our author takes up, so as not to let go of his hands for a long time, the book of Archbishop. Sergius - Orthodox teaching on salvation. (I have this book in the 4th edition. St. Petersburg. 1910; Father Malinovsky has an earlier edition). Page 393 – 395 almost all are written according to Sergius (pp. 209 – 210). The same texts of the Holy Scriptures are cited, but the Russian texts of Archbishop Sergius are replaced by Slavic ones. Why? For what? It is possible to guess, perhaps, but it is difficult to understand this circumstance. Half of 396 pages, together with a quotation on John Chrysostom, is taken from page 227 of Sergius, but the final quotation marks to the words of Chrysostom and the quotation are for some reason placed two lines lower than they should be, why the words of the archbishop. The Finnish in these two lines is passed off as the words of the archbishop. Constantinople. On page 397 in 1 note. the words of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, taken from page 229 of the same book by Sergius. The same thing happened with the words of St. Tikhon, given on the next 398 pages. Page 399 was literally copied from the archbishop. Sergius from pp. 236–238. In the 1st note, the words of Bishop Theophan and the quotation from his “Letters to one person” are both transferred intact from page 236 of the book of Eminence Sergius. Let us note, by the way, that the name of Archbishop. We have not met Sergius even once throughout this entire paragraph. § 111. Roman Catholic teaching on the justification and salvation of man (pp. 399–420). At the first glance at this title, questions involuntarily arise: have you forgotten about. Malinovsky title of his own work: Orthodox Dogmatic Theology? But, incomparably more interesting than the title is this extensive paragraph of 21 pages. In approx. “literature” is listed on page 400; except for the book of the archbishop. Sergius, also named an article by M.S. Grigorevsky - The meaning of the grace of God's faith and the good deeds of man for his justification by God according to Roman Catholic teaching, Christian Reading, 1906, Aug.-Oct. and the book by N.I. Teodorovich - The Teaching of the Council of Trent on original sin and justification, Pochaev 1886. This book was originally published in the form of separate articles in the Volyn Diocesan Gazette for 1886. I do not have a separate publication at hand. Some other benefits are also indicated. It turns out, upon closer examination, that the entire paragraph was not compiled from manuals, but almost entirely copied from them literally, but only sources are cited throughout the entire paragraph. symbolic book of Catholics and patristic works; For benefits, we counted only five, and those were rather dull references. We will begin our observations in this paragraph with a note on page 401. Here are the words of the Council of Trent and at the end the author makes the following remark: “Quotations are given in the edition: Libri symbolici ecclesiae catholicae, -Gr. Gull. (?? Guil., of course!), Streitwolf and Rud. Ern. Klenera. Fottingae 1846". It seems that it would be incomparably more accurate to express it this way: “quotes are given according to the publication “Volyn Diocesan Gazette”. Pochaev 1886. After all, already on the next page in note 2, the “Roman Catechisms” is quoted from Teodorovich. In this note, the words of the Council of Trent are undoubtedly taken from Teodorovich. VEV, No. 13, p. 398. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why the translation of the Latin text and some retained Latin words coincide precisely with Mr. Teodorovich’s article. Page 402–403 are literally copied from Teodorovic. See VEV. No. 13, pp. 400–401. No. 14. p. 414. 416. In 1 note. distorted quote: Sess. VI.9. You need VI.p.6. The 2nd note is copied from the 4th note. on page 415 of Teodorovich's article (BEV. No. 14). The 4th large note consists of extracts from pp. 401. 413. 414–415 of the same article, with a German quotation on Hase from Fr. Malinovsky looked illiterate. At 1 approx. on page 403 there are two extracts from the book of the archbishop. Sergius from pp. 40 and 42 – 43 approx. The second extract is accompanied by a quotation. Here, according to Sergius, the words of the Council of Trent are given. Page 404 all copied from page 43 of the archbishop’s book. Sergius, from which it was taken in 2nd note. and Reggone's quote. From the same book (from page 44), page 405 was also copied almost to the bottom. 1st note. on this page begins with the Latin words of Peter Lombard, borrowed from Sergius, which is marked by a quotation that is not entirely accurate. But further, in the same note and in the next one there are extracts from the decrees of the Council of Trent. These extracts with inserted Latin words are taken from the same page of the book of Sergius and even from the same partly note (p. 44 note 1-2) from which the words of Peter Lombard are taken. Having noted with a quotation on Sergius two and a half lines from Peter Lombard, Fr. Malinovsky leaves the borrowing in line 13 of the words of the Council of Trent without any designation. The end of page 405 and the entire page 406 constitute a literal extract from Grigorevsky’s article (Srvn. Christian Reading, 1906, October, pp. 558 – 559. 563). In the middle of page 406 there is one footnote to this article, but it is made as if only a quotation on Bellarmine was taken from this article; Moreover, the quotation from Bellarmine looks like this: “Dejustitia, lib. V, pp. 16–17.” We need, of course, De justificatione. Grigorevsky has a typo here, carefully preserved by Fr. Malinovsky. In the middle of the same 406 pages, a small paragraph is inserted, only 4 lines, but this paragraph also consists of two extracts, the source of which is silent: the first two lines were taken from Teodorovich (Vol. EV. No. 14, p. 417), and the last from Sergius (p. 45). A second note is attached to this section, where the words of the Council of Trent are copied from Sergius (p. 44 note 3), and the quote from Bellarmin is added from Teodorovich (BEV. No. 14, p. 417 note 5). Page 407, with the exception of the very top, was copied from Teodorovich (BEV. No. 14, pp. 418–419), from where almost the entire first note was taken; Moreover, the quotation on Bellarmine was inadvertently included with a semicolon from the same quotation, so it turned out to be two different ones. 2nd note starting on page 407 and ending on page 408, taken from the book by prof. N.Ya. Belyaeva, -Roman Catholic teaching about satisfaction with God on the part of man. Kazan 1876, pp. 201–203. Belyaev's words are given with omissions. There is a quotation, but it does not indicate the nature of the borrowing: “Sn. Belyaev, etc.” On page 409 in the text, one phrase is taken from Grigorevsky (Christian Reading 1906, Sept., p. 423): the first note is filled with extracts from Grigorevsky, where some things are confused and incomprehensible. The first line of Vellarmin’s words is taken from page 417 of Grigorevsky’s article, and the second from page 419. General quote: “De justif. lib. I, p.4 ". But this quote can only refer to the first line, and the second should have another quote: “De justific. lib. I, 15.” (See Christian Reading 1906, Sept., p. 419 note 4). The teaching of the Council of Trent in this note is taken from Grigorevsky on page 421. Grigorevsky in this case cites the Latin text, which Fr. Malinovsky translates into Russian, but instead of “sit” he writes “fit”. The top of page 410 was taken from Grigorevsky (Khrist.Cht., 1906, Sept., p. 422), and in the note are the words of A.S. Khomyakov, collected from the same Grigorevsky on page 419. 421–422: the same volume of excerpts. the same omissions; the quotation, combined from two (p. 419 note 3†422 note 1), is given as if from one’s own. The second large part of page 410 with the words blessed. Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa taken from the book of Archbishop. Sergius (pp. 63.64), although the patristic quotations were viewed after they had been copied. The beginning of page 411 is literally taken from the article by Bishop. Sylvester - The Orthodox Answer to the Old Catholics' Scheme of Good Deeds, Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy 1875, vol. 1, p. 10, although the quote is considered unnecessary luxury. Words from Rev. Macarius of Egypt at the bottom of the same page are borrowed from page 65 of the book of the archbishop. Sergius. All patristic words, filling a whole 412 pages, are taken from Sergius (pp. 65–66), only the excerpt from St. Gregory the Theologian is somewhat lengthened to reference creations. Further, six whole pages (413-418) with all the reasoning, patristic sayings and quotes, with the exception of just half a page, were copied from Sergius literally and without designation. Srvn. 413 pp. Malinovsky and 68. 67 Sergius. 414 „ „ „ 67. 58–59 pp. Sergius. 415„ „ „ 59.73.74.73.74 pp. Sergius. 416 „ „ „ 74. 83. 84 pp. Sergius. 417 „ „ „ 84.86–87.79–80 pp. Sergius.. 418 „ „ pp. 80–81 Sergius. A note about St. Tikhon of Zadonsk in approx. on page 418 is also taken from Sergius (pp. 82–83). On all these pp. 413–418 Fr. Malinovsky himself only adds a typo on page 416, turning Isaiah into a Psalm, and in the last line of the same page he inserts completely irrelevantly: “yes pits and themes.” On pp. 419–420 about. Malinovsky briefly discusses supererogatory matters, commandments and advice. There seem to be no literal borrowings here, but it is not at all clear why the author needed to talk about all this. After all, he spoke about the same thing in the middle of this same paragraph, on pp. 406–407, in the words of Grigorevsky and Teodorovich. It seems as if Fr. Malinovsky, having compiled § 111 of his dogmatics, did not even bother to re-read it carefully, why in the middle and at the end of the same paragraph he talks about the same thing, while at the end he writes in such a tone as if this is being discussed for the first time, there is no reference to what was previously written. From the presented review of §111, it is clear that out of 21 pages, more than 15 pages were literally copied out of it. The absence of generally accepted signs of borrowing, for example, quotations and quotation marks, creates an impression that does not correspond to the actual state of affairs: many quotations from Catholic books and from patristic works are all copied off, while the author is left with a few, and the most uninteresting and invisible, pages. § 112. Lutheran doctrine of human justification and its conditions (pp. 421–446). Again, as many as 26 pages in “Orthodox Theology” about Lutheran teaching! This paragraph is no less interesting than the previous ones. In the first note, on page 422, we read the remark: “References to the symbolic books of Lutherans are made according to the edition: Die Svmbolischen (why is this word capitalized?!) Biiclier der evangelischlutherisclien Kirche. Besorgt von I.Miiller. Gutersloh. 1907." When encountering such a statement at the beginning of a paragraph, the reader is invited to view the following pages as an independent work by Fr. Malinovsky based on primary sources. But not believing, but checking, you can see with your own eyes that this entire paragraph with numerous references to the symbolic books of the Lutherans was copied from Russian theological works, which appeared much earlier with such aplomb from the indicated edition of Muller. Cheating begins on page 424. Page 424 to the middle presents an extract and retelling of pp. 46–47 from the book by F. Stukova - Lutheran Dogma of Justification by Faith. Kazan 1891. The second note is also written from here. The end of this page and the beginning of the next is an extract from Svetlov’s dissertation - The Meaning of the Cross in the Work of Christ, pp. 79–80. After the words of Archpriest Svetlov on page 425 follow the words of Archbishop. Sergius (p. 28 and note). 1st note translated from the Latin text placed in the third note on page 80 of Svetlov’s book. 2nd note begins with a Latin excerpt from the Apology; excerpt taken from note 1, page 28 of Sergius. Then follows an extensive extract from the same place, with a quote, however; only in the title of the German book Sckeele two mistakes were made. Note 3rd-1st approx. on page 27 of the book of Sergius, and approx. 4th2nd note. everything is there. 5th note composed of 2 and 3 approx. on page 28 of the book of the archbishop. Sergius. On page 426 there are two phrases taken from Sergius (pp. 27. 29), and there is a retelling from Svetlov’s dissertation (p. 81). 1st note 3rd note on page 27 of the book of the archbishop. Sergius. In the 2nd note. extracts from “Formula concordiae” and “Conf. Belg." taken from 1st note. on page 32 Sergius; extract from “Apologia Conaiessionis” by Sergius in the text on page 30; quotes from the Schmalkaldic members in Sergius in the 3rd note. on page 30. Two extracts from the Apology of Sergius in the text on page 31. Between these extracts a quotation from “Conf. Helv.”, taken from Sergius in the 1st note. on page 31. Thus, in this note. everything is quoted from the symbolic book of the Lutherans, but the extracts are made from the book of Archbishop Sergius, and not at all from the newest edition of Miillera. The extract from the Apologia Confessionis is especially characteristic. In this extract, Sergius omitted the verse of Psalm 31, replacing it with an ellipsis. It's the same with Fr. Malinovsky. If the author had seen page 100 of Miiller’s publication, he might. I would have translated somewhat differently, for example, the words effici seu regenarari (in Sergius “to do or revive”), I would not have put quotation marks after Sergius, which Müller does not have. It was not Muller’s publication that lay on Fr.’s desk in this case. prot. Malinovsky, and the book by Archbishop. Sergius, but Sergius is silenced, and Müller is solemnly proclaimed as the source. Page 427 begins with a retelling from the book of Archpriest. Svetlova, pp. 82–83; a phrase from Sergius is inserted (pp. 31–32) and immediately a literal extract begins again from Svetlov (pp. 83–84). Wangemann's words in this extract are enclosed in quotation marks and only a quotation is added to them. Then again the phrase taken in the 1st note immediately follows. on page 30 of the book of the archbishop. Sergius, and the page ends with two Latin lines, borrowed from Svetlov on page 84. In that the 1st note. copied from Sergius, the author admits through a quotation, but what was taken from Sergius (with the addition of an error in the Latin word) and the 2nd note is hidden (see Sergius, p. 30 note 2). About half of page 428 (in the middle) was copied from page 49 of the above-mentioned work by Mr. Stukov and from page 24 of Archbishop. Sergius. On page 429, first there is an extract from Sergius (pp. 24–25), and then from Stukov, page 50. The note on this page (started on the previous one) is copied from the 1st note. on page 24 of the book of the archbishop. Sergius. In the 1st note, which has several quotes and Lagin phrases, the 2nd and 3rd notes are combined from page 25 of Sergius’s book. At 430 there is a footnote to the book by Prot. Svetlova - The significance of the cross in the work of Christ, but the footnote is made in such a way that hardly anyone will guess how much was copied from Svetlov, but only half a page was copied. At the top, on page 431, is an extract from V.N. Myshtsyn’s dissertation-Accounting for St. Paul on the law of works and the law of faith, page 245. A few lines later, a small excerpt from Stukov (page 53), containing other people’s words. These words and Fr. Malinovsky marks it with quotation marks, but does not put any quotation, of course, only because the quotation is also omitted from Stukov. After, to the end of the page, literal extracts and partly a retelling from Myshtsyn, pp. 245.246. The second half of the 2nd note is taken from page 53 of Stukov’s book. On page 432 above, again borrowed from Myshtsyn, from pages 247 and 249, and below, from page 57 of Stukov’s book, 453 pages, first an extract and retelling from Stukov, pp. 64.67–68, and then a retelling from Sergius, p. 33. The large 1st note was rewritten from notes 1–2 on pages 64–65 of Stukov’s book. The blank quotation is already in another section of the note, where it is not about Luther, but about Calvin. 2nd note on this page, occupying half of the next page, begins with significant extracts from the symbolic Lutheran “Apology”. But the extracts are again taken not from Muller’s edition, but from the same book by Sergius, from page 32. The Russian text is completely identical: with Sergius’s translation; the same two abbreviations were made as in Sergius. Muller's edition about. Malinovsky saw it, but hastily took from it only the general title of Part III. “Apologia”, irichem made a mistake regarding the Latin spelling, put: delect. What if Fr. Malinovsky carefully read the Latin text of Müller’s edition; he probably would not have translated the words: “haec enim tantuin fide consequimur” (S.120) together with the archbishop. Sergius “we achieve this by faith,” but would make a more accurate translation: “for we achieve this only by faith.” The second half of the same note represents a literal extract from Stukov’s book, pp. 80–81, which is accompanied only by a not entirely clear and frank quotation. Almost all of 434 and half of 435 pages are copied from Stukov’s book, pp. 90–92, and in the 7th line from the top there are 435 p.o. Malinovsky decided to move the bracket one word to the left, which, of course, resulted in nonsense. Under the line to the extracts from Stukov, two notes taken from the archbishop were added. Sergius (See page 34 note 1, page 34 note 3, page 35 note). The reasoning that fills the first half of 436 pages is literally copied from the archbishop without any quotation. Sergius from page 35. Three lines later follows a relatively short extract from Stukov’s book, page 1. 1st note. with all quotes copied from Sergius (from page 35 note 3), and the second from Stukov (page 1 note 1). About half of the 437 pages are occupied by retelling and borrowing from Myshtsyn’s dissertation from pp. 111. 113.112. The note was also taken, albeit with a quotation, from Myshtsyn. Interestingly, Kremer’s famous biblical and theological dictionary is quoted here: from “Cremer. bibl.-theol. Wṓrterbuch"-Myshtsyn from Father Malinovsky it turned out: “S. Kremer. Biblitheol. Worterb.” The entire 438 pages were literally copied from Myshtsyn, pp. 113–115. Page 439 is also copied verbatim from him, pp. 116–118. Having copied more than two pages from Myshtsyn, Fr. Malinovsky in 1 note. on page 440 there is a quote: “Myshtsyna. Uch.ap. Paul on the law of works 111 pp. et seq. See also prof. Glubokovsky. N.N. The Gospel of St. Paul I vol. 432–433 pp. » Does this quote give a sufficiently clear indication of what, how and how much was copied from Myshtsyn? But even after this quote, extracts from Myshtsyn do not stop: they fill at least half of page 440 and the first section on page 441 (Compare pages 119. 120. 122 of Myshtsyn), and in the 2nd note. on pages 440–441 it seems to be made clear that from Myshtsyn there is only this four-line note. At the end of page 443, two phrases are taken from pages 34 and 32 of the archbishop’s book. Sergius. On page 444 there are borrowings from Myshtsyn, from pages 210 and 215, as well as from Stukov, page 144, from whom information was taken from page 75 for the first note. Page 445–446, with minor exceptions, represent literal extracts from Myshtsyn’s book, pp. 215–219. There are digressions, for example, of this kind: 1) Myshtsyn (pp. 215–216) gives a long series of quotations from St. Scriptures where τά άγάθά εργά -o is found. Malinovsky (p. 445) soon gets tired of copying off numbers; he quits, putting: “etc.” 2) In Myshtsyn: “by doing things, a person only realizes his faith” (p. 219), Fr. Malinovsky “corrects” the style: “by doing things, a person only reveals his faith” (p. 446); With this amendment, it seems that the thought “gets better” somewhat, and hardly for the better. With the exception of everything written off in this paragraph, how much of the 26 pages remains to Fr. Malinovsky? Even if we assume that I haven’t missed anything, there are no more than 5–6 pages left, and the least meaningful pages at that. The result is disappointing! § 113. The extremes of Reformation in the doctrine of justification and salvation (pp. 446 – 466). Now the Reformed and Anglicans are given 20 pages in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. But we will continue our sad observations. Little by little, on pages 446 and 447, taken from Stukov’s book, familiar to us from the previous paragraph, pages 85 and 88. The note on page 446 was copied from Stukov (p. 86) without a quote, and the note on page 447 was copied from the same place (p. 89), but with a quote: “See. at Stukov’s, etc.” Having begun to write 448 pages of his work, Fr. Malinovsky took the 4th volume of Christian Reading for 1845 and, shaking off the dust of the 70 years from the hariyas, began to copy from the article: “Explanation of the third part of the message of the patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox faith.” In the text from here Fr. Malinovsky, without showing the source, took (on pp. 448–449) a very extensive definition of the Council of Dordrecht (from pp. 306–307); information about the reasons for the meeting of this council, taken literally from pp. 305–306, is placed in the 2nd extensive note on 448 pages, having, however, redone the infralapsists and infralansists. Taking another phrase from page 309 on page 449, Fr. Malinovsky from the exact words of the same article makes up two whole pages, pp. 450 and 451. Compare. page 450 from page 309. 315. 313. 310 Christ. Readings 1845 Approx. on page 450 taken from pp. 316–317. 451 pp. compare. from 321–325 pp. Christ.Readings. A small section from the same article (pp. 325–326) is reprinted in the middle of pages 453 of Fr. Malinovsky. The next 454 pages are taken literally all, with the exception of only 3–4 lines, from pages 329–330. Half of 457 pages were copied from the same article (See Chronicle Reading, 1845, IV, p. 358). Page 458–460 represent a three-quarter mosaic of phrases from the same article. Page 458 srv. from page 334. 335. 334. 335. Page 459 srv. from page 336. 337. 336. 337. 338. 339. Page 460 srv. from page 339. 340. 345. Can you guess right away that so much in this paragraph is copied from an article in Christian Reading for 1845? No, you can't. This article is mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph under the following circumstances. On page 449 about. Malinovsky said that at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672, the Eastern Orthodox Church contrasted the errors of the Reformation with its confession of faith. “It is stated, we read in the second note, in the “Last Eastern Patr.” III member For an “explanation” of this member and together with an analysis of the Reformed false teaching, see Chr. Thurs. 1845 IV vol. 301–359 pp. “This is the only mention of the article, which, despite its antiquity, was awarded with the favorable attention of Fr. prot. Malinovsky. Moreover, on page 458 Fr. Malinovsky, saying that the Reformed believe that such a gloomy and bleak doctrine of predestination is the teaching of revelation, especially St. Paul, makes a note: “Explanation of the teachings of St. Pavel about this subject, see prof. Glubokovsky N.N.Chr. 1904" But it would be in vain for us to think on the basis of this note. that the further pages of Fr. Malinovsky were written under the influence of Prof. Glubokovsky. Just after this note, numerous extracts from the Christian Reading begin not from 1904, but from 1845 (on pp. 458–460). Why is there a link to prof. N.N. Glubokovsky? On pp. 462–463 there are quite extensive literal extracts, and some are retold from the book by F.A. Golubinsky - The Wisdom and Goodness of God in the Destinies of the World and Man (see pp. 402–403.406.404–405), a book that is discussed in the paragraph, and indeed not mentioned anywhere nearby. Page 463–466 are devoted to "the doctrine of the Church of England concerning justification and its conditions, and concerning predestination." Here about. Malinovsky uses the book by A. Rozhdestvensky - Symbolic and liturgical books of the Anglican Church, as an expression of its religious consciousness, Kyiv 1908, and an article by prof. P.I. Leporsky - Thirty-nine members of the Anglican Church (inaccurately from Fr. Malinovsky; you need: the Church of England), Christian Reading, 1.904, part 2 (and not 1, as in Fr. Malinovsky - p. 466 note 1; after all, in the October book!) Of his complete dependence on Fr. Malinovsky, one might say, is not hiding it. But unfortunately for our author, both A. Rozhdestvensky and Prof. P.I. Leporsky writes many of the phrases he needs in Latin and leaves them without translation. It cannot be said that the translations of Fr. Malinovsky were distinguished by the desired accuracy. Why, for example, translate justificatos sequuntur: (good works) follow justification (p. 465)? Or: minime Deo grata sunt why should it be translated into the story: they do not make a person capable of receiving grace (p. 465)? Is Dei propositum equal to “the will of God”? In the translation of the XY1I member (p. 465) the Latin words are omitted: “nobis quidam occult” (sc. consilio), “per Christum adducer” is translated - “to bring in Christ”, “secundum propositum ejus” - “according to God’s appointment.” In addition, a small parallel can be made. “article XVII, expressing the truth about Divine predestination, does not balance the expression of this truth by pointing to ... the truth about free will (not fully attested in other members), and thereby leaves the field open for various views, including the Calvinistic one” Chr. Thurs. 1904, II, 458–459. “In general, in the symbolic books of Anglicanism... the truth about free will is not attested with all decisiveness, and thus the field remains open for various views on the nature of the Anglican doctrine of predestination, including the Reformed one. Malinovsky, vol. 3, p. 466.. Underlined, in the second column the words are inserted about. Malinovsky, with a retelling of the words of Prof. close to the text. Leporsky. If you carefully read the two columns above, you will see that the inserted words completely distort the thought of Prof. Leporsky and regardless of this make the idea strange in general. Prof. Leporsky, this is and should be in connection with the previous one and with Fr. Malinovsky that the uncertainty of Anglican members allows for the possibility (for members of Anglicanism) of diverse, including Reformed, views on predestination itself, and not at all on the nature of the Anglican doctrine of predestination. Inserting the marked words, Fr. Malinovsky showed that he did not understand Prof. Leporsky and inattentively chose expressions for his speech. § 119. Head of the Church Christ the Savior and the Holy Spirit Poraclitus (pp. 485–496). O. prot. To write this paragraph, Malinovsky used almost one article by Prof. A.L. Katansky - About the head of the Church, Christ the Savior and the Holy Spirit, Paraclete, Church Bulletin, 1895, No. 18. column. 553–560. So from this article, about half of 486 pages were taken with some reduction of the text (Compare column 555. 554. 555). Then, from the middle of page 487, we find an extensive extract from the bishop’s interpretation. Theophanes on the last, to the Ephesians (Ed. 2, Moscow 1893, pp. 307–309). This extract occupies a whole page, but only the last seven lines are enclosed in quotation marks and a quotation is added to them, from the work of the bishop. Theophan wrote out the words of St. John Chrysostom, blessed. Theodoret and St. John of Damascus in approx. 1 at 488 pp. Of course, the words of Rev. John of Damascus by Bishop Theophan is translated very inaccurately (Srvn. Migne, PG, t.95, col. 844 A), but checking the original is not the custom of Fr. Malinovsky. Page 489 represents only a retelling and an extract from Feofan, p. 429. 123, from which the note on p. 490 is taken. On the same page 490 at the beginning there is a retelling of the words of Prof. A.L. Katansky from the Church Bulletin for 1895 No. 18. stlb. 555. The second half of 491 pages is copied from the same article by Katansky, stlb. 554.556–557, and the words of the blessed one. Jerome, which make up the first note, were borrowed from Bishop Theophan (p. 432), although a quotation was found for them from the Russian translation of Jerome’s work. Page 492 half consists of the words of prof. A.J.I. Katansky (stlb.555); the large note was literally copied from another article by Prof. A.L. Katansky-On the formulation of a treatise on the Church in the science of dogmatic theology, Church Bulletin, 1895, No. 16, column. 494 approx. 1. Let us note that this article is not mentioned at all in the paragraph under discussion. Page 493 almost all of it, together with quotations, is literally copied from §18 of the Church Bulletin for 1895, st. 555.559. In the 15th line from the bottom about. Malinovsky, when copying, missed the words “and by the Holy Spirit,” which resulted in complete nonsense. Page 494–495 are copied verbatim from the same article by Prof. Katansky in No. 18 of the Church Bulletin for 1895, column 559.557.558. Here the words of Bishop Theophan are mainly cited, which is why there is a quote (page 496 note 1): Letters to one person. St. Petersburg. 1881, 48–52 pp. This quote is also taken from prof. Katansky. Almost entirely in this paragraph, the copied article by Prof. Katansky from No. 18 of the Church Bulletin for 1895 was once mentioned in a note on page 494. where we read: “The name of the Holy Spirit “ruling” or “ruling” and “life-giving” is found, among other things, in St. John of Damascus in the homily on the Transfiguration. Sn. Katansky prof. etc.” So, more than 4 pages were literally copied from Katansky, but the impression is that only a small remark of three lines was taken from him. § 120. Essential properties of the true Church of Christ (pp. 496–524). The second half of page 497 is partly literally, partly paraphrased, borrowed from the article “On the Orthodox Church of Christ,” published in the Addendum to the works of Sts. fathers for 1843 (part 1, pp. 238–239). The first half of page 498 is also borrowed from the “Dogmatic Theology” of Archbishop. Philaret (ed. 3. part 2, St. Petersburg 1882, §296, p. 229), and from the same article on the Church (Additions, part 1, p. 239). At the same time, there was an error in the quotation from the ap. Paul, standing: Gal.3, 28; n. 2, 14–15, but you need: Gal. 3, 28; n. Eph. 2, 14–15. Where Fr. Malinovsky is copying, right. On page 499 about. Malinovsky makes considerable use of the book of Fr. A. Lebedeva-On the primacy of the pope or the difference between Orthodox and papists in the doctrine of the Church, St. Petersburg. 1887, pp. 100–101. An interesting note is on page 501. Here is part of the first rule of St. Basil the Great. But in this case, Fr. Malinovsky, although he does not show this in any way, uses not the “book of rules”, but the book by Prof. M.A. Ostroumov - Essay on Orthodox Church Law. Kharkov, 1893, §6, pp. 29–30. The Russian text of the rule and the three inserted Greek words coincide completely with Ostroumov’s book. Moreover, one typo by Ostroumov has been preserved intact: the word άίρεσί ϛ is printed the same way in both, the aspiration is placed on ά and not on ί. In the section on the holiness of the Church (p. 502 ff.), first there is a mosaic of extracts from old dogmas and even older articles of dogmatic content. This collection of other people's words and other people's quotes takes up almost entirely six pages. Compare pp. 503 and Macarius, §179, vol. 3, p. 312, Philaret, part 2, pp. 234.235.236. Page 504 with third note. and Philaret, part 2, pp. 235. 236. 234. 235 and approx. 43. Page 505 and Additions for 1843, part 1, p. 251 and Filaret, part 2, pp. 234 and 235. Page 506 and Additions for 1843, part 1, p. 252 and Filaret, part 2, p. 235. Page 507–508 and Filaret § 299, part 2, pp. 242–243. A small note may be made here. Filaret has written off two departments, which in total occupy more than a page. After the first section there is a quotation on §299 of Philaret’s dogma, from which, however, it is not easy to understand that the entire section was literally written off, but the immediately following second section is already left without any quotation. The patristic quotations that fill the first half of 509 pages are borrowed from the archbishop. Philaret, § 299, part 2, p. 243 and in Metropolitan Macarius from §185 (and not 136, as stated in Fr. Malinovsky) of his “Introduction to Orthodox Theology. But there was a misunderstanding with one quote from Chrysostom in note 4. O. Malinovsky writes: “Sn. on Ezek.Bes.II,2 ". St. John Chrysostom does not have any conversations on the book of the prophet Ezekiel. This quote is taken from Macarius, where it is written in Latin: “In. Ies. homil. II, n. 2" (Introduction. St. Petersburg. 1847, p. 532 note 664), i.e. the second conversation on the prophet Isaiah (See Creations vol. 6, pp. 26–27). A. Malinovsky from the Latin “Ies.” made the Russian "Ezek". Does he really not know how the names of the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah are written in Latin? Then four whole pages (509–512) are copied verbatim, even with ellipsis and italics, from the book of Archpriest A. Lebedev - On the primacy of the pope, pp. 61–62. 63. 67. 68. 69. At the beginning there is one mention of this book, but a mention of this kind. The entire 510 pages consists of two excerpts - from the “Introduction” of Macarius and from the book of prof. Cheltsova - Ancient forms of the symbol. O. Malinovsky made both of these excerpts from Lebedev’s book, but, of course, quotes Makarii and Cheltsov. And so, putting in the 2nd approx. quote from Cheltsov, he adds: “See. also: Lebedeva A. A. prot. About the primacy of the pope. 61–63 pp.” So guess what, not only the words of Makariy and Cheltsov on this page were copied from Lebedev, but also the own words of Archpriest. Lebedev on the next two pages! In addition, copying page 512 with documentary accuracy, the author completely in vain turns the 2nd chapter of the 1st chapter, to Corinth, into the 3rd. The extensive note on pp. 513–514 about the name of the Church “conciliar” is an almost literal extract from the article in No. 2 of “Church Gazette” for. 1906 article, however, although silently, mentioned here. On the subsequent pages, which treat the catholicity of the Church, there are quite a few small unmarked borrowings. Srvn. Page 515 and Philaret §298. Part 2. p. 238 and Additions for 1843, part 1. cgr.255. 254. Page 516 and Philaret, part 2. pp. 239–240, Macarius § 18o vol. III, p. 315. Additions, part 1, p. 254. Page 518 and Macarius vol.III, p. 317, Philaret, part 2, p. 24!. Page 519 and Philaret part 2, p. 241. Page 520 end and Philaret § 300, part 2, p. 246. The small section (pp. 521–524) on the apostolate of the Church has been written off by more than half. Page 521–522 cf. Philaret § 300, part 2, pp. 247–248. Page 523 srv. A. Lebedeva-On the primacy of the pope, pp. 103–104. There are no citations. § 122 (Fr. Malinovsky has a typo: 22), God's establishment of the Epapxiu (pp. 525–536). In approx. On pp. 525–526, many small and large journal articles are listed as “literature.” We will note borrowings from only one article by Archimandrite Innocent - On the origin of the New Testament hierarchy. Orthodox Interlocutor 1868 vol.2. About half of page 528 is taken from this article (from pp. 4–5). In the middle of page 530 is a retelling from page 18. Tertullian’s words at the beginning of page 534 are taken from page 21. Moreover, the word “generositas” is completely incorrectly translated through “superiority,” which does not at all correspond to Tertullian’s thought. Generositas here is origo, genus, as Rigaltius explains (See Migne, PL., t.2, col. 395 G and nota 8). Almost the entire 535 pages, with an overwhelming abundance of quotations in the second note, are taken from pp. 23–24 and 27 of the article by Archimandrite. Innocent; only quotes from Fr. Malinovsky lost the accuracy that they had in his “source”. § 123. Threefold power epapxiu (pp. 536–546). There are small extracts from the mentioned article by Archimandrite Innocent. Compare end 537 pp. and Pravosl, Interlocutor 1868, part 2, p. 7; started 538 from page 8; start 541 from 9th. But in this paragraph Fr. especially assiduously uses. Malinovsky dogmatics archbishop. Philaret, from which more than three pages were copied: cf. p. 540 and Filaret §304, part 2, pp. 257 – 258; pp. 542 – 544 and Filaret §306, part 2, pp. 260–262. Copying is preferred verbatim, and quotations are completely absent. § 124. The importance of epapxiu in the Church. Lay participation in Church affairs (pp. 546–554). First of all, of course, it is difficult not to be amazed that in dogmatic theology the question of the participation of the laity in the affairs of the Church is discussed. The words of some ancient church writers on page 547 are borrowed from Metropolitan Macarius, §172, volume III, pp. 282–283. For decoration, a line in Greek from Ignatius the God-Bearer and a line in Latin from Tertullian were taken. But Macarius added an erroneous quotation to Tertullian’s words (The word ecclesia sine episcopo in Adv. Marc. IV, 5 no; see Migne, PL, t. 2, coll. 395–397); O. Malinovsky, of course, left it completely intact. Interpreting (on p. 549 ff.) about the participation of the laity in the affairs of the Church, Fr. Malinovsky uses the book by Prof. A.P. Lebedeva-The clergy of the ancient universal Church. 1905, from which he takes his reasoning and excerpts and quotes. Srvn. p. 551. Malinovsky and 106. 108. 109. 110 Lebedev. Page 552 Malinovsky and pp. 112–116 Lebedev. Quotes in notes 5 collected from approx. 1–3 on 115 pages and note 1. 3 on page 116 of the book by prof. Lebedeva. Page 553 Malinovsky and pp. 148–151 Lebedev. Quotes in 2nd note. taken from p. 117-U9 Lebedev, and quotes in the 3rd note. from pp. 147–154 Lebedev. § 125. The Council as the body of the highest ecclesiastical authority (pp. 554–566). And to write about this in the dogmatic theology of Fr. Malinovsky finds it appropriate! In this paragraph, he was forced to use manuals of a canonical and church-historical nature, and he uses them very diligently. The end of page 556 is taken from the article Lapin-Sobor, as the highest body of church authority, Orthodox Interlocutor, 1906, vol. 1, p. 609. Beginning of page 557 in Prof. A.P. Lebedev - The Clergy of the Ancient Universal Church, page 195. The notes occupying half of this page are taken from the “Essay on Orthodox Church Law” by prof. M.A. Ostroumov, which is noted in the quotations. Nevertheless, we can dwell on the 1st note not without interest. Prof. Ostroumov quotes Tertullian’s words in Latin; O. Malinovsky translated them and here are his translations: per Graecias In some places of Greece, ex universis ecclesiisBO the name of all churches, per quae et altiora quaeque in commune taneta Ilturp discussed together about the most important subjects. Not a single expression, but translated correctly, and even inserted incorrectly in Latin per Grecias. The middle of 558 pages was copied from the “Course of Church Law” by prof. A.S. Pavlova (Sergiev Posad 1902, p. 279), and the quotation, and not an exact one, only marks the copied first note. Page 559–560 are literally copied from Pavlov from pp. 280–281. These two quotes do not at all give an accurate and complete idea of ​​the size and nature of borrowing. The second half of 561 pages is copied from Lapin’s article (Orthodox Interlocutor, 1906, vol. 2, pp. 487–488). After this, the following note was made: “See seven: And oa nn a ep.smol. Experience in the course of church jurisprudence, Et. 343 pp. Sokolov. From lectures on church law. 150–151 pp. Lapina, Cathedral, etc. Berdnikova I.L. The practical meaning of the canons of the universal church in the Theology. encyclop." VIII volume." Thus, the article from which the literal borrowing was made is in third place, and judging by the form of the quotation, one cannot at all think that anything in the text has been copied. But it is even more characteristic that the quotations on John and Sokolov were taken from the same Lapin from 3 notes. to 487 pp. Almost everything that is on page 562 in the text was taken from Lapin (See Orthodox Interlocutor, 1906, vol. 3, p. 72); as well as the first half of p. 563 (Orthodox Sobes, 1906, vol. 3, p. 442. 468). In the extensive note on pp. 562–563, more than half is also taken from Lapin (See Legal Sobes. 1906, vol. 3, pp. 73.443.444–446.449.451.452). Here at Fr. Malinovsky has several references to literature, also borrowed from Lapin; only one name, Lapin, has been forgotten. In addition, in the same note, Fr. Malinovsky wrote the Greek numeral - πεντε ϛ. At least half of 565 pages were taken from Lapin (See Pravosl.Sobesednik, 1906, vol. 3, pp. 642.644); in the note after the extracts from Lapin you come across two completely different quotes, and these two quotes, it turns out, were taken by the same silent Lapin (See page 644, notes 2 and 4). The very end of the paragraph (on p. 566) is also written according to Lapin (cf. p. 645), from whom (from p. 644) the reference to the article of Bishop Sergius was taken. § 126. Extraordinary gifts and ministries in the Church (pp. 569–580). Here almost all of page 568 and part of 569 are taken from the commentary on 1 Cor. Bishop Theophan (p. 446), although for some reason it is not noted that it belongs to the blessed one. Theodoret, that Ikumenia: Fr. Malinovsky passes off their words as his own. The same is on page 571 (Compare Theophanes, p. 466). On pages 577 and 579 there are quite a few borrowings from the book of prof. A.P. Lebedeva-The clergy of the ancient universal church srv.p. 11. 17. 18. 20. 21. 24. 215). One cannot help but notice the general character of this entire paragraph: there is nothing dogmatic in it at all; reading it, you completely forget that before you lies a book called dogmatic theology, and not a book on ancient church history. The author writes about what happened in the apostolic age, what happened in post-apostolic times, gives information (page 575 note) even about the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” (distorting, however, the Greek words), writes in detail about the charismatics - about the apostles, prophets and teachers, for some unknown reason keeping silent about the evangelists. What is dogmatic in all this is not easy to understand! § 127. The necessity of belonging to the Church (pp. 580–586). There is one thing to note in this paragraph. Almost all patristic sayings, occupying one and a half pages (pp. 582–584), were undoubtedly copied from Metropolitan. Macarius, §170, vol.III, pp. 271–273. Only quotes from St. Cyprian and Blessed Jerome are supplemented with pages based on the Russian translation of their works. But the quotes from Augustine in 1st note. on page 584, for some reason they are not placed in the order in which they appear individually in Macarius, why are they in Fr. Malinovsky and no longer correspond to the order of excerpts from Augustine given in the text. To the words of the blessed one. Theodoret in Macarius (p. 273 note 498) has a quote: “tn les. Nav. interrog. II." (The same quotation for these same words appears in the Addendums to the works of the Holy Fathers for 1843, part 1, p. 236). How from this quote from Fr. Malinovsky (p. 584, note 2) turned out to be different: “On Ezek Ave. Preface." I couldn't figure it out. But didn’t something similar happen here to what Fr. Malinovsky mixed Isaiah with Ezekiel in the Latin version?! But oh. Malinovsky here turned out to be ungrateful in relation to Metropolitan. Macarius. At 1 approx. on page 584, having mixed up quotes from St. Augustine, he continues: “Many other testimonies of St. fathers about the same are indicated in Art. “About the Orthodox Church of Christ” (Appendix to the Fatherland and there is an inaccuracy here! -1843, 1 part 236–238 pp.): reproduced by St. Macarius Pr.Dogm. God., § 170. This is wonderful! Copy from Macarius yourself, keep silent about it and, among other things, note: Macarius supposedly “reproduces” the testimony of St. fathers! But Metropolitan Macarius does not “reproduce” the pages of the 1843 article as accurately as he reproduces Archpriest. Malinovsky pages of dogma Metropolitan. Macaria! § 129. The intercession of the saints for believers living on earth, and their prayerful invocation in the earthly church (pp. 588–609). Half. 589 pages compiled according to Macarius (see vol. V, pp. 115–116). Page 590 is composed differently. More than half of it was literally copied (only a number of digital quotations from the Holy Scriptures were shortened) from the archbishop. Philaret, §311, part 2, pp. 267–268. Immediately after this extract, the words of Bishop Sylvester begin and continue until the end of the page, §186, vol. V, page 262. There are no citations to either Philaret or Sylvester. The extensive excerpt from Blessed Jerome on page 592, of course, was also taken from Bishop Sylvester (§188, vol. V, pp. 277–278), although a page was found for it in the 4th part of Jerome’s works in the Russian translation. From the end of page 593 to the end of page 594 there is an unquoted extract from the book by I.P. Obolensky - A critical analysis of the religion of Russian rationalist sectarians: Doukhobors, Molokans, Stundists. Voronezh 1898, pp. 308–309. This book is about. Malinovsky is not mentioned at all in the paragraph. On page 595 in the middle there is a retelling again from Obolensky’s book, page 297; several lines from Macarius are inserted (vol. V, p. 114) and the page ends with a literal extract from Obolensky’s book, p. 298. The next page 596 begins with an extract from Macarius (vol. V, p. 114) and continues with a retelling from Obolensky’s book, pp. 299–300. At the very end of the same page, literal extracts from Obolensky’s book begin, which continue until the middle of the next 597 pages (See Obolensky p. 300.299). In the first note. The quotation from Origen is distorted: vm. Roman II was delivered to 11 Russians. The second note was moved from page 299 of Obolensky’s book. Page 598–599 are almost all compiled according to Macario, § 254, vol. V, pp. 116–118. Some quotes were reviewed, but at the same time (in 1 note on p. 599) by the translator into Russian of “The Writings of the Apostolic Men” instead of Archpriest. P. Preobrazhensky is named Archpriest P. Rozhdestvensky, and in the 3rd approx. the quotation from Eusebius was spoiled: it was put VI, 6, but VI, 5 is needed, as in Macarius. Something was added from Sylvester (§ 187, vol. V, p. 264). On page 600 the influence of the bishop is noticeable. Sylvester, vol. V, pp. 276–278, but the 8th century is converted into the 13th. There are small extracts from Sylvester on pages 601 (§ 188 and 189, vol. V, pp. 286.287). Page 603 is mostly an extract and a little retelling from the dogma of Bishop Sylvester, §189, vol.V, pp. 287.288–289.288. Page 604, with the exception of a few lines, is a retelling from Obolensky’s book from pp. 293. 294–295. The note on this page is copied literally from Obolensky (See page 294, note 1). The literalness and precision that Fr. Malinovsky is somehow all inappropriate, leading him here to a small curiosity: together with Obolensky, he writes not προευχή, but προεύχη, that is, he carefully preserves a typo that would not be difficult to correct. In the middle, next page 605, there are two literal extracts. One of §307 of Archimandrite Innocent’s “Accusatory Theology” (vol. III, p. 562). the other is from Obolensky’s book from page 299. The last lines on this page also came from page 300 of Obolensky’s book. The second half of page 606 was again copied with only minor deviations from the text from Obolensky, pp. 800–301. Over the next 607 pages, the influence of Archimandrite Innocent is noticeable (vol. III, p. 575). One more remark should be made regarding this paragraph. On page 605, the author discusses how saints, without possessing omniscience, can know our prayers. But this was already discussed in more detail on pp. 595–597 in the same paragraph. Both times they say not only the same thing, but even the same thing, although there are no literal repetitions. Why say the same thing twice in a paragraph, thereby giving the paragraph a chaotic appearance? § 130. Veneration of saints (pp. 610–625). Here pp. 611–612 are compiled according to Sylvester (§ 170. vol. V, pp. 144–145. 146. 147. 148–149). The literal extracts, however, are only a few lines, but the coincidence of some characteristic expressions, the coincidence of quotations from the Holy Scriptures, moreover, standing in a row, all this quite convincingly indicates that when writing pp. 611–612, the eyes of Fr. Malinovsky were always focused on the dogmatics of Bishop Sylvester. At the bottom of page 611 there is a note about the difference between the Greek words λατρεία and δουλία. This note is a composite one: part of it is taken from Obolensky’s book, p. 185, note I, and part from § 294 of “Accusatory Theology” by Archimandrite. Innocent (vol. III, pp. 477–448 notes and 475 ff.). One detail is interesting. Copying the word ειδολολάτροι in this exact form, Fr. Malinovsky repeats two typos by Archimandrite in one word. Innocent: after δ he writes about, not ω, and does not put any aspiration above ει. On page 614, the order and content of the patristic testimonies coincide with the dogmatics of Sylvester (§171, vol. V, pp. 150–151), but the quotation from Eusebius in the 2nd note is spoiled: instead of – IV, 5, – V, 5 is printed, which is incorrect. In the first half of page 615 we find not only a retelling, but also literal borrowings from Sylvester (§172, vol. V, pp. 156–157), from whom two small notes 3rd and 4th were taken. Among the retelling from Sylvester we also find something that was almost the same as was said here a little earlier, on page 600. The end of page 615 and the beginning of 616 are literally copied, without quotation, from the work of prof. E.E. Golubinsky - History of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church. Ed. 2. Moscow 1903; page 14. On page 616 in the 2nd note, having made a literal extract from Prof. Golubinsky’s book, the author, albeit silently, quotes it. But immediately further in this note, a remark is made from a new line about the Western Church. The quote is different: Seredinsky T. prot. About the divine service of the Western Church, II art., p. 65. In fact, it turns out that both the remark and the quotation about Seredinsky were taken from the same Golubinsky (p. 15 note). Fr. does exactly the same thing. Malinovsky on page 618, where, having copied the second note from the book of E. E. Golubinsky (page 11 note 2), he puts a quote on Seredinsky, which he took from the same Golubinsky (page 12 note 1). Having copied the 3rd note from Golubinsky, the author no longer puts any quotation. In the text, from the middle of page 618 to the middle of page 619, there are extracts from Golubinsky, this time supplied with quotations. The second half of the text on page 619 was copied from pages 264 and 270 of Golubinsky’s book, but only the last phrase of Fr. Malinovsky put quotation marks and quoted one page 270. Extracts from Golubinsky, made on 620 pages (cf. pp. 288.286.287), are not marked with quotations. The first note on this page is taken from the article by D. Protopopov - On the incorruption of holy relics, Soulful Reading, 1888, vol. 1, p. 267, and the quotation on the description of the manuscripts of the synodal library is omitted. On page 621 there are small borrowings from Sylvester (srvp.t.V, p. 172), and in the middle there is a significant extract from §296 of the “Accusatory Theology of Archimandrite Innocent” (vol. III, p. 487) with the addition, however, of a typo. There are no citations made to the manual on this page. The first half of page 622 is a light retelling from Obolensky's book on rationalistic sextants. pp. 280–290, and the second half is literally copied from the dogma of Bishop Sylvester (§171. vol. V, pp. 151–152), although no quotations are visible on this page. On the next page, up to the middle there are the words blessed. Jerome, borrowed from Sylvester (§172, vol. V, pp. 163–164). These words are enclosed in quotation marks and a quotation is placed: “Jeron. Prot. Vigilantius. Sn. writing. 89, to Riparius.” One gets the wrong idea that all the words cited are in the work of Blessed Jerome “against Vigilantius,” while in the letter to Riparius there is only a parallel passage. In fact, the quotation on the letter to Riparius should have an independent meaning; it refers to the last three lines of the excerpt given in the text, which are not in the essay “Against Vigilance.” An extensive, more than a page, extract from the blessed. Augustine (pp. 623–624). following the words blessed. Jerome, borrowed with precision from Bishop. Sylvester (§172, vol. V, pp. 165–166), although a rearrangement of individual sayings of the blessed one was made. Augustine, who make up this extensive extract. Also quite extensive extracts from St. Epiphany of Cyprus and from St. John of Damascus, occupying the remaining one and a half pages of this paragraph, were taken from the same bishop. Sylvester: the words of Epiphanius from pp. 161–162 of the fifth volume, and the words of John of Damascus from 170 pages. The abbreviations and ellipses coincide, but in the 3rd line from the top of page 625, the bracket is for some reason moved one word to the right and as a result of this, of course, it is nonsense. § 131. Veneration of the relics of St. saints of God (pp. 626–646). The paragraph begins with a retelling from the dogma of Macarius (§ 255, vol. V, pp. 122.128–129). At the end of page 626 and on the next page 627, as well as in the first note on this last one, we find two rather extensive extracts from D. Sosnin’s brochure that appeared 80 years ago - On the Incorruption of St. relics in the Church of Christ. St. Petersburg. 1833. Both extracts are carefully marked with quotation marks and accompanied by quotations. But for me there is no doubt that Fr. Malinovsky has not seen Sosnin’s brochure. Is it an accident that the extracts from Sosnin are exactly the same as in the article by Prot. P. A. Smirnova - Incorruption of holy relics. Church Gazette, 1903, No. 12, pp. 443–444? Meanwhile, the first extract consists of phrases that fit on three pages (46–48) of Sosnin’s brochure. The quote accompanying this first extract is also characteristic. Since the extract was taken from three adjacent pages, these pages could only be indicated in this form: “p. 46–48" or even more precisely: "p. 46. ​​47–48,” but Fr. Malinovsky stands: “46, 48 pages.” Why is this so? Of course, only because he came across the same mistake or typo in Prot. Smirnova, and only because Fr. prot. Malinovsky did not deny himself this time the pleasure of quoting a book that he had not seen, while keeping silent about the Tserkovnye Vedomosti article, which he had only seen. From the same article by Prot. P. Smirnov (p. 443) and the words of the Metropolitan are written out. Filareta in the same note. This is undoubtedly true, if only because we are talking about... Malinovsky coincides with the speech of Father Smirnov even when the words of Metropolitan Philaret are not quoted literally. The second note was copied from Golubinsky, which is noted, although in the following form: “See. at Prof. Golubinsky." 628 pages begins with a literal borrowing from an article by Archpriest P.A. Smirnov, Church Gazette, 1903, L "12, pp. 446–445. In the middle of the page we see an illiterately written Latin word - reliquie (vm. reliquiae). The second half of 628 pages is occupied by a note in which everything is taken from Golubinsky, both quotes and individual words; the quote is as follows: “In the book. prof. HER. Golubinsky gives, in addition to these, other examples.” Page 629 with all notes consists of extracts from Golubinsky, which, however, is marked with quotations. Half of the next 630 pages was copied from the same place (pp. 299. 301.302), but without quotations. Then (on pp. 630–631) follows a very eloquent page—alas! not his own, but copied without any quotation from Archpriest Smirnov-Tserkovnyya Vedomosti, 1903, No. 12, pp. 445 b–446a. On page 633, the first note is copied from Obolensky’s book on sectarians, page 328. The second note is borrowed from Bishop Sylvester, § 175, vol. V, page 178, with the omission of the Latin quotation on the martyrdom of St. Ignatius; the quotation from Eusebius is just as spoiled as in 1 note. on page 614. The patristic words that fill 634 pages are borrowed from Sylvester (cf. § 176, vol. V, pp. 18J. 183.187), although pages of new editions of the patristic works are added to them. On page 636 there is both a retelling and literal borrowings from Sylvester (§ 174, vol. V, p. 175) and from Obolensky (p. 316); Obolensky also took the words of St. John Chrysostom, placed in the second note (cf. p. 316 note 1). Page 637, almost all of it is borrowed from Obolensky’s book (cf. pp. 318–319.322), and one phrase is rearranged in place of another. Sometimes a close-to-text retelling of Obolensky’s words (pp. 323. 324–325) takes up the entire 638th page. Almost the entire 639 pages were literally copied from the article by Prot. Smirnova, Church Gazette 1903, No. 12, p. 444. In the second, Dov. An extensive note outlines page 301 of E.E. Golubinsky’s work on the canonization of saints. Book by Prof. Golubinsky at Fr. Malinovsky was; Quite a bit of it has been copied into the paragraph under discussion. But hardly about. Malinovsky was opening this book when he wrote this note; his presentation of the words of Prof. Golubinsky and his explanatory comments surprisingly exactly coincide with the note to the article by the same Prof. P. L. Smirnova (See Church Gazette 1903, No. 12, p. 444b note). Parting here with the article by Rev. Smirnova, I consider it necessary to make such a remark. On the previous pages, at least three pages in total were copied from this article, and sometimes entire pages were copied off at once. However, not once is this article named or cited; it is not even indicated in the list of “literature” (p. 626 note 1), although there we see the Wanderer of 1861 and 1866, and the Missionary Collection for 1890 and Sunday Reading for 1885. The text on page 640 is a retelling from an article in Soulful Reading for 1888, part 1, pp. 164–165. 161. In the fifth line from the bottom, the word “mouth” is missing and therefore it didn’t turn out quite well. The note, occupying the bottom half of the page, represents not just one retelling, but also literal extracts from the same article (cf. 165.166. 70 pages). In the middle, a note is given from this article literally (from page 166) a description of the relics of Sts. Boris and Gleb, but there is a quote in parentheses: “see. in Golubinsky, 20 pages et seq.”, although I could not find this exact description of the relics in Golubinsky. Almost the entire text on page 611 is taken literally from the same article by Protopopov (See Soulful Reading, 1888, part 1, pp. 171–172). Here is the story of the relics of St. Spyridon of Trimieuntsky. As a quotation at the end of the note we see: “See. Arseny arch. Chronicle of church events, 564–565 pp. » But in the chronicle, Archimandrite. Arseny all information about the relics of St. Spiridon, reported by Fr. Malinovsky, according to Protopopov, cannot be found. The story of the ill-fated quote is as follows. Archim. Arseny makes an extract from Rangov’s work and puts a quotation: “E λληνικα (1852) part 3, p. 678.” Speaking about the relics of St. Spirodon, Protopopov, among other things, borrows this extract from Archimandrite Arseny, which he notes, putting a double quotation on both Rangov and Arseny. O. Malinovsky without any verification hastily copies from Protopopov’s article, omits the Greek quotation and leaves only the Russian one to Archim. Arseny. Meanwhile, from Rangov’s words, only one phrase came to Fr. Malinovsky, which is at the end of the note and is not marked with anything, for example, in quotation marks, like Protopopov’s, but the previous one is the words of Protopopov, passed off as the words of Archim. Arseny. Based on Protopopov’s article, the second note on this page was compiled (Cf. Soulful Reading, 1888, part 1, pp. 168–169 note). In the middle of page 642 there is again a literal extract from Protopopov’s article from page 167, and the second note is copied from pages 161–162 of the same article. A retelling of one note on page 272 of this article is also seen in the second note on page 643. Protopopov’s article is listed in the list of “literature”, but it is cited only once on page 644, in a small 3rd note, which is not at all literally copied, and yet in the 1st note. A silent quote from the life of St. is taken from the same article. Guria (Om. Soulful Reading, 1881, part 1, p. 272 ​​note g). Page 645 partly literally, partly as a story, reproduces page 326 of Obolensky’s book about sectarians. Page 646 was half copied literally from Protopopov (cf. Dushepol. Reading, 1881, part 1, p. 277. 278–279), from whom it was taken, made from Fr. Malinovsky is already completely deaf, the quote: “Arch Philaret. Saints of the Southern Slavs” and nothing more! Meanwhile, to the text copied from Protopopov, below in the 1st and 3rd notes there are two references to the book of Prof. Golubinsky, where there is nothing like that on the cited pages. Why these quotes were put on Golubinsky remains a mystery for me, which I could not solve. Having completed the review of § 131, let us summarize: from the 21st page, the share of Fr. Malinovsky has maybe six pages, although these pages may have been borrowed from articles and books that I have not looked at. After all, for example, I came across an article by Archpriest I.A. Smirnov by chance, although I, having doubted the affiliation of Fr. Malinovsky marked eloquent page (pp. 630–631), copied from Archpriest. Smirnova, did a lot of unsuccessful special searches. § 132. Veneration of St. icons (pp. 646–667). Two pages 648 and 649 in this paragraph are almost everywhere literally copied from the book of Bishop Sergius († Archbishop of Vladimir) Orthodox teaching on the veneration of holy icons and other related truths of the Orthodox faith. Mogilev on the Dnieper 1887, - cf. pp. 5–6.7.8.9.7–8.9. At the top of page 649 there is a small insert from the dogmatics of Macarius vol.V, page 136. In the middle of pp. 650 there is a small borrowing from Sylvester (§179, vol. V, p. 207), and at the end from the book. Ep. Sergius (p. 10). In approx. on page 651 there is a retelling from Sergius pp. 11–12; what is wrong with the quotation: Numbers 12,16–18, – you need – 12, 6–8, as in Sergius, especially since in Chapter 12. There are only 15 verses. Half of page 652 was copied from Sergius (cf. page 14.17), along with a note about the destruction of the copper serpent under Hezekiah. The end of p. 653 is taken from Obolensky’s book on sectarians, p. 371, and in the note there is a retelling of pp. 67–68 of the book of Bishop. Sergius. From Sergius (from p. 74) the beginning of page 655 is taken along with the first note, and the second half of the page is a retelling from Sylvester (§ 180, vol. V. p. 216). The first half of 656 pages represents an extract and retelling from Sylvester. (§180, vol. V, pp. 217.218). This extract contains a note under the line, taken, along with the quotation on Fricken, from Bishop. Sergius (pp. 72–73), but without a quotation on Sergius. In addition, in this note Fr. Malinovsky somehow took it into his head to rearrange the two prepositions “in” and “on” one in place of the other, which only contributed to the distortion of the meaning. Further, starting from the middle of page 656. about a page is written, sometimes close to the text, according to Obolensky’s book, only pages have been found for some patristic quotations. The words of Eusebius of Caesarea, together with a brief note in the 4th note, were borrowed from Bishop. Sergius (p. 69). Page 657 ends with an extract from Sylvester (§ 182, T.V, pp. 226–227). More than half of the 659 pages were first compiled from a literal extract from Macarius (vol. V, p. 146), then a literal borrowing was made from Bishop Sergius, p. 94, and at the end a retelling again from Macarius (vol. V pp. 146–147), which occupies a significant part of the next page 660, where after in the middle there is a retelling of the second page of Bishop Sergius, from where fastened and a small note second. At the beginning of page 661 there is a retelling from page 3 of Bishop Sergius’s book, and the end of this page is copied literally from page 4 of the same book. On page 662 there is again an extract from page 17 of Sergius, and then a whole page is occupied by an extract from John of Damascus. Starting from the middle of 663 pages, about a page is compiled in places literally from Obolensky’s book on rationalist sectarians, pp. 356–357. The second half of 664 pages is partly borrowed literally from the book. Bishop Sergius, pp. 26,28–29. 26. At the beginning and in the middle of page 666 there are literal extracts from the dogma of Metropolitan Macarius, §256, vol.V pages 150 and 151, from which the quotes in the first two notes are taken. On page 665, the year of the Elvira Council is named 305. And on the next page it is already 324. There are grounds for both of these figures for the same council (the council was in 305; its acts are dated 324), but Fr. Malinovsky does not make any explanations and the attentive reader should be left with the impression of some kind of contradiction. In total, in this paragraph of 21 pages, Fr. Malinovsky has about eight pages left. § 133. Church prayers for the dead (pp. 668–701). I did not analyze this paragraph in detail, but I can point out several literal borrowings from manuals, without any quotations. There is a brochure published by the Athonite Russian Panteleimon monastery, “The Dogma of the Commemoration of the Dead according to Stefan Yavorsky” (2nd edition. Moscow 1886). O. Malinovsky does not disdain similar brochures. So already on page 669 there is a literal, albeit small, borrowing from page 24 of this brochure. On the next 670 pages there is a borrowing from the book of Archpriest Timothy Nikolsky - On prayer for the dead (Moscow 1890. 5th edition), page 238. From the same book (from pp. 240–241) there is an extract in the middle of page 674, and half of 675 consists of a retelling of pages 231–233 of the same books. Half of 676 pages is partly a literal borrowing, partly a light paraphrase from §289 of “Accusatory Theology” by Archimandrite. Innocent (vol. III, pp. 451–452). In the middle of page 678 there is a retelling, and in note 1 on the same page there is a literal borrowing from prof. V.A. Sokolova - Is it possible and should we pray in the Church for the non-Orthodox deceased? Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius 1906. Srvn. p. 19, and for quotations of the second note, see p. 20 notes 1–2. The collection of quotations in the notes on 679 pages is borrowed from Macarius (vol. V, p. 164 note 421 and 422, p. 165 note 429) and from Sylvester (§192, vol. V, p. 299). On page 680 there is a retelling from Nikolsky’s book (pp. 35–36) and from Sylvester’s dogma (§193, vol. V p. 316). On pp. 682–683 there is a retelling from the brochure on the dogma of Stefan Jaworski (See pp. 46.47) and from the dogma of Macarius (Vol. V, pp. 175–176). Moreover, copying close to the text from page 46 of the mentioned brochure, Fr. Malinovsky completely distorts the quotation from St. Scriptures: he writes: 1 Kings. 4, 32; 35, 41, whereas 3 Esdras is needed. 4, 32. 35. 41. End of page 684 copied from the same brochure, and partly the same thing is copied off that was already copied once, precisely on page 669. On page 685 there is a paraphrase from Macarius (vol. V, p. 179), a literal borrowing from Innocent (Accusatory Theology §291, vol. III, p. 469), a paraphrase and a small extract from Sylvester (§199, vol. V, p. 319). At the top of page 686 is a literal excerpt from Obolensky’s book on sectarians, page 322, then until the end of the page the source is the dogma of Metropolitan. Macarius, from which both the words of Macarius himself and the words of St. John of Damascus are literally taken, to which a quotation is substituted from Macarius: Chronicle Reading 1827, XXYI, 326 pp. (cf. §258, vol. V, pp. 172–173. 180–181). Big second note. on pp. 690–691 is sometimes taken literally from an article in No. 28 of the Church Gazette for 1906, pp. 2248 b–2249, and an excerpt from Bishop. Feofana was taken not directly from his letters, which are quoted here, but from the article by Prof. E.P. Akvilonov - Funeral services for Gentiles, Church Bulletin 1905, No. 31, column 972. The evidence is, of course, not accidental, the coincidence of the abbreviation of the words ep. Feofana in endurance. From the same article by Akvilonov on the next page there is a quote from Metropolitan Philaret’s “Conversation between the testing and the confident” (see Church Vestnik, 1905, No. 35, column 1104). For some reason, Akvilonov left this quote without an exact page designation; it has the same appearance in Fr. Malinovsky. The end of page 692 and the beginning of page 693 were copied literally from another article by Akvilonov - On the service of memorial services for Christians of other faiths. See Christian Reading, 1906, April, p. 590. In the 1st note. on page 693, relating to this particular extract, there are as many as four quotes, but not to Akvilonov. These same quotes, in turn, were taken partly from the same Akvilonov, partly in “Church Gazette” No. 28 for 1906, p. 2250. Canonical definitions with interpretations by Metropolitan. Philaret, occupying a whole page (on pp. 694–695), were copied from the brochure of Prof. V.A. Sokolov, from pp. 4–5, and the words of Gregory the Theologian with a quote on p. 695 were taken from Aquilonov (see Christ. Reading, 1906, Apr., p. 583). A rather extensive special addition at the end of the paragraph about the “days of remembrance” is written according to Macarius, and partly directly copied from him along with the quotations related here (see §258., vol. V, pp. 178–179). After reading this entire paragraph, I again have to ask with some bewilderment; Is it really possible and should, in dogmatic theology, discuss the issue of memorial services for people of other faiths, discuss them with reference to the decrees of the Holy Synod? Is it entirely appropriate to talk about “All Souls’ Day” here? After all, Fr. Malinovsky begins his note about these days with the following words: “In the Orthodox Church there is a custom of remembering the dead,” etc. But, besides this custom, there are quite a few other customs in the Orthodox Church. Why shouldn’t Father Malinovsky talk about all the customs of the church in his dogmatic theology? § 134. Character of the river. - Catholic teaching about the Church. Dogma of Papal Supremacy (pp. 701–739). 38 pages are devoted to non-Orthodox teaching about the Church and a dogma about which Orthodox dogma knows nothing! At the very beginning of the paragraph (pp. 702–703 approx.) an extensive list of “literature” is given, but it is remarkable that for the most part this list itself is copied from the book of Prof. HELL. Belyaeva - About the union of churches. Sergiev Posad 1897, pp. 84–85 approx. In the written-off part of the list of “literature” Fr. Malinovsky made one insertion, but it would have been incomparably better if he had inserted nothing. Together with A.D. Belyaev, he mentioned the work of Archimandrite. Nicanora - Analysis of the Roman doctrine of visible (papal) supremacy in the church. St. Petersburg. 1856. Then the author continues: “His teaching on the primacy of the Roman bishop before the court of the 1st Ecumenical Council (Chronicle Reading 1857, Vol. I). The second revised and expanded edition of this work is Kazan, 1871.” What kind of work is the author talking about about the second edition? Obviously, the just named article in Christian Reading. But the second time (Kazan 1871) the above-mentioned Analysis was published Roman teaching. Prof. A.D. Belyaev, the article of the Reading was not mentioned at all; Fr. Malinovsky inserted it in the wrong place and the result was absurd. On page 705 in the middle there is an extract of ½ page in size from the book of Archpriest. A.A. Lebedeva – On the primacy of the pope (p. 47). At the end of the extract, the opinion of Catholic theologians is given and the quotation from Lebedev below the line seems to show that only this opinion was taken and even almost one reference to Dieringer’s dogma, completely illiterately named: “Karhol. Dogmatic." On the middle page 706 there is again an extract from Lebedev (from page 48), but without a quote at all. The second half of p. 707 and the first p. 708 sometimes represent a reproduction of A. Lebedev’s reasoning close to the text (pp. 49–50. 52. 55–56). Two dovs were also copied from Lebedev’s book. extensive notes. After one of them there is: “see. Lebedev ... 49 pages.” but after the other (cf. Lebedev, p. 52 note 1) for some reason there is a quote from A. Vostokov’s book. On page 710 there is a retelling from the work of Archimandrite. Npkanora, pp. 11.12, and on p. 711 there is a retelling and literal borrowing from the same place (pp. 14–15.16), with almost the entire large note written literally (cf. p. 34 note p. 16 note 31). Half of the 713 pages were copied from Nikanor (cf. pp. 12–13. 36. 37–38) literally. Page 714 is a retelling and literal borrowing from prof. prot. Ivantsova-Platonov-Roman Catholic doctrine of papal power, Orthodox Review, 1868; vol.3, pp. 12–13. 14 (cf. Nicanor, p. 56). The second note on page 716, without quotation, was copied from Archpriest. Lebedeva, p. 138. Half of the 718 pages are borrowed from the book by prof. HELL. Belyaeva - On the union of churches, pp. 87 and 88; Almost half and 719 pages have been copied from the same book (from p. 88). Further, starting from the end of 721 pages, a whole three pages are copied from the same book, with the exception of a few lines, and the accuracy of reproduction sometimes even extends to italics. Srvn. 721 pp. Malinovsky and 92 pp. Belyaev. 722 pp. and notes and Belyaeva pp. 92. 95. 93. 94–95 approx. 94–95. 723 pp. Malinovsky and pp. 94. 99. 97. 98. 97. 96. 99. 96 Belyaev. 724 pp. Malinovsky and 99. 100. 101 pp. Belyaev. Mentions of the book by Prof. A.D. Belyaev was not done even once. Further 2½ pages are copied verbatim from the article by Prot. Ivantsov-Platonov - from the Orthodox Review for 1868, vol. 3, p. 181 ff. In some places, the copying is done in an original way: a phrase in the text, a phrase in a note. Srvn. 724 pp. by Malinovsky and pp. 181–182 by Ivantsov-Platonov. 725 pp. Malinovsky and pp. 182–183 Ivantsov-Platonov. 726 pp. Malinovsky and pp. 183–185 Ivantsov-Platonov. Having copied 2 1/2 pages verbatim, Fr. Malinovsky did not consider it necessary to include at least one quotation. The end of p. 728 and the beginning of 729 are taken from Lebedev’s book - On the primacy of the pope, p. 83. The large note on p. 728 is literally copied from the same book, pp. 82–83. But it was very annoying and unpleasant to see that, having made a half-page petite extract from Lebedev’s book, Fr. Malinovsky does not quote Lebedev, but continues: “In addition to courses in church history, see about these cathedrals in the study of Prof. A.L. Katansky..., as well as Prof. Sadova A.I. ..” I don’t know how such a phenomenon should be explained, but I don’t see it as a particularly high-quality scientific technique of a doctoral student. More than half of page 730, again without any quotation, was copied from Lebedev from pp. 98.113–114, and part of page 731 and the first note on this page were also copied from pp. 106 and 115–116. Without putting any quotation in the first larger note and copying literally a small note, Fr. Malinovsky quotes: “See. about this from Archpriest Lebedev. About the primacy of the pope, pp. 107–108, as well as from Prof. Nalimov T.A. The question of papal power at the Council of Constance. St. Petersburg. 1891" Most of the 732 pp. retelling again from Lebedev, pp. 109–110. 112–113. Then two whole pages (733–734) are copied verbatim and accurately from Archpriest Ivantsov-Platonov, Orthodox Review. 1868, vol. 3, pp. 280–282. 284.286–287. Having made such an extensive extract, Fr. Malinovsky quotes from a separate edition of Ivantsov-Platonov’s articles from 1870. Firstly, it is difficult to think that this quote means a literal two-page extract, and secondly, if you look closely at the quotation, you can see that Fr. Malinovsky does not at all want to accurately identify and note the fact of a literal extract. In his quotation we see: “II, 166 – 188 pp.”, i.e. an entire department of 22 pages is indicated, while the extracts are made from seven or eight consecutive pages. Page 735 all written off; this time there are quotes from Overbeck and Lebedev, but already the first half of 736 pages is taken from the article by Prot. Ivantsov-Platonov (Orthodox Review, 1868, vol. 3, pp. 2–3), even retaining italics, although without any citation. Page 737 half consists of words and facts borrowed from Lebedev, pp. 193.194.195. 198. There are extracts from Lebedev on page 738 (from pages 197 and 198) and page 739 (from pages 202–203). In general, the incomparably large part of §134 does not belong to Fr. Malinovsky. § 135. Dogma of papal infallibility (pp. 739–756). And again 18 pages about dogma unknown to Orthodox dogmatic theology! Here, the entire 741 pages are copied from an article by prof. Yastrebova in the Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy for 1881, vol. 3, pp. 289.290.291.300.307.308–309. But only the first and third notes contain blind links to this article. Note on page 745 taken from the book of the prot. A. Lebedeva, p. 107, note 2. Having copied note 2 on page 748 from the collection of articles by prot. D.F. Kasitsyna, Fr. Malinovsky quotes, but for some reason does not note that he took the 1st and part of the 3rd note from the same source. Another significant part of the same third note (p. 749 below) is copied from approx. on pages 71–72 of Lebedev’s book, but the quote points to Overbeck, to whom Lebedev also refers. In the same paragraph, more than three pages are occupied by excerpts from the speech of I.Yu. Strossmayer at the Vatican Council (pp. 747–749. 751. 752–753). O. Malinovsky knows this speech only from those extracts from it that were published in “Church Gazette” for 1905 No. 31 and 35. (pp. 747–749 no. 35, pp. 1320a-1321o; p. 751 no. 31, pp. 1318–1319; p. 752 no. 31, pp. 1319b; pp. 753 No. 31, pp. 1319–1320). Meanwhile, Strossmayer’s entire speech was translated into Russian and published back in 1870 in the Orthodox Review, vol. I, News and Notes, pp. 573 ff. This edition of the speech by Fr. Malinovsky didn’t see it: he doesn’t even indicate it. However, this may be for the better; otherwise we would have seen more than three pages of extracts from Strossmeier’s speech. But did Strossmayer even think that his passionate polemical speech would end up on the pages of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology 40 years later! Inspired by Strossmayer, Fr. Malinovsky begins to write not only in a raised tone, but also in an outright abusive tone; see, for example, the beginning of page 750. In general, Strossmayer’s speech and extracts from D.F. Kasitsyn’s “Collected Articles” can only violate the serious tone of scientific research and are hardly appropriate in dogmatic theology. Nothing like this can be found in any of the previously existing dogmatic systems; their authors showed more tact and seriousness than in this case Fr. prot. Malinovsky. Half of page 750 and part of page 751 consist of the words of Prof. N.Ya. Belyaeva - The theory of papal infallibility in comparison with the facts of history, Orthodox Interlocutor 1881, vol. 3, pp. 239–240.241.244. There are no links. More than three more pages in a row were copied almost verbatim from the same article. Comp.Page 753 Malinovsky and Pravosl.Sobes.1881, t.Z, pp. 267.268. Page 754 Malinovsky and Pr.Sob.p. 270–271. 272. 273. Page 755 of Malinovsky and pp. 274.275.276 of Belyaev’s article. Page 756 of Malinovsky and page 277 of Belyaev’s article. O. Malinovsky quotes Prof. Belyaev’s article, but again in such a way that the degree of dependence on Belyaev and the size of the extracts are not revealed at all. So on page 754 a note is made, which gives the answer of the Munich Theological Faculty to the question of the Bavarian government. At the end of the note there is a quote: “See. in Belyaev,” etc. On page 755 there is also a small note about Serry’s book, copied from Belyaev (p. 274) and accompanied by a quote: “See. at Prof. Belyaev”, etc. It appears that only these minor notes were taken from Belyaev. True, on page 756 in the middle there is a footnote to Belyaev’s article, which relates directly to the text, but who can guess that literal extracts from it began on page 753 and were even earlier. Not only that. Having made a footnote to Belyaev in the middle of page 756, Fr. Malinovsky calmly continues to copy from Belyaev until the very end of this page. In general, in §135 of 18 pages. Malinovsky owns no more than five. You might be interested in: