Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state

Contents Introduction I. Dogmatics II. "Accusatory Theology", History and Analysis of Western Confessions III. Sectology IV. Moral theology with asceticism V. Pastoral theology VI. Homiletics VII. Apologetics VII. Apologetics VIII. Bibliology IX. Church history - general X. Patrology and patristics XI. Church history – Russian XII. History of schism and unity of faith XIII. History of the Slavic and Romanian Churches General character of Russian church historiography XIV. Church (canonical) law XV. Liturgics XVI. Ecclesiastical Archeology Findings and Conclusions Any science for its development requires a good specialized school and a wide educated audience. Without the first, it is deprived of a nourishing source and an objective foundation, without the second, not being perceived anywhere or by anyone, it does not find vital roots for itself, it vegetates, withers and withers, like a greenhouse plant in an unfavorable environment. In relation to Russian scientific theology, both of these conditions were absent for a long time. Such institutions can be noted as schools of theology. The Kiev Academy, founded under the archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (from 1627) Peter Mohyla, then continued its activities under the famous Metropolitan of Kiev (1633–1646). Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy - opened in 1685, but transformed into a scientific institute only in 1817, actually began to function in 1819. The St. Petersburg (Petrograd) Theological Academy, operating since 1809, received the title of “Alexander Nevsky Academy” in 1797, and previously existed in the form of a “main seminary” (1725–1788) and a “Slavic school” (1721–1725). The Kazan Theological Academy dates back to 1842. By the time of the disastrous Russian Revolution, the mentioned schools of theology had not achieved the desired perfection in degree and distribution: the province did not yet have the necessary educational culture, did not display deep scientific sensitivity and serious systematic work. For this reason, the theological publishing house did not satisfy real requests, but rather served as a victim of the jealousy of individuals and did not have sufficient official support from institutions in the form of money and little patronage from patrons and businessmen. In the theological field, everyone and everyone wrote in Russia more according to their individual inclination and published out of their own “fear,” which is not at all purely material... Naturally, Russian scientific theology belongs to modern times and is concentrated in scientific and academic centers that received scientific organization a hundred years ago. From the introduction it becomes clear that Russian scientific theology had to collect and assimilate more than create and enrich. Nevertheless, it gradually grew along all branches and scientifically strengthened, always maintaining its own distinctive appearance in its Orthodoxy. Its main characteristic and essential feature is, first of all, dogmatic theology, which reveals the fundamental foundations and theoretical forms of the Orthodox Christian faith. Three remarkable systematic creations are worth mentioning here. The first in time was the extensive “Orthodox-Dogmatic Theology” of the Right Reverend Macarius (Bulgakov), later Metropolitan of Moscow. For this work, he was awarded the Demidov Prize from the Academy of Sciences, and the author himself was subsequently (at the end of 1854) elected to ordinary academician in the “Department of Russian Language and Literature” (according to the review of Academician I. I. Davydov). This is a grandiose attempt to scientifically classify the accumulated dogmatic material, taking in everything that is suitable and eliminating what is dilapidated. This summed up all previous development, and created the actual opportunity for further movement along new paths. From this side, the historical merit of Metropolitan Macarius’s “Dogmatics” is undoubted and enormous, not to mention the wealth and variety of valuable data - especially on bibliology and patristic literature. It should be noted that the author gravitates towards the past, lives by its traditions and is guided by previous methods. For him, dogma is a complete theoretical formula, certainly obligatory in its abstract and indisputable completeness. In this case, only one scientific operation is permissible in relation to it - the substantiation of its truth by the logically coherent reciprocity of all its parts and the overwhelming coercion of external arguments. Hence, the entire construction inevitably acquires the character of a priori dryness and bookish lifelessness, and scientific disclosure turns out to be downright scholastic with refined divisions and theoretical schemes. The architectural consistency of the entire skillful structure did not have internal support and external vitality for itself, therefore all the abundant biblical-patristic confirmations did not receive organic harmony and a strong combination with the whole and with each other, and also, due to their massiveness, became a burdensome load, clouding the subject. Thought does not so much accept dogma and freely agree with it as submit to it forcibly. At the same time, scientific scholasticism loses true scientific character, which is always based on rational recognition, leading the mind to voluntary “obedience to faith.” It was necessary to give real satisfaction to scientific inquisitiveness in dogmatic issues - and this requirement is met by the “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” of the Right Reverend Philaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop of Chernigov. This work was written “not without attention to the opinions of German rationalism” and is imbued with the conviction that “superficial knowledge separates us from religion, but thorough knowledge returns us to it again.” Accordingly, “dogmatics will act in the spirit of revelation when it shows reason how this or that mystery of revelation, although it cannot be deduced from the principles of reason, does not contradict the speculative and practical needs of reason, how, on the contrary, it helps this or that need of the reason itself, heals this or that infirmity caused by sin. Thus forcing reason itself to recognize the fruitful power of the mysteries of faith, dogmatics will not humiliate, but will elevate revealed truths in the eyes of reason and defeat obstinacy.” For example, “the dogma of St. The Trinity, without contradicting the principles of reason, can be accepted with conviction by reason. For, although it cannot be deduced from the principles of reason and completely comprehended by it, and this is very natural in relation to the Divinity, this dogma, as revealed, is true and useful in its consequences; its content can be brought closer to understanding by comparisons.” From this it is clear that the most important element of dogma is its “frankness,” which requires natural inaccessibility to any rationalistic tension. Therefore, the most important thing in dogma is undeniable sublimity, as coming from God, sanctified by Christ and witnessed by the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. The guarantee of a dogma is its proclamation by the Lord the Savior, its preservation by the apostles and its implementation in the Church. For these reasons, the highest justification should be the revelation of the internal unity and successive continuity of dogmatic teaching, when it draws external authority and life-inspiring energy from the Son of God - Christ. It is normal that in the construction and argumentation of the system, the Reverend. Philaret especially puts forward the moment of historical illumination, and in it the genetic integrity of development is revered most dearly, for the sake of which the author quite rightly acts not by the quantitative abundance of evidence, but by their general impressiveness of typical content. Certified “frankness” is inextricably linked in historical analysis with its rational security, since it was unshakably maintained despite heretical denials and sectarian distortions, so that in the historical process it appears vitally strong and theoretically irresistible to the mind. In this way, a solid historical basis was created for the rational argumentation of the dogma and for its protection from objections and reinterpretations; this is what distinguishes the work of the Reverend. Philareta. “Dogmatics” by this author represents a historical explanation and justification of dogmas in their entire system, which is not alien to the overtones of scholastic schematism, but is more vital even in its external design. However, here the dogma is taken in advance and definitively given in all its formal precision, due to which it can be illuminated in history only by its unchanging dominance, and not by organic influence, when it itself is a historical factor, which is revealed in its obligatory external certainty along with the general progress of life, where it is the best expression of Christian creativeness and remains the guiding norm of Christian development in all individual applications. The historical validity of dogmas does not deprive them of theoretical abstraction until it is transformed into their historical vitality by education itself, which predetermines the corresponding action everywhere and forever. This fruitful task is undertaken by the colossal “Experience of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (with a Historical Presentation of Dogmas)” by the rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Bishop Sylvester (Malevansky), Bishop of Kanevsky. Already with his special mention in the title of the “historical presentation of dogmas,” which was introduced by the academic charter of 1869, the author clearly noted that this aspect, familiar to his predecessors, has special significance for him as the most important. The dogma is “expounded historically,” but this would be theoretically ostentatious and vain scholarship if it were identical throughout to the point of immobility, and historical stability would rather speak of its natural deadness. On the contrary, dogma is “expounded” in its historical development because it itself developed in history, penetrating it in consistent growth and gradually transforming in it from an active factor into an influencing norm. In this regard, a historical moment in the system of the Reverend. Sylvester is the most basic, because through him the formation of a formulated dogma is illuminated and the latter’s authoritative-normative application is protected. Dogma, “revealed” in its ideological essence, is now depicted as vital and in its formal obligation, as a divine-human synthesis achieved in history by origin and assigned to history by influence. Acquired by the participation of human thought, dogma cannot be outside its boundaries and categorically postulates an essential rationality, which asserts rational intelligibility and allows for internal rational justification. Thus, the rational element finds itself in the “Dogmatics” by the Reverend. Sylvester has a natural and legitimate place in relation to the very nature of dogma, historical formation and authoritative dignity, resolved not by daring usurpation of the rights to create dogmatic truth, but by a convinced and reasoned confession of its divinely revealed certainty. With such properties, both the “historical presentation” and the rational justification in the future of all religious and philosophical constructions are included as organic parts in the scientific consideration of dogmas, and all of them are collectively connected in the system not so much logically as genetically. The dogmatic complex is a theological organism of living thought and vital effectiveness. This equally reveals both the inner dignity and the normative power of dogmas in their diverse scientific interpretation. All these qualities of the analyzed work are far from unconditional and contain many limitations, but the fundamental result is indisputable precisely because of its ideological character, and its fruitfulness is undoubted scientifically and vitally. Therefore, modern Russian dogmatics follows, in general, the precepts of the Reverend. Sylvester does not put forward a new dogmatic system, although he has (positive or negative) support for it in the works of his great spiritual leaders, for example, the archbishop. Feofan (Prokopovich, September 18, 1736) or from the famous Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (Drozdov). Russian theological science, not needing reminders of this (which are no longer in the academic statutes of 1884, 1910 and 1911–12), now adheres to the historical method both in its holistic reviews and in private research. Although old techniques are reflected, for example, in the work of N.P. Malinovsky, where a compact unification of Russian scientific literature throughout the entire dogmatic volume is successfully and diligently presented in a compilative manner, as well as in the work of prof. M.F. Yastrebova - about the sacraments and eschatology (Kiev, 1908). But in the essential, Sylvester’s spirit of historical consideration and justification emanates everywhere. However, this does not mean at all that Russian theology accepts the “history of dogmas” in technical rigor for its constructions. Only rare individual voices are heard for this (for example, Prof. M. M. Tareeva. P. 7: “It takes great effort to reform dogmatic theology, to cleanse it of the scholastic heritage, to turn it into a genuine science, namely into the historical doctrine of dogmas”), and even then not in the Western Protestant understanding, when the historical genesis of dogmas affirms the same origin of their very content, stating the subject matter the originality of dogmatic concepts in comparison with the Gospel of Christ and the apostolic gospel in the sense of darkening the original divine purity or correcting, improving and enriching meager primitiveness. Russian theological science offers only a historical interpretation of dogmas, as revealed truths, in order to understand them in all their objective completeness and show the historical legitimacy of dogmatic formulas, ensuring for them the eternal inviolability of the norms of faith. In this regard, Russian theology stood with unshakable firmness on the primordial foundations of the Orthodox worldview, but in scientific processing it did not at all freeze and is now at the achieved level, but strives for deepening and renewal. There are many major works on all major dogmatic issues. General monographs of a more theoretical nature are replaced by special treatises with a biblical focus, for example, on sin and evil. But the most important thing is the concentration on purely Christian problems, as fundamental in Orthodox dogma. Naturally, soteriological moments are especially highlighted here, where, along with general doctrinal works, for example, by archimandrites. (Metropolitan) Sergius (Stragorodsky), we encounter a detailed development of the thesis that “the idea of ​​salvation is the basic principle of Christian doctrine and that it, as the main one, is reflected to one degree or another in dogmas and imparts integrity to Christian dogma” (see Prof. P. P. Ponomarev “On Salvation”). The thought was directed towards a special consideration of the work of Christ in connection with the general providence of God for the world and man. Here the beginning of divine love is categorically defended and carried out: according to it, all Orthodox dogmatics is built by Prof. A.D. Belyaev, and the newest application to the sacrament of the Filial Incarnation gave different interpretations to Prof. MM. Tareev - with a somewhat kenotic shade and in prof. O. A. I. Chekanovsky - with a reverse coverage of the subject as a whole (cf. and D. V. Znamensky on pp. 275–338) and regarding redemptive passion (Prof. Fr. A. I. Chekanovsky “Redemptive feat...”, p. 16: “The mystery of the union in one person of suffering and dispassion is a consequence of God’s boundless love for fallen man, according to which He abhorred to “penetrate into the very beginning of our nature” and took into the closest personal unity the whole person with all his earthly states and all human relationships to the point of deepest humiliation and reproach, in order to renew and sanctify all this”). The fact of the Resurrection of the Lord, central to salvation, is mystically commented on by Prof. A. M. Tuberovsky, and the whole question of Christ’s deliverance is completed by prof. O. N.V. Petrova with such a fundamental conclusion that “the moral theory of atonement is entirely based on the clear data of Holy Scripture and finds indisputable confirmation also in church tradition; this theory, as far as possible for scientific theological thought, expresses the spirit of Divine Revelation in the doctrine of atonement, while legal theory adapts this teaching to current concepts developed in the atmosphere of everyday human life.” The most complete justification of this concept belongs to prof. O. P. Ya. Svetlov, who comprehensively argues that “the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was demanded by the truth of God, and it would be impossible to save people without satisfying the truth of God,” but “this satisfaction of Divine Justice, necessary for the salvation of people, was accomplished not on the legal path, but on the path of love.” Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) reveals these provisions in a completely original way in the sense that our salvation was achieved through the divine-human action of the compassionate love of Christ, when, “having suffered in His loving soul our imperfection, our corrupt will, the Lord poured into our nature a source of life-giving new forces - to all who wished and have wished it, starting with the prudent thief.” Thus, with His compassionate love, Christ cuts through the barrier established by sin between people and restores the primitive unity of nature, gains access directly to the spiritual depths of human nature, so that a person who submits to His influence, not only in his thoughts, but also in his very character, acquires new dispositions, feelings, aspirations not created by himself, but received from Christ united with him, and now it depends on his free will whether to call them to life, or viciously reject"; here “the subjective feeling of compassionate love (of Christ) becomes an objective force that restores (in people) the unity of human nature broken by sin and passes from one soul to another.” There was no sacrificial satisfaction with the truth of God - in the usual dogmatic understanding - there, just as the Old Testament sacrifice served only as a “donation and refreshment”, and “the bodily torment and bodily death of Christ are needed primarily so that believers would appreciate the power of His mental suffering as incomparably stronger than those bodily torments, which in themselves tremble the readers and listeners of the Gospel”, due to the fact that “Our nature is so crude, so enslaved to bodily sensations and the fear of death, that it is very difficult for it to understand the purely mental torment that Christ had in mourning the sinfulness of others, if this is not associated with bodily suffering and insults from neighbors. We are, of course, far from insistently asserting that the physical suffering of the Lord and, in particular, His crucifixion and death had only the sole significance of giving believers access to an understanding of His spiritual sorrow; It is likely that, due to the connection of the soul with the body, there is a deeper mysterious meaning here, but in any case, from the point of view of moral monism, the Lord’s crucifixion and death are not without significance for our salvation, for, touching people, they reveal to them at least some part of the atoning sacrifice and, leading them into love for Christ, are saving for them and for all of us.” At Metropolitan Anthony in his soteriological constructions there is a lot that is individual, hypothetical and even completely controversial in comparison with even the latest dogmatic trends of science. It is obvious that, rejecting the extremes of the narrowly professional doctrine of satisfaction, Russian theology, in general, firmly holds the biblical idea of satisfaction with the Calvary atonement of Christ, since the opposite understanding of this “is not in agreement with either the teaching or the liturgical practice of the Church” (Fr. Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev in the “Theological Bulletin” 1917, No. 10-12. P. 412). According to prof. M.D. Muretova, “some writers on theological issues, confusing the clearly and indisputably given in the New Testament teaching about the theological significance of the Sacrifice of Calvary and insufficiently understanding the ideology of the sacrifice, somehow manage to identify or at least combine with this ideology the so-called legal theory of justification, which transforms the salvation of man from the internal spiritual-physical rebirth of a soul-flesh man in the image of earthly Adam into spiritual-heavenly in the image of the Savior-God-Man - into the external-legal addition of sins from the accounts of divine justice and (c) liberation from punishment for sin. Indeed, in the Calvary Sacrifice of the Savior-God-Man, as well as in His entire person, all saved humanity was represented, having received a new birth in Christ - spiritual and physical, similar to the birth from Adam - carnal and spiritual" [see: New Testament, as a subject of Orthodox theological study // M. D. Muretov. Selected works. M., 2002. P. 60, approx. 7]. The fruits of Christ's sacrificial atonement, naturally, are gleaned from this unique order, and from here follows the need for continuous saving sacrifice, accessible to people and completely effective in the world according to its most authorized performers - the successors of Christ's redemptive feat. This is how the hierarchical existence of the Christian priesthood is motivated, and the book of Prof. V. I. Ekzemplyarsky “On the essence of the priesthood” (Kyiv, 1904), which, being “service to the cause of the sanctification of believers and the creation through this of the Church of Christ on earth, has a source in the eternal high priesthood of Christ the Savior, is in living connection with His high priestly service and can be called the continuation of this service on earth or - even more precisely - one of the manifestations of the eternal intercessory mediation between God and the people of the One Intercessor of God and man." Based on all that has been said, there is no doubt that Russian dogmatics, deepening with special research on all fundamental issues, gives them a new, original light and thereby prepares for itself a new formulation in the whole. New paths for further movement are already being outlined with sufficient certainty in this direction. In connection with the success of the historical consideration of the dogmas of Prof. Alexey I. Vvedensky recommended a genetic method for scientific and dogmatic constructions, when “dogmas in the literal and proper sense would turn out to be, firstly, living truths, meeting the living demands of natural thought, and secondly, speculative truths,” retaining their basic properties, which are: 1) “Divine answer to a human request or even a direct question”; 2) “dogmas are the testimony of the Church, speaking in the language of Holy Scripture and Tradition, about how and why it was in these truths that she recognized the Divine answer to human and, in particular, her own request”; 3) “from an individual human point of view, dogmas are and, from a genetic point of view, would turn out to be self-evident truths, the opposite of which is unthinkable, and undesirable, and internally painful, as introducing disharmony: it is in this way, through familiarization with the reason of the Church, that one can most naturally and simply be convinced that dogma is the only true solution and solution to the mysteries of existence and life, because the opposite is unacceptable. The psychological inadmissibility of the opposite, including the inconceivability of the opposite, is, as we know, the highest criterion of truth, religious as much as philosophical.” The strength of this “against dogmatics, as science—science in the strict and proper sense”—is impossible to argue; “In any case, a non-philosopher would object,” for “such a reform would be a harbinger of the birth here, in the Orthodox East, of a new type of dogmatics – Philosophical Dogmatics.” By this nature, the latter postulates a rational justification, at least in the interests of the scientific defense of Orthodox Christian teaching, at least “with the help of analogies from the material world and from the nature of humanity and man,” as was done for the interpretation of the dogma of the Holy Trinity by Prof. O. N.V. Petrov, prof. B. M. Melioransky and N. I. Ostroumov. Here, too, original perspectives are outlined. We hear from prof. Vl. A. Nikolsky, that “theology is only a theory,” and “no theory without experience brings its research to visual evidence”; “where religious experience is possible and exists, there religious truth receives a kind of clarity and evidence.” Therefore, for example, “the best way to be confident in the existence of God may lie in these few words: live as you would live in the eyes of God, and you will not doubt that there is a God; make yourself the image of the Divine, and you will see the Prototype in the image”; here for man “God is revealed as a necessary, undoubtedly existing good, as the author and giver of true knowledge, as the highest holiness and truth and the rewarder of holiness, and, finally, as the highest bliss both in Himself and for all created beings” (Prof. Archpriest F. A. Golubinsky). This actually relates to life comprehension, and therefore here the “experience” of theology does not at all border on that Richlianism, which is rightly called “theological Darwinism” and which is not at all shared by Russian theology, where only a few voices agree with it in methodological techniques (Prof. P. Ya. Svetlov and partly Prof. V. I. Nesmelov). But the noted concept, stating the experimental experience of truth, certifies its assimilation and from here is consistently translated into a system of religious-Christian knowledge and understanding. It is obvious that here the latter will be sent from man in the essential requests of God-created nature. On this foundation, the Christian-philosophical worldview of Prof. V. I. Nesmelov, who illuminates Christian dogmatics - mainly - from the side of the idea of ​​​​salvation, and assimilates to it “ontological significance, as a real expression of the objective goals of being” carried out in the “theanthropic work of Christ - the Son of God.” However, prof. V.I. Nesmelova treats Christianity in general, but not Orthodoxy itself. The “experience of Orthodox theodicy” by Prof. is mainly dedicated to him. O. P. A. Florensky. The initial principle proclaims “living religious experience as the only legitimate way of knowing dogmas,” since “Orthodoxy is shown, but not proven; That’s why for anyone who wants to understand Orthodoxy, there is only one way - direct Orthodox experience,” and “to become Orthodox, one must immediately plunge into the very element of Orthodoxy, live Orthodoxy, and there is no other way.” This means that it is impossible to get there by a rational method, and this, of course, is because in the divine realm, which Orthodox, or genuine, Christianity reflects in this world, for our final insight everything is irrational in its very essence. It is necessary that one can approach it only through experienced life communion, and here God, by His inner being and providential-redemptive work, is revealed, felt and perceived as the highest intelligence. Therefore, from a dogmatic point of view, Christianity is best revealed through the idea of ​​Sophia - the Wisdom of God, which “idea,” according to the conviction of Fr. P. A. Florensky, “defines Russian religious consciousness in its very origins, and in it lies the deepest basis of its originality.” II. "Accusatory Theology", history and analysis of Western confessions Orthodoxy, clarifying itself dogmatically, is of necessity forced to distinguish itself from the main Christian confessions and reveal their conventions. This is done in all Russian dogmatics courses, but once upon a time there existed even in the highest theological schools a special discipline of accusatory theology, an example of which can be the four-volume work of the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy, Archimandrite Innocent (Novgorodov). In these cases, religious doctrines and institutions were considered in their current completeness and static immobility, so the discussion was expressed only in abstract theoretical condemnation. Over time, a historical overview of Western churches was introduced with the history and analysis of Western confessions (cf. Prof. Father A. M. Ivantsov-Platonov: “On Western Confessions,” 2nd edition. Moscow, 1894; “On Roman Catholicism and its relation to Orthodoxy,” 2 parts. Moscow, 1869 - 1870). This result, however, was not achieved and formulated immediately (academic charter of 1869). decreed “comparative theology,” which was replaced in 1884 by “the history and analysis of Western confessions,” and in 1910 turned into “the history and exposure of Western confessions and Russian sectarianism,” and finally, from 1911–1912. formed under the title "histories and denunciations of the Western Confessions in connection with the history of the Western Church from 1054 to the present time"). Now not only in the first respect is possible scientific-historical objectivism observed, but also in the doctrinal-canonical area the historical-genetic interpretation of typical religious features is pursued, when they become natural and understandable in their origin and content, but only in their closed sphere and, therefore, limited in their internal and church-wide authority (see also school textbooks: I. Truskovsky “Guide to accusatory theology." 2nd ed. Mogilev on the Dnieper, 1889; I. F. Perov's "Guide to accusatory theology." 6th ed. Tula, 1910; Notes on accusatory theology, 1913). In any case, along all religious lines, theoretical work goes along with historical work, where secular science also participates along with spiritual science. There is extensive historical literature on the Catholic West, presenting and covering doctrinal topics, on private aspects of structure and life, on Catholicism outside Europe and on the Catholic mission, and also on Western heresy. There are especially many serious and comprehensive works on the papacy in its history and dogmatic claims and justifications. Historical study better highlights confessional differences and, in general, is not at all conducive to a unified rapprochement - precisely because of the authority of historical data. Old Catholicism, examined with great and widespread care, attracts very close attention. With a few isolated exceptions of extreme intransigence, it is always discussed in a sympathetic spirit, but with the rejection of Catholic-dogmatic layers and with the denial of “intercommunion”. Protestantism, which is sometimes touched upon even in particular historical moments, is of interest not so much in practical contacts as in its doctrinal content, at least in a historical perspective. The Anglican Church, which attracts people with its church revival, is thoroughly reviewed by Russian science both in history and in theory for its various manifestations. In a fundamental sense, Russian theology eliminates any “union” - except for the complete conversion of heterodox confessions to Orthodoxy (see the anonymous work “History of the Council of Florence.” Moscow, 1847; Prof. A. L. Katansky “History of attempts to unite the Greek and Latin churches in the first four centuries after their separation.” St. Petersburg, 1868; compare also the anonymously published book “In Defense Orthodox faith". (see Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow “The meaning of church prayer for the unification of churches” in “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers”, 1860, Part XIX). However, the dogmatic assessment in terms of the degree of possible approximation is too different: for Catholicism and Anglicanism, which have preserved the nature of Christ’s churchliness, mitigation is accepted even on the most painful issues, for example, about the Filioque (by Prof. V.V. Bolotov) and the Anglican hierarchy, and Protestantism, although abundantly utilized in its scientific literature, is doctrinally rejected categorically, as simply religious rationalism, leading to the undermining of revelation, the Divinity of Christ and the establishment of the Church, and also as threatening anarchically subjective individualism and therefore can only nourish in Russia sectarian mysticism under various forms of peculiar and bizarre refraction. Heterodox confessions contributed to the spread of sectarianism in Rus', so it is natural to mention Russian sectarianism here. It was previously supposed to be part of the department of schism; according to the academic charter of 1910, it is mentioned directly - although as an addition to the “history and denunciation of Western confessions,” and only in the charter of 1912 is it singled out as an independent subject. About Russian sectarianism, Schleiermacher’s friend August Haxthausen back in 1847 testified to its similarity with Protestantism, saying that it would play a significant role in world history, as this was all too confirmed for Russia in the past war... This internal closeness is also confirmed by the extensive German research of Prof. Yuryevsky. K. K. Grass about the whips and eunuchs. In turn, Russian scientists believe that the very word “sect” came to us from Germany in the sense of heresy, and something foreign, something extraneous always took part in the formation of Russian sectarianism, which arose and developed under the influence of certain extraneous influences from various philosophical and theological ideas, and the spread throughout Russian territory usually followed the paths of German colonization and with it. In any case, if not the genetic correlation itself, then the subject parallelism is completely indisputable here. This shows that in Russian folk Orthodoxy there were dangerous microbes of mystical-rationalistic infection. For this reason, this phenomenon required special close study, even in the interests of its own safety, as Russian historical science and the undoubted analogies of Russian sectarianism with ancient heresies were directed towards this, opening up the opportunity for a better, more vivid and concrete understanding of the latter. However, this discipline remained in some scientific neglect for a long time, although there were several systematic manuals, and prof. O. T.I. Butkevich gives a comprehensive “Overview of Russian sects and their interpretations” (2nd ed. Petrograd, 1915). Previous sect studies to the worst extent shared the fate of studios studying the schism, when the subject was considered primarily from a utilitarian-polemical point of view. From this came two unfavorable consequences that all sects: 1) were taken in their completeness, without complete historical and doctrinal genesis, and 2) were covered from a possibly unfavorable angle, if even the recent (St. Petersburg, 1914) brochure of Prof. S. T. Golubeva expresses in the title that “hypocrisy is the main feature of our mystical sects”... It is not surprising that academic dissertations are too theoretical, abstract in nature, dogmatic warfare, fighting with conclusions regardless of historical prerequisites and fundamentals of life, and therefore in their refutations they deviate from the scientific norms of objective and solid argumentation, falling into a stereotyped polemical-biased primitiveness (for example, the book by M. A. Kalnev). The St. Petersburg (Petrograd) magazine “Missionary Review”, along with some provincial bodies, worked in this direction (under the editorship of V. M. Skvortsov). Such a study left no room for accurate direct knowledge, surrounding sectarianism with a tinsel-bright aura of martyrdom. Hence, in secular literature (A. S. Prugavin, V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, V.I. Yasevich-Borodayevskaya) and in the judicial sphere (A.V. Bobrishchev-Pushkin, academician A.F. Kony) affirms and promotes the opposite view that Russian sectarianism represents a bright phenomenon, being a revelation of the significant idealism of the Russian people - with liberation from the binding spirit of church tradition through a commendable rational assessment of old religious traditions and church-cult forms; in this form, it is depicted as a deeply ideal reformist impulse to renew the entire national social structure on the highest religious principles in order to resolve “the most difficult, most complex problems of life - the problem of marriage and family, the problem of gender, and finally, the problem of labor and personal property, especially land.” In some circles, a fanatical prejudice has taken root that in disputes and conflicts with sectarians, only the Orthodox Russian Church is necessarily wrong and - as the “dominant” faith in the state - has always been a rapist, trampling all elements of “freedom of conscience”... Under these party influences they did not want to see or unwittingly omitted the clearly non-Orthodox, sometimes crudely rationalistic currents in various sectarian movements, as it turned out (in 1913) when discussing the teetotal organizations of the Petrograd and Moscow “brothers”, whom they deliberately tried to rehabilitate in everything (I.M. Gromoglasov, D.G. Konovalov) despite the factual signs of their known anti-churchism. However, many of the extravagances and wild fanaticism of Russian sectarianism still remained unconditionally undeniable, although even now they tried to idealize even Khlysty and Skopchestvo. In such cases, everything was reduced to psychopathological abnormalities and they tried to cover up the very doctrinal essence with the certainty of such excesses, as a painful reflex of protest against the oppression of official orthodoxy and government despotism. D. G.’s serious dissertation was also poisoned by these miasmas. Konovalova about religious ecstasy in Russian mystical sectarianism (Sergiev Posad, 1908), - however, in fact, she well reveals and analyzes “physical phenomena in the picture of sectarian ecstasy.” Nevertheless, over time, purely objective material gradually accumulated, it was necessary to smooth out the extremes and forcibly reconcile the warring parties, except for fanatics of sectarian well-being like the voluntary secular sectologist V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, who since October 1917. bloodily advertised himself in practice as a purely sectarian strangler of all freedom of the press and conscience, and then (as a secretary under the “government” of people’s commissars) of the entire Orthodox-state Russia... A more specific, historically factual study of sectarian groups and their essential features began in a number of scientific studies and individual monographs. At the same time, the fundamental view of Russian sectarianism is evolving, as “separating from the ruling Church because it did not find the ideals of its salvation and holiness realized in it” (Prof. F. I. Titov). “The basis of religious sectarianism is the desire for religious self-education, self-enlightenment in addition to the Church, independently of it” (Prof. I. I. Malyshevsky), but here he states the “sincere side” in the “motive of the religious search for the path or truth of life” by folk theological thought, which “strives to solve the age-old questions of the human spirit about God, truth, about life,” why even “the history of a peculiar, primitive philosophy” is manifested in this Russian people" (Prof. Fr. N. N. Fetisov). The thirst for spiritual knowledge of God and the desire for direct communication with the Divine, considered the most characteristic of Russian sectarian movements, highlight the eternally united goal of theological science - in the problem of the moral nature of Christianity in its relation to the demands of modern thought and life, so that science “for the sake of its own existence is obliged to delve into their essence, regardless of any practical considerations and polemical techniques” (Prof. Father Barsanuphius), caring only about “the people finding in their Church spiritual, educational, enlightening and sanctifying power and not looking for it on the side, at the crossroads of sectarian movements” (Prof. I. I. Malyshevsky). Here sectology becomes part of the plane of objective illumination of the subject in terms of historical education and internal genesis, and this ensures the achievement of absolutely valuable results with the prospect of a fundamental clarification of the broadest scientific and vital interests. This field is vast and uncultivated, where there is so much new and unexpected, especially in our apocalyptic times... IV. Moral theology with asceticism Dogma is an expression of church belief in the process of realizing Christ's salvation. “Let the dogmatist,” says the Reverend. Sylvester, “never renounce the general religious consciousness of the Universal Church, but let him always live by it as his life element, let him always be deeply imbued with and animated by the spirit of truth and faith, always inherent both in the entire Church and in its true and living members.” Hence “dogmas are not a formula, but strength and spirit,” for “Orthodoxy itself is a living truth” (Prof. Alexey I. Vvedensky). Therefore, dogma is revered not only as a doctrinal norm, but also as a moral regulator, even in its most lofty elements, which side is especially clear in the metropolitans. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in many treatises, and is covered by other authors, since, for example, there is “Life after Death” (study by Prof. Fr. N.V. Petrov). It is now clear that dogmatics is closely connected with moral theology scientifically, and in teaching the second for a long time served only as an addition to the first, which greatly retarded the growth of theological ethics. Despite the multitude of heterogeneous and detailed works in this area, we have few systematic courses. Worthy of mention, first of all, are the “Notes” of Archpriest P. F. Solyarsky. The author “wanted to make his work, as much as possible, generally useful not only for school, but mainly for life, in all its many different relationships,” adding “a lot of comments on some contemporary issues, and on various other aspects of moral Christian life.” However, in fact, all this only led to scholasticism and casuistry. System o. P. F. Solyarsky is completely abstract in nature and develops purely theoretically according to the most detailed headings with random applications of certain rules. There is no vitality or vitality in the entire structure. But the work contains a wealth of material, especially biblical and patristic, valuable to this day, although not subjected to proper analysis. Therefore, the special experience of Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev (2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1906) was big news for Russian theological science. According to him, “for the first time in Russian literature, an attempt was made to explain the concept of morality in general, to all the elements included in this universal concept, to give, if possible, a more or less clear and precise definition, outlining their mutual psychological or logical connection and, in this way, clarifying the moral dignity and purpose of human nature, to define the supreme good, as it is realized by salvation precisely in Christ. For this last purpose, he for the first time made an attempt to define and put into mutual connection all the particular moments of salvation - this complex life process - and thus understand what our salvation actually consists of, or, what is the same, the whole meaning and all the supreme good of Christian life. So, oh. I. L. Yanyshev gives a theoretical construction of the moral system through an in-depth analysis of the very idea of ​​morality and only from here does he approach Christianity when, by examining it, he ascertains the satisfaction here of the ethical needs of the human spirit. Consistent in its architectonics and subtle in its keen penetration into the depth of all central concepts, this work is only a rational propaedeutic to Christian moral teaching proper, more justifies its greatest rationality than reveals an independent typically biblical essence. According to their fundamental properties, the books of Prof. M. A. Olesnitsky “Moral theology, or Christian teaching about morality.” Here the second equally merges with the first and, therefore, is understood in the sense of a rational-theological interpretation of morality, which serves as the starting point and foundation of all scientific creation. On an essential basis there is no fundamental difference from Fr. I. L. Yanysheva, but prof. M.A. Olesnitsky continues and enriches it with the abundant introduction of a psychological element (as the author of the “Course of Pedagogy”) and numerous comparative parallels, at least in the form of prerequisites for his theses, which is the subject of his special essay on the history of morality and moral teachings. By its formal nature, Prof. M. A. Olesnitsky’s theoretical approach is noticeable, and external vitality simply resolves into casuistry, sometimes extremely petty. This showed that in the direction described, everything that was most important had been sufficiently exhausted and it was necessary to turn to detailed research in order to prepare new material for a more significant transformation of Christian ethics. And in this regard, quite a lot has already been accomplished. Through consistent and diverse special investigations, a rich scientific baggage was collected, and attempts at a unifying revision have long been made for it (for example, by Archbishop Stephen of Arkhangelsk); however, the actual scientific systematization of all the acquisitions accumulated by theological ethics is provided only by the enormous work of Prof. O. N. S. Stelletsky, where Christian moral teaching is developed and illuminated from the point of view of God's law and moral duties. But moral-Christian theology, first of all, presupposes precisely Christian morality, created in Christianity, and takes it as its subject from those sides that are revealed to us in the “word of God” according to their exclusively Christian properties. Here the source of both the fact and its understanding is Christianity in its existence and in its monuments. In this tone already Prof. M.A. Olesnitsky projected that “the time has come to put the idea of ​​the Kingdom of God both in the foundation of Dogmatics and in the foundation of Christian Moral Teaching,” and this will also be “moral good,” which “in its fullness is the kingdom of morally perfect spirits.” Now Christian ethics is placed entirely on biblical soil and must be determined by its laws. And from this side, “it is indisputable that for the Bible man serves as an object of ethical consideration only as a member of the Kingdom of God, as a creation of God, redeemed by the Lord the Savior and graciously provided by Him for the achievement of proper perfection. In its very rebirth, each Christian person is awarded the dignity of sonship with God, which is why he will live ethically normally, or morally, on the condition that he always maintains compliance with his Christian title through its development and strengthening in the Church of Christ along the path to the Kingdom of God and the Father. The specific guiding idea of ​​biblical Christian moral teaching must be the idea of ​​sonship with God as a pledge, obligation and task for the redeemed.” “Faith itself leads to this, which is objectively indissoluble from sonship with God, subjectively being inseparable from grace,” for in faith a person merges with Christ and through Him, as the consubstantial Son of God by nature, actually becomes a child of God by grace (Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky). This concept is directed towards an internal transformation of the entire structure of scientific-Christian ethics, but in this form it will need to influence in its spirit all of theology and should cause reform throughout its entire length. This task was taken on by Prof. M. M. Tareev, who decisively rebuilds the entire theological system, as precisely the “system of religious thought.” His main provisions are simple and clear, but they are associated with broad reform perspectives, where many things are no longer so obvious and undeniable in themselves and arouse a lot of bewilderment and objections on all essential points in their isolation, having rational support for themselves only in the author’s general scheme. The “highest discipline” proclaimed by her is the moral teaching about Christianity, which “should stand next to dogmatics” so that “the dogmatic teaching about Christianity is the teaching about Christianity according to the dogmatic, i.e., objective method, and the moral teaching is the teaching about it according to the moral method, i.e., moral-subjective, or simply subjective.” “But the moral teaching about Christianity, appearing in the form of a special science, as a teaching about Christian life, almost imperceptibly passes into Christian philosophy; in other words, the moral teaching of Christianity, as the science of Christian life, is separated from Christian philosophy by an elusive line: Christian philosophy is the highest form of the moral teaching of Christianity,” since “the science of Christian life only in the vastness of Christian philosophy reaches its full completion, it has an inevitable tendency to turn into a system of Christian philosophy, it is the only theological science for which a philosophical formulation, system and creativity are necessary.” “And this Christian philosophy, growing out of the moral teaching of Christianity, organizing spiritual and mystical experience, and not a dogmatic system, is a genuine - in creativity, depth and comprehensiveness - system of Christian thought, Christian philosophy.” At all stages of scientific and ethical reconstruction, prof. MM. Tareev puts forward subjectivism and individualism in method and material. This inevitably threatens such a system with subjectivistic tendentiousness both from the formal and substantive side and limits its importance only to the individual merit of this or that writer. A well-known safeguard against this is that such a moral-Christian construction does not invade the dogmatic boundaries that protect doctrinal inviolability, but is carried out outside them, and, moreover, on the basis of church unity, where general norms of Christian life prevail, albeit with individual diversity of specific expressions. Here the general regulates the individual, since the first goes back to an objective source in the life of Christ, while the second enriches it with its specific values. Morality for Orthodoxy is vital activity for the common good: “To live is to serve love,” as the “essay on Orthodox moral teaching” by Rev. Art. I. Ostroumova. Under such conditions, the individual, through his moral zeal, makes a direct contribution to the human treasury of Christian knowledge and moral action, for which the ever-memorable Fr. gave an incomparable example with his great pastoral service and inspired writings. John (Ilyich Sergiev) of Kronstadt. Moral life flourishes on the soil of Christian freedom and in its spirit is scientifically explained by Orthodox ethics. But, being entirely Christian, this freedom is typically individual, strictly limited in itself and specifically limited in its application. Hence, Orthodoxy assimilates the ascetic element to Christianity, not at all within the confines of monasticism alone in all its many different forms, but by nature itself. Protopresbyter I. L. Yanyshev “specifies asceticism as the first basic requirement of the moral law, not religious (resp. monastic) only, which consists of exercises in vigil, fasting, prayers and similar feats - but in general asceticism, as an incessantly awake rational power, or domination, over the elemental drives of the psychophysical organism in general and the forces of external nature - domination that requires and promoting the development of such moral qualities as wisdom (in particular, knowledge of the laws of nature), courage, patience, abstinence, hard work, etc. etc., without which he cannot express himself in anything and cannot do anything for his neighbor and love for him is the center and crown of Christian virtues.” This means that monastic asceticism serves as a specific refraction of the Christian ascetic principle and, in its foundations, has deep general moral importance. A comprehensive consideration of asceticism is exhaustively proposed in two major works - prof. P. P. Ponomareva and prof. S. M. Zarina. Christianity leads people to grace-filled creation through shepherding. Hence, in the scientific-theological Christian cycle, a new member in the form of Pastoral Theology turns out to be quite natural. But on this issue the Orthodox Church has always professed the dogma of St. Gregory the Theologian that “to rule over man, this most cunning and most changeable of animals, is truly the art of the arts and the science of the sciences.” Thus, the second is depicted as an applied discipline itself and according to this was understood even by Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov), as an instruction to the shepherd in carrying out all his duties by revealing the pastoral service in general, the duties of the shepherd to himself and to his flock. It is clear that in this form Pastoral Theology did not find unshakable support for broad theoretical development, which is why it was denied in recent times (Prof. P.I. Linitsky) in the very right to be included in the circle of academic jurisdiction for the reason that it is supposedly not science in the proper sense of the word, but only a sum of borrowed theological and scientific concepts with a specific practical purpose. In any case, it is true here that all of our previous patrolological literature is predominantly of a practical nature (see review by Hierom. Innokenty of Pustynsky), where “practical lessons” and “practical guides” predominate in all the main courses (for example, by Archbishop Anthony Amfitheatrov, Bishop Kirill Naumov). Similar properties are imprinted in the latest works of an authoritative specialist in this field, Prof. V. F. Pevnitsky. A completely different scientific formulation of the subject under consideration is given by Prof. O. S. A. Sollertinsky in his extensive study about the shepherding of Christ the Savior as the Founder of Christian shepherding. The author’s fundamental idea is clear from the very title of the book, but it is revealed in a very original way - with a unique understanding of the name of the Lord Christ “Son of Man” and through a specific analysis of the Gospel beatitudes: the first, considered in connection with all scientific literature, is commented on in the sense of the “pastoral title” of Christ, and the second are illuminated as the norms and ideals of Christian pastoral service. These views in many ways met with serious objections and reasoned refutations even in relation to the fundamental structure and the most important points of such subjective author’s interpretations, but they directed pastoral science onto the fruitful path of biblical-Christian justification - in essence and in historical decisions (M. I. Struzhentsov, Fr. V. P. Sokolsky, K. Voznesensky). Along with this, there are also works from the patristic sphere (for example, from Archimandrite Grigory Vasiliev), while experiments in more holistic constructions are offered by Archimandrite Boris (Plotnikov) and Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). In the first, the entire development is imbued with the schematism of abstract theoreticality, and in the second, it is somewhat more vital, but not alien to subjective ascetic overtones, sometimes receiving direct application (see Hieromonk Athanasius and cf. L. A. Sokolov), at least in the sense that pastoral theology, while remaining an applied science, reveals Orthodox pastoring as a grace-filled service to Christian educational guidance for revival, and here it can be pastoral asceticism, when it interprets its content from the point of view of the personality of the pastor, pastoral psychology, pastoral disposition, from the impact on the flock and their Christian education, but now this will be Christian pastoral pedagogy, only formally representing the Orthodox theological discipline (N. A. Konovalov). However, the connection between “pastoral theology” and “asceticism” was officially legitimized by the academic charter reformed on July 29, 1911. Reverend Anthony well and deeply differentiates “two paths of shepherding: Latin and Orthodox,” which is also supported by other studies of a comparative nature (for example, A. Kaktynya). All the writings of Fr. contain the richest material and the most animated and pompous coverage of Christian shepherding, based on the exceptional degree and diversity of pastoral experience. John (Ilyich Sergiev) of Kronstadt, especially “My Life in Christ.” The shepherd is always conceived by the Orthodox consciousness as a religious teacher in the image of Christ and - specifically - through the preaching church word. This is how homiletics is motivated in Russian theology in theory and history, but - closely connected with pastorology - it largely shares its ungrateful fate, since from time immemorial it was considered “an applied science, instructing the pastor in his field of church preaching - a set of rules regarding church conversation in general and its particular types (forms) in particular” (Metropolitan Macarius). The classic work in this area is “Readings on Church Literature” by Prof. Y. K. Amphiteatrova. They are distinguished by the consistent harmony of the system and are named by prof. S.P. Shevyrev is a “wonderful book”, but they proceed from purely theoretical premises and develop in the tone of scholastic schematism, and in their tendency they strive not so much to reveal the subject in its life discovery, but to teach the art of preaching in accordance with its fundamental laws. This spirit also permeates the once widespread school textbook on homiletics by Prof. O. N. A. Favorova. A new stream was introduced by a well-known authority in this field, Professor V.F. Pevnitsky, to whom homiletical science owes numerous and significant contributions of a theoretical and practical nature. With us, he was the herald, champion and implementer of the historical method in the development of the homiletical discipline and the study of all preaching writing. Therefore, his theoretical constructions, having a historical basis in the covenants and requests of the Church, borrow from them their inherent vitality, without being, however, practical lessons in preaching. “Ecclesiastical eloquence” by Prof. V. F. Pevnitsky denotes a preaching word proclaimed from the church pulpit, expounding Orthodox teaching about faith and Christian life. The essence of church preaching is a living testimony from century to century about our salvation and the means to achieve it, offered by God's chosen servants. The goal pursued by this is the invitation, education and elevation of people to participate in the Kingdom of God, founded and proclaimed by the Lord Jesus Christ. In this case, the primary source of church preaching teaching is the preaching of Christ, and the actual norm of disclosure is historical preaching throughout its entire length and in all forms. Various historical and homiletical studies by Prof. are based on this premise. V. D. Pevnitsky (about John the Baptist, ancient Christian preaching, about the age of the apostolic men, Origen, Gregory the Wonderworker, Maximus of Turin, Hilary and Caesarea of ​​Arelate, St. Leo the Great, Gregory the Double), who also affirmed the need for high education for the preacher, according to ancient obligatory examples. Russian homiletical science in general is regulated by the principles outlined. She considers church preaching according to its inherent goals - evangelical conviction and Christian reinforcement on the path of knowledge and implementation of Divine truth by people. In the first respect, this is a “living word” of grace-filled anointing from heart to heart, in the second it is an oratorical way of influencing listeners and is actually “church eloquence.” Therefore, the newest ardent herald of the idea of ​​​​the “living word” in preaching - Archbishop of Kharkov Ambrose (Klyucharyov) - was a subtle church leader with all the virtues of a scientist and orator. True, the opinion is expressed that “preaching, as the work of a person filled with the Holy Spirit, must be an inspired word, must be fraught with spiritual beauty. This connects her with art.” However, “both because art does not lie in the mechanical observance of certain rules, and because preaching is not oratory, the entire teaching about the form and, in general, about the external side of the sermon is expressed in two words: the sermon from the external side should be artless and simple. The art of preaching lies in the spiritual experience of the preacher, in the vitality and animation of his words. A sermon, even a simple teaching speech, can also become art in the immediate sense, but this is possible only under the condition of free creativity, and not scholastic theory.” Such an abstract theoretical view (Prof. M.M. Tareev) remains quite isolated in Russian literature and meets some solidarity only in views of a different order, that “believers will feel more spiritual renewal if the preacher presents the Gospel truth, apart from any justification, but in all its irresistible truth,” for “a sermon is not a theological treatise, not a lesson on the catechism: it belongs not to the field of rhetoric, but to the field of asceticism, i.e. the inner mood of the speaker’s soul,” since “only from the good treasury of the heart can good things be brought out” (Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky). The guiding principles of Russian homiletical science and our prevailing preaching practice are more consistent with the precepts of St. John Chrysostom and Blessed. Augustine that the power of the word is given not by nature, but by education, however, preparation for preaching should be not just theoretical, but living. In this sense, the situation of preaching in Russian theology is more accurately characterized by the conclusions of Prof. A.V. Govorova (in his speech “The basic principle of church preaching and the subject and tasks of church eloquence arising from it.” Kazan, 1895) that “church preaching is essentially composed of two elements: the ideal and the real, truth and life. Its task is to translate Christian truth into personal and public life. The predominant importance of one or another element in the sermon is determined either by its homiletical idealism, which takes less into account the special conditions of place and time, but pays more attention to religious faith and the religious feeling itself, with which it directly connects the area of ​​pure or abstract morality; or homiletical realism, which directly concerns modern reality in its most diverse manifestations. Because of this, it is “on the artistic combination of practical issues of life with theoretical questions from the field of church and religion that, generally speaking, the cultural and historical significance of Christian church preaching is based.” If theoretical constructions are sometimes adjacent to previous schemes, then the special study of preaching is now carried out using the historical method, in connection with a given era and its reflections. For the special ancient Russian church teaching (readings in church from the lives of saints and patristic works), as a “statutory”, obligatory part of the divine service “according to the charter”, it is characterized by the “historical-homiletical research” of Prof. V. P. Vinogradova. The same topic is considered in a general historical perspective and in practical application by a special treatise by Prof. N.K. Nikolsky with tendentious applications to undermine deliberate church preaching. From the actual historical reviews on the subject under consideration, it is fair to point out the work of Prof. N.I. Barsov on the history of early Christian preaching (until the 4th century) and “essays and studies” by Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) “from the history of Christian preaching.” Christianity, in its doctrinal content and moral influence, is confessed in Orthodoxy to be divine, or miraculous, for the cosmic order, and therefore it fundamentally requires rational justification - especially since ordinary reason is too prone and capable of turning this miraculousness into direct improbability and often reveals systematic skepticism. This creates a practical need for the scientific defense of Christianity, as does the relationship with other religions in a tone of absolute superiority over them. Hence, Christian apologetics, which has long been cultivated under various forms and has a considerable literature, is quite legitimately established in Russian Orthodox theology. The general task is to give a propaedeutic-rational justification for all theological sciences, why the corresponding academic department was called “introduction to the circle” according to the academic charter of 1884, although a typical construction of this kind was made much earlier - in the work of the Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov) “Introduction to Orthodox Theology.” In this direction, the prospects could be narrowed to a simple classification of theological disciplines; however, the scientific protection of fundamental religious and Christian doctrines has always been recognized as the most essential. But since they analyze and reveal the immutable revealed truth, from this point of view, any skepticism of denial is erroneous by its very nature. Naturally, the most important element of apologetic work is the prevailing polemic with rationalism on all cardinal issues, so that its insufficiency is even considered a direct defect in comparison with the scientific apologetic ideal (for example, Fr. T.I. Butkevich, who noted in relation to the lectures of Prof. F. F. Sidonsky, that “they do not even contain a refutation of various objections from unbelief,” or about the “Introduction” of Metropolitan. Macarius that “it does not protect the revealed truths from objections and attacks from worldviews hostile to Christianity”). The best example of works in this category is “Christian Apologetics” by Prof. N.P. Rozhdestvensky, who, having critically reviewed general issues and fundamental points of religion as such, follows this path to revelation and examines the Old Testament and Christianity in a critical light. This means that the latter focuses primarily on the disputed features of the subject and analyzes it according to the critical position in the very order of discussion and in the degree of development of all the details. Obviously, this is only a rational propaedeutics, which should be crowned with the same rational affirmation of the Christian teaching itself, when it develops according to its own “logic of faith”, everywhere provided with justifying considerations of reason, as the highest rationality according to the apologetic convictions of the Christian consciousness - patristic and modern (see E. N. Uspensky for the rational justification of the essence of the Christian doctrine against rationalistic views on it). According to this plan, the works of Prof. O. P. Ya. Svetlova. In his Course in Apologetic Theology, this author presents an “introduction to theology” with “an examination of the historical foundations of Christianity,” and then gives “a systematic exposition of the Christian doctrine in its main principles.” The second part is the most important in the author’s construction in the larger work of Fr. P. Ya. Svetlova on an apologetic presentation of Orthodox Christian doctrine. Here Christian dogma itself speaks more directly and closer, although continuously debating with various opponents (see Fr. I. D. Petropavlovsky’s defense of the Christian faith against unbelief). Now her own voice is heard more clearly with all its inherent characteristics in quality and energy. It is further formulated (by Prof. Fr. N.V. Petrov) that “the main element of apologetic theology should be the positive disclosure and justification of the truths of Christianity”; however, in this plane, “in the language of scientific methodology, church teaching for the theologian-researcher serves as a guiding hypothesis, but only one that is very firmly and unshakably substantiated.” It is clear that this is still not enough for complete success, since “steadfastness” does not yet flow from anywhere with complete certainty and is more subjective. The nature of independent persuasiveness can only be conveyed by a fundamental comparison of the Christian religion with parallel and competing values. In this sense, Christianity, as a supernatural revelation, is best understood through comparison with natural knowledge of God (to which the special dissertation of Prof. S. S. Glagolev is devoted) and is specifically assessed in connection with all the most important forms of human religiosity. This calls for systematic research into the comparative study of religions. But here it is necessary to remember that Russian apologetics, bringing Christianity closer to other historical religions in terms of complete superiority and historical independence (see the works of Fr. E. P. Akvilonov and Fr. M. K. Istochnikova), never introduced it into the ranks of the latter and did not place the study on such a basis that Christian revelation turned out to be only a stage in the general religious-historical development. This was resolutely rejected even by the Berlin prof. Adolf Harnack, but in Russian Theological Academies nothing like this is allowed - especially since in Russian universities there has always only been a department of “theology”. Christianity was strictly and invariably singled out as an exceptional and specifically Divine fact. In this case, any superiority here is rooted in its inner invincibility according to the very essential energy, which holds and affirms unshakably as the absolute truth. It is natural that it justifies itself in its entirety. Under such premises, “Orthodox Christian apologetics” inevitably and legitimately turned (in Fr. E. P. Akvilonov) into “scientific and theological self-justification of Christianity.” Within the outlined framework, the scientific and apologetic work of Russian theology is carried out, which in this specialty is represented quite abundantly in various works on all cardinal issues. In them, the defense of Christianity is everywhere carried out on the basis of the deepest needs of the human spirit and the highest demands of human thought, and from this side it directly comes into contact with the tasks of philosophy (see the dissertation of Prof. M. A. Ostroumov on the history of philosophy in its relation to revelation). The latter in the Russian Theological Academies was always aimed at revealing religious and theological areas of knowledge and had a special department for this under different names (metaphysics, systematic philosophy). And all the prominent representatives of this discipline (Prof. V. N. Karpov in Petrograd) invariably and successfully served this goal, from which academic students did not shirk in the field of university teaching (for example, Prof. P. D. Yurkevich in Moscow). It is enough to point at least to the famous Moscow academic professor Archpriest F.A. Golubinsky, who was not just a Christian philosopher, but specifically a philosopher of Christianity, in theoretical and mystical illumination, when rational soaring penetrated the religious desires of the believing heart and were themselves enlivened by internal Christian contemplations. Even his “Lectures on Philosophy”, on “speculative psychology” and on “speculative theology” are shrouded in mysterious Christian mysticism, where a vibrant faith fills rational conviction. Glorious successor Fr. F. A. Golubinsky - prof. V.D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov devoted his entire life to Christian philosophy and in his numerous works, with comprehensive thoroughness and rational completeness, developed an integral syncretic system of Christian-theistic views. This continued until the end. One of the newest members of the corporation of the Moscow Theological Academy - “this school of the believing mind” - on the occasion of its centenary anniversary, decisively testified that “the truth that theology deals with is the same that philosophy deals with - the highest and all-encompassing truth,” why “from a philosophical point of view, every theological teaching is a particular metaphysical system.” In the academic setting, the latter is cultivated in the form of “ecclesiastical philosophy, Orthodox philosophy,” for “analysis can reveal that the Orthodox faith best interprets reality and most closely meets the ideal aspirations of the human spirit,” and “the task of philosophy will then be to call people to this faith,” since “a person can learn the truth from God or never learn it,” meanwhile, “the stamp of divinity lies (only) on one religious teaching - the Christian teaching, which calls itself revealed by God” (see Prof. S. S. Glagolev “Philosophy and Freedom”). It is clear that such Christian philosophy is primarily rational Christian apologetics. Here Christian dogma itself speaks more directly and closer, although continuously debating with various opponents (see Fr. I. D. Petropavlovsky’s defense of the Christian faith against unbelief). Now her own voice is heard more clearly with all its inherent characteristics in quality and energy. It is further formulated (by Prof. Fr. N.V. Petrov) that “the main element of apologetic theology should be the positive disclosure and justification of the truths of Christianity”; however, in this plane, “in the language of scientific methodology, church teaching for the theologian-researcher serves as a guiding hypothesis, but only one that is very firmly and unshakably substantiated.” It is clear that this is still not enough for complete success, since “steadfastness” does not yet flow from anywhere with complete certainty and is more subjective. The nature of independent persuasiveness can only be conveyed by a fundamental comparison of the Christian religion with parallel and competing values. In this sense, Christianity, as a supernatural revelation, is best understood through comparison with natural knowledge of God (to which the special dissertation of Prof. S. S. Glagolev is devoted) and is specifically assessed in connection with all the most important forms of human religiosity. This calls for systematic research into the comparative study of religions. But here it is necessary to remember that Russian apologetics, bringing Christianity closer to other historical religions in terms of complete superiority and historical independence (see the works of Fr. E. P. Akvilonov and Fr. M. K. Istochnikova), never introduced it into the ranks of the latter and did not place the study on such a basis that Christian revelation turned out to be only a stage in the general religious-historical development. This was resolutely rejected even by the Berlin prof. Adolf Harnack, but in Russian Theological Academies nothing like this is allowed - especially since in Russian universities there has always only been a department of “theology”. Christianity was strictly and invariably singled out as an exceptional and specifically Divine fact. In this case, any superiority here is rooted in its inner invincibility according to the very essential energy, which holds and affirms unshakably as the absolute truth. It is natural that it justifies itself in its entirety. Under such premises, “Orthodox Christian apologetics” inevitably and legitimately turned (in Fr. E. P. Akvilonov) into “scientific and theological self-justification of Christianity.” This continued until the end. One of the newest members of the corporation of the Moscow Theological Academy - “this school of the believing mind” - on the occasion of its centenary anniversary, decisively testified that “the truth that theology deals with is the same that philosophy deals with - the highest and all-encompassing truth,” why “from a philosophical point of view, every theological teaching is a particular metaphysical system.” In the academic setting, the latter is cultivated in the form of “ecclesiastical philosophy, Orthodox philosophy,” for “analysis can reveal that the Orthodox faith best interprets reality and most closely meets the ideal aspirations of the human spirit,” and “the task of philosophy will then be to call people to this faith,” since “a person can learn the truth from God or never learn it,” meanwhile, “the stamp of divinity lies (only) on one religious teaching - the Christian teaching, which calls itself revealed by God” (see Prof. S. S. Glagolev “Philosophy and Freedom”). It is clear that such Christian philosophy is predominantly rational Christian apologetics Christianity, being Divine in essence and accepted as such scientifically, refers to its Divine primary sources and directs for accurate knowledge the study of the monuments of Divine revelation. This determines the fundamental positive significance for bibliology in Russian theology. Literature of this kind spread in Russia from the first centuries of its Christianization and then, to some extent, independently developed in its usual forms. However, while working in the general biblical field, Russian theological science also had and carried out its own special tasks. During their Christian enlightenment, the Russians accepted the Slavic Bible from the Greek translation of the Seventy Interpreters and have until now kept it in exclusive sacred and liturgical use. Traditionally, we have acquired and instilled a reverent devotion to the Slavic text, but over time the need inevitably arose: 1) to determine its merit by the very nature of the Greek prototype in comparison with the Hebrew original and 2) to ensure the textual correctness of the Slavic version by illuminating its history and establishing the best edition. Both of these questions, which have always occupied Russian theological thought, were posed with all scientific seriousness in the 19th century. The first of them came to the fore and intensified in connection with the then-undertaken translation of the Bible into Russian. There were quite strong and authoritative currents against this matter, among other things, due to distrust of the Jewish text that served as the basis for the Old Testament. But gradually the opinion of the famous Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (Drozdov) prevailed, who stated and argued (in a note on the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek and Slavic translations of St. Scripture), that I) “in the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Scriptures, the text of the Seventy Interpreters should acquire a dogmatic dignity, in some cases equal to the original and even elevating it above the type of Jewish text that seems generally accepted in publications of modern times”; II) “however, respect for the text of the Seventy Interpreters should not be so exceptional that the Hebrew text should be left completely without attention; justice, benefit and necessity require that the Hebrew text also be taken into account in dogmatic dignity when interpreting the Holy Scriptures”; III) “but in order to not give room for arbitrariness when using the Hebrew text as a guide to the explanation of the Holy Scriptures, to put in this matter a barrier against deviation from the accuracy of Orthodox dogmas and to protect the sacred importance of the text of the Seventy in its ancient purity - for this purpose, in the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, or in sacred hermeneutics, protective rules must be proposed, drawn from the essence of the matter and from examples of church and fatherly." In general, these sound principles still prevail today. Yes, Prof. V. N. Myshtsyn wrote that “one cannot unconditionally and in everything give preference to the Masoretic text, that in some cases the Greek translation retained the best reading compared to the original, the reading is correct and original, as a result of which the LXX translation has not only the authority of the original translation used in the Christian Church, but also the authority of the best critical means when correcting the Masoretic text; Its use is not only ecclesiastical, but also scientific.” In turn, Prof. I. N. Korsunsky, in a special extensive dissertation on this subject, formulated two theses: a) “the translation of the Seventy Interpreters in many of its places is of great importance for restoring the original form of the original Hebrew text of the Bible,” and b) “on the other hand, this translation, for various reasons, largely deviates from the Hebrew original.” In the history of Russian theology, there have been and are still encountered on this issue in both directions (cf. Prof. I. N. Korsunsky in “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers,” 1890, Part XLV). Some resolutely extolled the Hebrew text, reducing all the differences in the LXX mainly to misunderstandings and reinterpretations of Greek translators (Prof. P. I. Gorsky-Platonov). Others no less praised the Greek interpretation, considering the Masoretic review tendentiously corrupt (Bishop Theophan Govorov). However, both of these scientific movements never reached mutually exclusive extremes in Russian theology and contained undeniable scientific elements. Thus, the latter opinion cannot in any way be denied objective validity if we firmly remember and seriously consider that the main “theological” differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts concern the messianic content itself. Of course, the Jews preserved and revere the Bible with the greatest scrupulousness, were religiously committed to ensuring its integrity and, having sufficient means, could not directly and arbitrarily distort the biblical truth. With all this, the implementation of the messianic biblical idea by the Lord Savior and the Christian understanding of biblical foreshadowing turned out to be completely unacceptable for Jewry and were eliminated with dogmatic irrevocability, and therefore a fatal dilemma arose before him: either admit his criminal wrong, if Christianity is biblically quite solid, or justify himself with biblical authority, adapting it to his anti-Christian mood, long nurtured by rabbinism and which extended to the point that in the very routine of its liturgical readings the synagogue revealed anti-Christian tendencies (see Ludwig Venetianer. Ursprung und Bedeutung der Propheten-Lektionen. Leipzig, 1909). From a Christian point of view, it is difficult to argue with the likelihood of the second possibility, since those who rejected Christ were naturally forced to reject the “Christian” texts of the Bible by phrasing them in the spirit of rabbinic dogma. This was done in part even without much brutal force, for the Jewish luminaries necessarily understood and read the Bible in accordance with the rabbinic doctrines traditionally sanctified and assigned to it, and the methods of writing Hebrew letters and the writing itself, in the absence of punctuation and vocalization, opened up wide conveniences for the fact that this process of rabbinic review of the biblical text was carried out with scientific plausibility and religious ease. This is how the Masoretic reaction prevailed in Jewry. It is natural that Russian theological science does not at all recognize it as exclusively self-authentic and for the messianic element of the Bible prefers the Greek interpretation, which appeared before the Christian era and is alien to any adaptation to it. However, Russian bibliology does not at all sacrifice the first for the second (see, for example, Prof. I. S. Yakimov for the Greek translation of the Seventy Commentaries in relation to the Jewish Masoretic text in the book of the prophet Jeremiah) and in its searches it starts from the Hebrew original, allowing its own independent critical revision of the texts - as much Jewish (in A. V. Prakhov for the song of Moses), as much Greek (in the bishop Antonin Granovsky for the book of Proverbs) - and even designing a Jewish prototype for such biblical writings that are now known to us only in Greek (by Bishop Antonin for the book of Baruch). Such an attitude is an inherited tradition of Russian theological and biblical scholarship, for the controlling significance of the Hebrew original is sanctioned by its use in the various corrections of our Slavic Bible. The same principle is authoritatively legitimized by the Russian translation of the entire Bible from the Hebrew text (for the canonical Old Testament books), although in combination with the Greek, since such a great work - with the participation of all the Theological Academies and invited learned people - was accomplished (in 1859-1875) by the will and vision of the Holy Synod and has hitherto been published “with his blessing” as a public interpretation of the biblical text approved by him truth. However, this did not prohibit the private use and distribution of other translations, such as, for example, for the Old Testament - Archim. Makariy (Glukharev), and for the New – the poet V. A. Zhukovsky (Berlin, 1895) and the synodal chief prosecutor K. P. Pobedonostsev (St. Petersburg, 1902–1905), along with the works of prof. A. A. Nekrasov on reading the Greek text of the Holy Gospels, Acts and Apostolic Epistles. All the observations presented, testifying to sufficient church-scientific attention to the Hebrew biblical text, at the same time state an invariable conviction in some of its conventions, from which legitimate scope opened up for the equal application of the Greek review. However, even in this direction we did not have extreme exaggeration in order, following the example of the Church of Constantinople, to fully test the textual type of LXX. True, at times the idea of “canonizing” the Slavic Bible seemed to be floated, but this was actually just a fleeting dream of the Latinizing Chief Prosecutor Count N.A. Protasov (July 25, 1836 – January 16, 1855), “who, with good intentions, due to the effect of his (Latin) upbringing, sometimes accepted Latin opinions under the name of Orthodoxy, submitted to Bose the late Sovereign Emperor (Nicholas I) the idea of declaring the Slavic translation of the Bible self-authentic, like the Latin Vulgate,” having approved for the first by church authority the inestimable - church and educational, public and home - use of it. Despite all this, this all-powerful and despotic official did not achieve the slightest success; on the contrary, “The Holy Synod,” according to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, “in its labors of correcting the Slavic Bible did not proclaim the Slavic text to be exclusively independent and thus shrewdly blocked the path to those difficulties and confusions, which in this case would have been the same or even greater than those that in the Roman Church arose from the declaration of the independent text of the Vulgate” (see Prof. I. A. Chistovich on p. 130). Therefore, the Greek translation of the LXX, which is not recognized as authentic, remains for Russian church theological science parallel in text to the Hebrew and predominant in the messianic coverage of biblical content, the most obligatory here both for church tradition and for rational reasons. This fuels deep scientific interests on issues regarding the Greek version of the LXX, and the results can be judged, for example, from the dissertation on this subject by Prof. I. N. Korsunsky. There is not and cannot be found in Russia today a scientific biblical exegetical work where this venerable Greek text has not been systematically utilized. But since it is at least equal in rights to the Jewish one, then, along with the latter, it should also be publicly available for the unhindered use of the believing people. Under this inspiration, attempts were made to translate Russian directly from the LXX, for example, by Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky), of whose similar works only the “Psalter” is in print (St. Petersburg, 1906). In modern times, this great scientific and church feat was raised and energetically carried out by the professor of the Kazan Theological Academy P. A. Yungerov, who published the books of all the prophets, non-canonical, the Proverbs of Solomon and Genesis. The certified dignity of the LXX is naturally imparted to the Slavic translation, which “by its origin” “in its beginning is not a work of ordinary scholarship, but the fruit of the apostolic zeal of Saints Cyril and Methodius” (according to the characteristics of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow), illuminated by the radiance of churchliness through its constant liturgical use, was the source and companion of the entire Christian civilization in Rus' and to this day remains the holy book of the Orthodox Russian people. This, of course, is the most precious monument of Russian literature and from this side it is fairly and carefully studied by specialists in literary and philological terms. But he is also an exponent of the well-known Greek prototype and a certain interpretation of the biblical content, which is why here it is subject to scientific research from a textual-exegetical point of view. Works of this kind are concentrated around three major stages in the history of the Slavic Bible: a) the oldest Slavic text until the end of the 15th century - in an effort to restore the original Cyril and Methodius form, which would serve as a witness to the then Greek biblical text in the Church of Constantinople; b) the printed Ostrog Bible of 1581, reprinted in Moscow in 1663 with minor corrections, mainly in spelling (“first printed Bible”), and more significantly improved in 1671; c) the Elizabethan Bible, prepared since the era of Peter the Great (since 1712) and revised at different times (especially since 1741 by the works of Archimandrite Thaddeus Kakuilovich and Hieromonk Kirill Florinsky, Archimandrite Hilarion Grigorovich, Hierarch Jacob Blonnitsky, Hierarch Varlaam Lyashchevsky, Hierom Gideon of Smolinsky), but released only on December 18, 1751 and is still being reprinted with some minor changes gradually made. The latest Slavonic edition bears the stamp of informed and zealous scholarship, worthy of deep historical respect. However, all this was conditional due to the actual circumstances of its origin and therefore turns out to be limited in quality. The unsatisfactory nature of the existing Slavic translation has long been recognized in Russia and has caused scientific inquisitiveness to find measures to eliminate it. Most of all, the ever-memorable rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, did the most to ensure this enterprise, who, in (performed together with K.I. Novostruev) description of the Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, discovered, collected and reviewed a huge amount of material and outlined new prospects for fruitful scientific work on the genesis and restitution of the Slavic Bible. According to a fair and competent verdict, Prof. G. A. Voskresensky, this “is, one might say, an inexhaustible treasury of critically cleared facts for the history of the sacred biblical text.” There were valuable acquisitions and authoritative incentives for further research, which were then carried out piecemeal in this area, although mainly from the historical-literary and philological sides, which was actually served more by numerous textual publications. Much less, but still with sufficient solidity and impressive persistence, specifically biblical interests were supported (see, for example, Prof. I. S. Yakimov’s critical studies of the text of the Slavic translation of the Old Testament; V. K. Lebedev on the Slavic translation of the book of Joshua; Prof. A. V. Mikhailov on the study of the text of the book of Genesis) and began to focus intense scientific attention on themselves. The development of the subject went much more intensively and systematically. For the New Testament, the scientific works and textual critical publications of Prof. G. A. Voskresensky with various treatises guiding this matter. For the Old Testament the most useful are the works of Prof. I. E. Evseev (especially his two dissertations on the books of the prophets Isaiah and Daniel in the Old Slavic translation). Nowadays, a huge amount of material has accumulated - over 4000 lists of Slavic manuscripts of various types for Old Testament books and even more numerous for New Testament books; there are reference manuals (for example, P. A. Hiltebrandt's concordances for the Psalms and the New Testament), scientific training and scholarly powers; the need is recognized and the importance of this great cause is recognized. The time has come to unite and implement, through joint efforts, all the most important results in the best Slavic text. To successfully implement this grandiose plan, a Commission of authoritative scientists for the scientific publication of the Slavic Bible was formed and functioned (since 1915) at the Petrograd Theological Academy, which was designed for approximately nine volumes (6 for the Old Testament and 3 for the New). The implementation of this colossal task would be an extremely fruitful acquisition for the entire scientific bibliology, not to mention the exceptional value for Russian theology, Slavic-Russian literature and philology, but... evil Bolshevism destroyed everything... IX. Church history - general For Russian theology, the Bible remains the Divine “Book of Life” (as the first edition of the popular commentary on the Old Testament by Prof. Fr. N.P. Smirnov is called). The latter is revealed from above, but is created in the world, where it is installed and functions in existing cosmic conditions only from a certain moment and in certain forms. Therefore, Christianity, with its essential divinity, is a historical factor that from the very beginning embodies itself among people according to its typical influence in teaching and life, law and cult, gradually transforming and renewing the face of the entire earth. Without a factual basis in historical justification and inherent implementation, Christianity would be only a religious-philosophical doctrine, and not a grace-filled and life-giving Divine element, which, according to its nature, is revealed in the society of those being saved, or the Christian Church. If it is said that “the English (Anglican) Church is a historical church” (see “The Expository Times”, September. 1917. P. 543), then this is all the more certain for the Orthodox Church, which is entirely built on the foundation of traditional succession (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3) from Christ and the apostles in dogma, hierarchy and canonical structure. Because of this, an integral part of Russian theology has always been church history, with a division into general history, embracing the fate of Christianity since the times of the apostles in different countries, and specifically Russian history. The first of them has long been part of school pedagogical use, but for a long time it was an auxiliary historical commentary and a real aid for theoretical knowledge and did not receive independent scientific development. Of course, the still knowledgeable Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin) reminded the authorities of the Trinity Lavra Seminary, “to have diligent care so that the students are learned and successful in church and civil history, for this is what makes a person enlightened most of all”; however, historical disciplines continued to remain “extraordinary” or secondary in teaching, and in their course they complemented all others, deprived of proper independence. Naturally, the first experience of church historical review in the book of Archimandrite Methodius (Smirnov), published in Moscow in 1805, covered canonism, liturgics, and patristics, without revealing in detail and systematically any of its topics. Draft academic charter of 1814 calls church history a “common sanctuary” and provides for such “speculations” for it so that a “philosophy of history” is obtained, while there were not even the necessary elements for this. Therefore, the two-volume “Outline of Church History” by Archimandrite Innocent (Smirnov), published in 1817 in St. Petersburg, was only a scientific compilation and testified that the subject itself was only a service and school tool for other purposes and was not yet considered an obligatory cultural factor of social significance. The course of education gradually prepared for him a different scientific and educational position. In this sense, he put church history on an independent scientific pedestal and opened wide and bright horizons in particular to the professor and rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, who himself did not like to be published and put his name on display (for, according to Prof. S.P. Shevyrev, he was “an example of combining hard work with humility, which does not recognize one’s own personality; here a face is hidden behind conscientious work,” and “this selflessness is a great feat, explained by the best side of our people"), but he educated an entire historical school that spread throughout the entire expanse of the Russian theological field. In his opinion, this science, which explains the movements of the human spirit under the guidance of the Divine, “one must have the eye of the seraphim in order to read so freely in the depths of human hearts, to look so fearlessly at the glory of God; If in general the observation of phenomena taking place in the depths of the human spirit is associated with great difficulty and is exposed to the danger of many errors and misconceptions, then what is worth such a deep revelation of all the powers of the human spirit in both its directions - to heaven and hell, which belongs to the pen of church history? Obviously, both a solid foundation and an independent scale are needed here, in accordance with the very property of knowledge. According to Fr. A.V. Gorsky, “the presentation of history is determined by the view of its subject, which (the view) must be derived from its essence. Both theory and experience must agree that the presentation of the history of the Church is most determined by the dogmatic view. The character of Orthodox theology is to affirm its truths on the word of God and to support its understanding of the word of God with the testimony of the Church, or Tradition in the broadest sense. This respect for the voice of the Church, or Tradition, is at the same time respect for the history of the Church, which is then not just a dispassionate narrator of the facts of the past, but a living apology for Christian truth with its doctrinal beliefs and concrete discoveries. However, this understanding does not at all sanction either abstract schematicism or confessional tendentiousness. According to Fr. A.V. Gorsky, “the (Christian) teaching has its own life, its own directions, movements, struggles, successes. Dogma, as a Divine thought, forever expressed to humanity in revelation, is always complete in itself, identical, individual. But as a thought, assimilated by a person, it takes on different forms: its sphere sometimes expands, sometimes contracts, sometimes it becomes lighter, sometimes it becomes eclipsed; applied to various human relationships, it necessarily becomes more complex; coming into contact with one or another area of ​​\u200b\u200bknowledge, he explains them and is himself explained by them.” However, here “we are talking about the development of dogma, not dogmas.” On this side, the question of “the influence of the individual qualities of teachers of the Church on the teaching of the Church” is also scientifically relevant, since “biographical information about teachers of the Church and a list of their works ... should serve to reveal the direction and successes of the development of dogmatics.” As for Orthodoxy, for Fr. A.V. Gorsky, it served as a pre-indication and criterion of objectively true understanding, “everywhere turning to the original sources” in order to internally comprehend and correctly illuminate in the historical process that great axiom that “The Church is at the same time a school of truth for those who are guided, and a church for their sanctification, and a spiritual Kingdom, in which each member is assigned his own place and all, subordinate to one supreme invisible power, are governed on the basis its laws by the visible hierarchy.” According to the influence and impact of Fr. A.V. Gorsky’s immediate successors to his academic ministry developed church-historical knowledge so widely that, having no conditioning factual preliminaries for themselves, it could only be rooted in the deep recesses of the creative spirit of this rare personality, just as in general everything great in the world is born with an inconspicuous mystery (cf. Luke 17:20) - not from specific external facts, but from internal individual factors: humanum paucis vivit genus. Already the first to replace Fr. A.V. Gorsky at the academic department, Archimandrite John (Metropolitan) was not afraid to take a treatment of the history of the Ecumenical Councils and narratively depicted the first three of them with sufficient scientific precision, why the successor of this work, prof. Al. P. Lebedev, did not find it necessary to describe the real side again. At that time, church-academic discipline began to be diligently cultivated in academic and university circles, and the professor of the Petrograd Theological Academy I. V. Cheltsov undertook an exposition of the entire history of the Christian Church. Here he fundamentally develops that “this subject should lie at the basis of all church education,” and “the Orthodox Church not only should not be afraid of any scientific-critical studies (of it), but can rely in them as one of the means for its triumph,” for “there is nothing so harmful to the triumph of truth as the blind zeal of its unreasonable defenders, manifested in the persistent repetition of unsatisfactory, one-sided and, as always happens in this case, completely unnecessary evidence, in fear for the shock of truth itself with the fall of the prejudices surrounding it in the minds of limited people - in a word, in the criminal desire to support it with their pitiful, unjust, human efforts, despite the fact that it is naturally preserved by the almighty power of God Himself, its Source, and therefore cannot fall, even if it really wavers in their weak eyes... An Orthodox researcher will be the more faithful to his faith and the Church, the more unfeigned and frank he is in his judgment and the more directly he conveys what he finds in undoubtedly accurate and true historical indications.” He carried out the scientific church-historical behests of Fr. A.V. Gorsky is a direct heir to his traditions at the Moscow Theological Academy Al. P. Lebedev, who died on July 14, 1908, as a professor at Moscow University. He was a learned ascetic, distinguished by a rare ability to work and who developed exceptional literary productivity, far from being common even for the West. By the end of his life, he combined the most important part of his works in the “Collected Church Historical Works”, but managed to publish only ten volumes, where, after “church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th century,” he surveys the entire history of the Eastern Church from the “era of persecution of Christians” and “from the fall of Constantinople to the present time” with the inclusion of “church historical narratives” (mostly everyday life character) and a special study on “the clergy of the ancient universal Church from the times of the apostles to the 9th century,” not to mention many additional and explanatory studies and treatises. The grandeur of the volume is matched by scientific solidity. Of course, in such vastness it was impossible to study everything thoroughly from primary sources, and in this regard Al. P. Lebedev is very indebted to Western science, however, under the indispensable condition in his own formulation: “you can’t live with someone else’s mind.” In his opinion, “the foundations of Orthodoxy are so clear that one can only sin against them consciously, and not accidentally or as a result of negligence and carelessness... Orthodoxy cannot consider itself in solidarity with all church traditions, with all the judgments that are found in church practice about historical figures, and with all the writings that often without reason have acquired weight in the Orthodox world. Orthodoxy stands above the actual life of the Church and therefore it would not lose anything if in this factual aspect everything did not remain as it was before.” In this way, a place was provided for the sober assimilation of all truly scientific Western acquisitions, albeit with constant subordination to the ruling rule that “Russian church historical science serves the interests of Orthodox enlightenment.” This means that the criterion of Orthodoxy, being clear in its fundamental content, allowed us to immediately and confidently accept everything suitable and healthy from the West, and on top of everything else forced us to apply strict objective criticism through personal documentary verification. Through this Al. P. Lebedev got rid of unnecessary work in a complete revision of all accumulated scientific results and discovered in them a solid support for new research, which, while replenishing what was ready, revealed its objective solidity. The result was an independent transformation of all scientific material with a creative recreation of church-historical life in Orthodox light. In terms of direct dogmatic relevance, such a task was extremely difficult, but it was resolved in an exemplary manner. This success can be seen in all its relief, for example, in the review of the Ecumenical Councils, which were studied by Al. during the 4th and 5th centuries. P. Lebedev in a special scientific dissertation. All seven are considered by us to have acted according to the will of the Holy Spirit, which is why their beliefs are infallible. The human element seems to be completely eliminated and deprived of all participation. However, since everything there is done among and for the sake of people, here they serve as the most significant factor on which the entire process is designed. Namely, a person must assimilate the Christian truth, and this would be virtually impossible if he himself did not find the best forms convenient for general perception. This requires extensive human activity to eliminate all one-sided extremes and to achieve an adequate expression sanctioning the binding principle in the most precise outlines in which obedience of faith is necessary with equal freedom beyond these limits. It is clear that until this moment, “long reasoning” is inevitable and legitimate - no less than at the “Apostolic Council” - in order to achieve a reconciling unification in the clash and assessment of all opinions and then, with authority for reason, proclaim it in the dignity of a sacred dogmatic formula. The latter is now symbolically unshakable, but for the moments preparing it, it is important to reveal with all scientific precision that this result was acquired by all the tension of church thought, with attention to the convictions and conscience of believers, even those who doubt and are restless. It was necessary to establish the main trends and significant influences so that the dogmatic church conclusion, being catholically indisputable in content, would be historically timely and rationally justified. Based on these premises, Prof. Al. P. Lebedev constructed the history of the Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries with remarkable harmony, showing the guiding influence in them of the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools, each of which put forward a party of defenders of its own particular solutions to one or another controversial issue. This was great and valuable news for Russia; at first it aroused the suspicion of the church authorities, creating the innovator’s reputation as a freethinker, and even aroused opposition in scientific circles (from Prof. A. M. Ivantsov-Platonov). But Al. P. Lebedev calmly invited “not to intimidate the young Russian theological science” and courageously brought the matter to the end with scientific consistency, ensuring the firmness of the Orthodox view itself. Without losing anything in its dogmatic impressiveness, conciliar procedurality became historically understandable and protected itself at all stages, as again this truth was argued with scientific competence by the continuer of his teacher’s mission on this subject (studying the “history of dogmatic movements in the era of the Ecumenical Councils”), Prof. AN. A. Spassky. The sublimity of this concept - according to its ideal basis, embodied only relatively - testified at the same time to the greatness of the spirit, always looking independently at all historical facts and creating only in their name, and not apart from or contrary to true reality, even for the sake of beautiful plans. Tradition, as an inherited opinion, can only be a starting point, but not the final point, delineating all the paths and methods of historical and scientific progress. From here prof. Al. P. Lebedeva complete freedom of judgment, which was standardized by the only factual truth and therefore was never tendentious and monochromatic. In terms of the scale of traditionalism, he cannot be called either a liberal or a conservative. He often encountered both on various issues and coexisted together in historical contemplations, since they rested on a critical originality, alien to constraining prejudices and each time making scientifically motivated verdicts that flowed from a strict analysis of all materials. A typical example of this precious property of historiography is Prof. Al. We see P. Lebedev in relation to church Byzantium. Due to the origin of the Russian Church from it and due to the long-term connection, we developed a special reverence that blinded our eyes to actual reality and closed our lips, and then clothed ourselves in the pseudoscientific toga of unbridled, self-praising Byzantinism. Our scientist, having overcome traditional bias and not being afraid even of national anger against him, boldly stepped over this black line and again revealed complete independence of thought, although sometimes in overly harsh tones of condemnation. In general, church history as processed by Prof. Al. P. Lebedeva received a truly scientific formulation based on its basic principles and rationally provided means, and in his numerous, varied, meaningful, lively written works it acquired great enrichment throughout its entire length. The vastness of this scope is simply amazing and corresponded only to the breadth of the author’s view that this is the most fundamental science, in terms of the exceptional importance of the studied area of ​​​​ancient church history, and in fact is the “mother of all theological sciences,” continuing to maintain leadership and control over them. In this tempting prospect, a further deepening of the church-historical concept and a detailed consideration of all the most significant details were naturally planned, although there were serious attempts at more or less holistic constructions (by Prof. F. A. Ternovsky). Many scientific forces nobly participated in this fruitful task and have hitherto contributed to its successful achievement, but among them, in all fairness, the late professor of the Petrograd Theological Academy V.V. Bolotov deserves especially grateful mention. In appearance, the latter seemed to be aloof from the scientific current of Russian thought on issues of church history, assimilating unconditional originality, but in fact he joined it, continuing the scientific construction of church history by specially strengthening the foundation to unshakable solidity. His cherished goal was to work in such a way and where and in a way that the scientific hand had not yet worked at all, even in preparing the field for scientific sowing. Therefore V.V. Bolotov tried to critically review all the questions again and, after a thorough check, using the totality of all sources and manuals, he proposed his own reconstruction. He raised the church-historical scientific ideal to an extreme, beyond the strength of the majority, so that he could always speak his own way and be ready to take only what he himself had achieved. Naturally, even with his rare abilities, heroic diligence and colossal erudition, V.V. Bolotov, who died early (46 years old), did not manage to do so much, but he left a great legacy and a worthy example for Russian church-historical knowledge. His "Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church", posthumously published under the editorship of Prof. A.I. Diamond and extending to the review of the era of iconoclasm inclusive, are a scientific guide of a general nature, carrying out “the desire for knowledge obtained through direct contemplation,” for which “history must draw its information from sources that would ultimately lead to direct eyewitnesses, must go back to the last, most original foundations, beyond which it is impossible to go.” In them, the old sometimes takes on a new look precisely because the author often raises his independent, competent voice. This feature of unconditional independence was most clearly revealed in research into hitherto untouched church-historical areas - and in this regard, Prof. V.V. Bolotov distinguished himself with major achievements in detailed monographs on the church history of Egypt, Ethiopia and Syrian Persian with a lot of interesting details in each treatise. Russia owes its Christianity to Byzantium, which is why it has always been in close connection with it and with the Orthodox East in general, as can be evidenced by special monographs on significant moments and outstanding persons (for example, Prof. N.F. Kaptereva, Prof. I.I. Malyshevsky, etc.). It is clear that Russian theology has always paid great attention to later Byzantium, and then Byzantine studies became unusually revived in secular academic circles, mainly under the influence of Academician V. G. Vasilievsky, and had as their focus the “Byzantine Time Book” (published since 1894 by the Academy of Sciences) with the “Byzantine Review” that emerged from it (published since 1915 under Yuryev University); University authors also own entire courses on Byzantine studies (Prof. Yu. A. Kulakovsky, Academician Prof. F. I. Uspensky, Prof. S. P. Shestakov, Prof. A. A. Vasiliev, Associate Professor K. N. Uspensky). However, the close reciprocity of ecclesiastical and secular science remains here, for the civil and ecclesiastical elements were closely and deeply intertwined throughout the entire historical life of the Byzantine period; therefore, academic professors, even according to the requirements of their special department, were forced to discuss secular topics. X. Patrology and patristics Church historical monographs dedicated to certain outstanding men are usually not limited to their activities, but always review literary works and often analyze doctrinal views with equal thoroughness; sometimes such problems are resolved in special studies, such as, for example, the book of Bishop Boris (Plotnikov) on the history of Christian enlightenment in its relationship to ancient Greco-Roman education or the speech of Prof. N.I. Sagarda about ancient church theological science in the Greek East during its heyday (IV-V centuries). In these cases, church historical works directly move into the field of patrolology, where Russian theology has many valuable works worthy of general scientific recognition and application. It is clear from them that Russian theology was equally interested in both the historical activity and the doctrinal thought of patristic authorities. But on the first side, they fall within the competence of church-historical research, and therefore, in order to establish the actual pathological study, a fundamental solution to the main problem about the church-historical significance of the “Fathers of the Church” in their very essence is necessary. Here, first of all, it is indisputable that the concept of “fatherland”, as such, contains the most important idea of ​​​​the successive transfer of church property according to spiritual perception for storage, development and enrichment in the consistent progress of Christian life. This is similar to ordinary inheritance from parents by children, but with the profound difference that in this case the latter can not only increase what they received, but also surpass them qualitatively in the very material value of their corrections and additions. There is something cardinal in patristic traditionalism that is unconditional and compulsory, and only the measure of compliance with it determines the dignity of individual participation in the general movement. This beginning is the Tradition coming from Christ and the Apostles in the revelation of the Scriptures - sacred Tradition, which allows not change or improvement, but only interpretation consistent with it and fruitful application to the intellectual and vital needs of each given modernity. Therefore, it follows from a fundamental understanding that the church-literary “fatherland” is predominantly a church-wide voice, where individual melodies in their totality should help the harmony of the whole, embody the fullness and express all the shades of continuous traditionally inspired music. From here it inevitably follows that here any deviation is eliminated from the series, indirectly reinforcing its unshakable solidarity, yet the personal receives the historically conditioned character of personal commentary and its own construction. Therefore, in patristic succession, the most important doctrinal element is the gradual revelation of Christian truth in depth and breadth, when every “Father” is obligatory according to undoubted dogmatic testimony, authoritative in his heartfelt church explanation and subjective in personal understanding. This means that paternal doctrinal contemplation represents a dogmatic and doctrinal guide to its traditional content, regulating the freedom of theological creativity and facilitating it in the formal comprehension of the Christian gospel. This view has already been sufficiently argued by Archimandrites. Porfiry (Popov) in his treatise on the authority of St. Fathers of the Church. Prof. looked at this question quite similarly. Al. P. Lebedev, although he directly noted the historical temporality of private paternal opinions, believing that Orthodoxy should be alien to dubious archaism and sanctions in science, “for example, criticism of church traditions, criticism of the actions of historical figures who stand high in the opinion of the Church, criticism of works respected in church practice, but about the origin of which there may be unequal judgments (like the works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite )". This is still the dominant view of Russian theology. Only very recently, Prof. MM. Tareev, who proclaims “the word of God as the single beginning of Theology,” too categorically stated that “the principle of “fatherland” has no basis in the essence of the matter”: “implemented from above, it is the principle of provincial Catholicism, carried out from below, it is the principle of disguised Protestantism; it is always the principle of arbitrariness” and “threatens the very existence of theology, as science and philosophy,” and “the patristic teaching is pure Gnosticism,” “essentially associated with asceticism,” and both of them are “sworn enemies of the Russian genius,” which only in the fight against them “goes from overcoming Gnostic-ascetic theology to the flourishing of the spiritual type of religious thought.” It must be stated that, not agreeing with the idea and practice of the subject under discussion, these concepts are devoid of vital roots in the common scientific and theological heritage, stem from the subjectivistic sentiments of the author and cannot at all take root in Russian theological science, because they threaten its very existence and progress with the anarchic supremacy of boundless individualism, without a solid foundation and systematic unification. This judgment only with extreme sharpness emphasizes the historical conventions of the Fathers' Tradition and returns us to another fundamental question: the significance of the purely historical element in the personality and activities of certain Church Fathers writers. Fluctuations regarding the relationship between these two factors completely determined the position and development of scientific and pathological studies in Russia. If here all church history was considered auxiliary to theoretical disciplines, as a concrete confirmation and actual justification of them, then even less could patrolology, which was only an ingredient part of the whole, select and classify authoritative patristic opinions for the same purposes, claim its own independence. Therefore, for a long time it was completely absorbed in the depths of church history, where it was distinguished in the general flow only by its doctrinal traditionalism. It is natural that the separation began to take place in the name of the latter and was based on the exaggerated thought of the exceptional importance of Church Tradition, which should compensate for the insufficiency of Scripture and illuminate it from new sides. For these tendentious Catholic motives, under the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, patristics was introduced (in 1840) in Russian Theological Seminaries under the name of “historical and theological teaching about the Fathers of the Church,” and then naturally penetrated into the Academies that trained seminary teachers. At first, for example, the considerations of the St. Petersburg bachelor (1841–1848) I. I. Lobovikov speak sufficiently about the academic formulation of this matter. According to him, “in the circle of theological sciences, Patristics appeared as a result of the consciousness of theologians that it was not enough for them to explain and defend Christian dogmas, (it was not enough) to know the Holy Scripture thoroughly, but they also needed to know the Holy Tradition just as thoroughly, the representatives of which are St. Fathers of the Church." Obviously, “this is an auxiliary science about the Fathers of the Church, as witnesses and expositors of the Holy Scriptures. Tradition, and through Tradition - the Holy. Scriptures." For this purpose, “the analysis of the writings of the Fathers must be replenished and together be crowned with a synthesis (collection) of their teaching. In it is the immediate goal of Patristics, the best reward of the labors that research into the life and writings of the Fathers is worth - the purified fruit that a theologian expects from a patrolologist, and, finally, the triumph of Orthodoxy: because here the best testimonies of the Church to the dogmas we profess will be collected and presented in a clear light. The theoretical element is depicted as the main subject here, and dogmatic interest serves as the driving incentive and ultimate goal of pathological study. In its one-sided logical development, this direction threatened to undermine the independence of patristic knowledge and should have deprived it of its objectively original scientific character, even if I. I. Lobovikov’s “synthesis” bordered on a utilitarian-illustrative “collection of the most remarkable points of teaching” of a famous church writer. But Russian theology happily avoided this dangerous extreme and took a broader path. In 1859, Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) published his three-volume work under the significant title “Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church.” Contrary to I.I. Lobovikov, he thought that “to consider dogmatic teaching to be the same special part of Patristics as the study of works or life means not to understand its subject. The Fathers of the Church cared as much for the Church about the purity of faith as about piety, sometimes offering the latter in the instructions of history - and for faith and piety they zealously occupied themselves with the explanation of Holy Scripture. Therefore, that Patristics, which pays exclusive attention to the dogmatic teaching of the Fathers, losing sight of both the interpretation of Scripture and instructions in piety, distorts the concept of the Fathers of the Church, does not present them in their exact form. On the other hand, after reviewing the content of dogmatic works, to propose separately the dogmatic teaching of the Father means either that they are incriminating themselves in incorrectly showing the content of the works, or repeating the same thing contrary to correct reasoning about the matter... Let the dogmatic teaching of the Fathers occupy more attention than any historical subject; but it should not exclude other subjects of the fathers’ writings or occupy as much space as the life of the Father of the Church.” The Reverend himself Filaret reasoned that “the historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church offers information about those successors to the apostolic title who, by the gifts of a God-enlightened mind, could and, by the grace-filled purity of their souls, wanted to offer and did offer Christian teaching in their writings.” Such a view was then some news, and criticism insisted that “the doctrine of the Fathers is the doctrine of Tradition,” which is why it was expressed that “patrology should not at all be engaged in reviewing those works in which the Fathers of the Church are ordinary scientists, philosophers, experts in the natural sciences, etc.” On the contrary, Archbishop. Filaret thought that “it looks like dishonest papism” if “a critic decides to show the Father of the Church in the form he pleases, and not in the way the Father of the Church really was.” After all, “The Fathers of the Church adhered to Tradition where necessary, just as they reverently described the deeds of the Church and individuals. But they thought about the word of God, about the objects of faith, about the rules of life, they argued and spoke, philosophized and were philologists, and at the same time they even made mistakes; Therefore, to say that the teaching about the Fathers of the Church is the same as the teaching about Tradition means not understanding the Fathers of the Church or, having deliberately closed our eyes to the subject, interpreting it at will. If you want, you can extract the teaching of Tradition from the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, but this will be a special work, but not the teaching about the Fathers.” Reverend Filaret rightly protected the comprehensiveness of coverage in patrolological research and thoroughly defended a strictly historical consideration for them, in which everything receives factual motivation, direct meaning and true value in genesis, content and influence. But at the same time, historical specificity could absorb attention to such an extent that the individual-private, even if characteristic, could obscure why exactly some church writers are “Fathers” who accepted and transmitted the inherited Christian understanding in its consistent disclosure. Otherwise there would be an ordinary history of literature, only fixed in a special field. This conclusion was approached closely, for example, by Prof. K. I. Skvortsov, who proclaimed that “Patristics should present the Father as a writer.” Added to this was hesitation about the scope of patrol science. Reverend Philaret extended it to the entire Orthodox region, introducing into his review some Slavic-Russian church authorities (St. Cyril and Methodius, Clement of Velichsky, Metropolitan Hilarion, St. Theodosius of Pechersk, Metropolitan John, St. Nestor, Kirill of Turov), and prof. K. I. Skvortsov also attracted consideration of the apocryphal gospels. All these ambiguities and misunderstandings affected the very foundations of patrolology, which was deprived of unshakable supports for its scientific existence. Hence it turned out that back in the late 60s of the 19th century, the St. Petersburg Theological Academy “found it possible, without prejudice to the completeness of theological education, to completely exclude patrolology, pastoral theology and homiletics from the range of sciences taught,” as the Moscow Academy considered the former to be “unnecessary teaching,” because “its entire content is included partly in church history, partly in the historical department of dogmatic theology and church eloquence." However, this discipline was retained in academic teaching, first under the name “Patristics” (according to the statute of 1869 - in the theological department, according to the statute of 1884 - among the generally compulsory subjects), which (according to the statute of 1910) was replaced by “patrology”, while maintaining compulsory for all students and even with two teachers. The position of this branch rose to such an extent that some (Mr. N.L.) considered only two to be the main theological sciences - about the Holy. Scripture and about the Fathers and teachers of the Church. However, and hence it is indisputable that this issue has not received a final solution and requires fundamental comments. “In essence, the fullness of Divine truth is preserved in the Church, created by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. This truth is communicated to humanity in Revelation, which is enshrined in the word of Scripture and explained from the inexhaustible source of genuine Church Tradition. The second is inseparable from the first in fact and should take place alongside it in scientific knowledge. Thus, in bibliology, patrolology with a detailed study of the corresponding monuments is obligatory... Its task is not at all one purely literary review of surviving documents, but, most importantly, to clearly trace the continuous development, mutual continuity and internal agreement in the course of the historical disclosure of Church Tradition. From this point of view, the individual originality of this or that patristic author is deprived of its usual value, sometimes taking on the character of even an accidental deviation from the norm, and vice versa, all the strength is concentrated on the fundamental identity of moral and dogmatic teaching with biblical Christian principles. According to its design, pathological research should be aimed at the dogmatic element in its solid, albeit diverse, illumination; ultimately, it must be reduced to dogmatic unification and end with the latter. It is clear that pathological study can be of full importance only with an inseparable connection with patristics.” This opinion (Prof. N.N. Glubokovsky in his book on theological school) does not require doctrinal exclusivity, but only establishes its ideological value in the patrolological works themselves, which, if scientifically substantiated, must certainly be historical and literary. Therefore prof. N.I. Sagarda, distinguishing and coordinating patrolological and patristic elements, directly states that “patrology, in its formal aspect, is a historical science and must obey the general laws of historical research, historical-scientific understanding and presentation of its subject”; “Patristics, as a systematic presentation of the theological truths contained in patristic literature, is undoubtedly useful for the most accurate and deep understanding of Orthodox teaching,” but “can only develop on the basis of patrolology, from which it draws ready-made, comprehensively processed material.” Fundamentally coincides with what was stated by Prof. K.D. Popov, arguing that “this science is called patrolology not because it was obliged to speak only about the Fathers of the Church, it embraces all the ancient church writers, but because St. The Fathers - bearers, witnesses, interpreters and defenders of revealed truth in the form in which it has been preserved in the Church, constitute the most important and essential element of it - patrolology... According to the method of research, it is a historical science; at the same time, it is also a theological science, since it studies the teaching contained in the works of the fathers, in which it finds confirmation that the Church has preserved unchanged the teaching entrusted to it by the apostles.” Prof. was based on these basic premises. D. V. Gusev in a (posthumously published) course of readings on patrolology, believing that the latter “should historically present the gradual internal revelation of Christian truth in the works of ancient church writers in order to show, through the study of these writers, how Christian dogma, Christian morality and Christian practice achieved their full and comprehensive development, in which they now exist in the Orthodox Christian Church”; Therefore, in patrolology there is a double interest - historical, as the history of ancient church literature, parallel to secular, and dogmatic, where, along with a theoretical presentation in dogmatics, it gives a historical disclosure (formation) of the Christian doctrinal system, following this in all church authors and noting in each of them what is predominantly characteristic of it and different from others (but, of course, positive, and not actually separate or even separatist). XI. Church history - Russian Theological science surveys the spread and implementation of grace-saving content not only throughout the entire world in general, but also in each individual nation, for which their Christian past, of course, is closer, dearer, more understandable and more accessible, both in terms of internal meaning and external manifestation, and even in terms of the sources themselves from the point of view of their receipt and interpretation. Hence, it is completely natural that the fate of Christianity in Russia is developed specifically in Russian church history in greater detail and in more detail. However, even in this area, the whole matter was limited for a long time to chronicle-narrative messages, until scientific interests developed with all the necessary means for worthy satisfaction. The happy forerunner of this scientific-historical messianism was the enlightened Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin), who in his “Brief Church Russian History” adheres to the actual chronicle order, but groups his material more systematically and, most importantly, is everywhere depicted as “an amiable and attractive property of history - truth and impartiality,” which is why he diligently applies sober criticism in the discussion of literary information and life phenomena. But it turned out that for Russia such church-historical creativity was premature; the cultural trustee of the theological school - the “Commission of Theological Schools” (1808–1839) recommended that academic teachers not allow in church-historical presentation: “a) intense criticism, which, with the weapon of one-sided logic, attempts to destroy historical monuments, b) arbitrary systematism, which imagines the people and their history as the involuntary development of some fatal idea for them, and c) imprudent political directions”, but “to pay special attention in history to moral features, to the traces of God’s Providence in public events and private adventures, to the connection and consistency in the destinies of peoples of moral improvement and prosperity or, on the contrary, moral damage and decline in prosperity.” Therefore, what we know (see Chap. IX) “The Outline of Church History” by Innocent (Smirnov) gives (in the second volume) only a scholastic depiction of church-historical events with their “pious” overtones, although it is not without significance in its desire to capture the general, ideological factors of the church-historical movement. Nevertheless, the awakening of scientific needs that began already with Catherine II and the ardent revival of national feelings under the influence of the “patriotic war” (1812) raised intense historical curiosity, which, under the conditions of that time, was concentrated mainly in spiritual circles, and secular authors were also involved in church affairs due to their most immediate importance and due to their close contact with other state elements in the vast expanse of Russian history, especially the pre-Synodal period. It is quite normal that so far private questions and individual subjects have primarily and most of all attracted scientific inquisitiveness, associated with the gradual accumulation of factual data and scientific observations. In this regard, the hitherto valuable works of Metropolitan Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov) of Kyiv are worthy of great historical gratitude. A tireless worker who decorated all the places of his hierarchical ministry with large church-archaeological monuments of various kinds, Metropolitan Eugene was not an ideological taxonomist. About him Prof. M.P. Pogodin wrote: “Here was a man who could not stay anywhere for one day without being marked by his work for the benefit of history... This was the Russian Miller. I will also note a peculiarity in his mind and character: extraordinary positivity without the slightest admixture of ideality. It was some kind of history statistician. He, it seems, did not even regret if there was something he lacked in history; It’s like it doesn’t matter to him. What is there is good, and what is not there is nothing to think about. No conclusions, no reasoning...” But on the other hand, his factual side is always documented and thoroughly verified, and all its parts are placed according to the objective headings of mutual historical connections, even if external and in need of internal illumination. Rich, well-founded and ordered material was collected, which, together with other church-historical reserves, naturally asked to be included in the framework of scientific systematization. This work was boldly taken up and successfully completed by the selflessly gifted Archbishop of Chernigov Filaret (Gumilevsky), who published in 1847–1848 “The History of the Russian Church” in five periods, covering the years from 988 to 1826. This compact work, which in the sixth edition occupied only a large volume, combines a huge mass of information, often obtained through its own research and references, and is distinguished by the undeniable art of combining life phenomena according to the essential principles, which is why the latter immediately became clear in this perspective by their true historical nature and did not need detailed consideration. According to the author, “the history of the Russian Church, worthy of its name,” “is a true depiction of the changes that took place in it from the very beginning until recent times,” and, “like science, it must be an organic whole - it must have the unity of the subject, the connection of the parts and their correct arrangement.” For this purpose, “the most important events in their influence on the position of the Church” are put forward, which - after its origin - were: the invasion of the Mongols, the division of one metropolis into two, the patriarchate and the synod. The scale here is taken to be the principle of consideration with governing church-governmental factors, in which all the depths of people's life go into the shadows and, as it were, are deprived of active participation in general progress. With all this, it is unshakable that for Russian church-historical development these moments were the most decisive and undoubtedly left their typical imprint on vast swaths of our church life, marking the most important stages in its general structure, partly even until modern times. It is not surprising that the schedule of the Rev. Filareta still retains its basic features. To achieve better success, it was necessary to further ensure that church-historical reality was captured within these boundaries as completely as possible and reflected in its real outlines. Private schemes adopted by the archbishop. Filarets for each historical period are sufficient for these purposes, but they are monotonous, almost do not vary at all with changing eras, and their content is imbued with theoretical abstraction. Hence the picture turns out to be somewhat lifeless, as if frozen in its tones with the chronological alternation of historical figures. Only in the third and fourth periods are differences noted on certain aspects of the church-historical system between the north and south of Russia, and we more specifically see church life itself in its main actual trends. Served as an internal measure for the Reverend. Philaret has a firm conviction that “a Church historian must primarily be faithful to the truth, and for this he must be a true Christian. When reviewing sources, he must look at their information not according to the spirit of his time, but as required by the circumstances of that time, as required by the truth of history and the Gospel. The truth is only in Christ. Without Christian piety, a historian is only a foreigner in the Church of Christ: he will not understand much in the events of the Church, he will spoil much by misinterpretation or completely ignore it. Christian piety is as condescending to others as it is fair. No matter how unpleasant the affairs of human weakness are, it does not remain silent about them and does not decorate them in spite of the truth, although it does not allow itself harsh reviews in spite of love, whether these affairs concern famous individuals and entire societies.” This means Christian objectivism, which favorably distinguishes the work under consideration, where we find sober criticism of sources with all kinds of information and rare boldness of judgment on all points. "History" by Rev. Filareta, presenting a time-valued scientific compendium, operated with good factual data that was not very rich and far from fully developed. This material insufficiency did not allow for a complete reconstruction and bound the most fundamental views by its limitations, in which not all factors were clearly detected and guessed correctly, or even simply noticed. Contrary to Metropolitan Eugene, who was not at all worried about factual gaps in the news and calmly looked at these gaping windows, Archbishop. Filaret certainly tried to provide them with frames and insert glass, considering it the direct responsibility of the historian to “find out and explain what was left unsaid and unclear (in the sources) according to considerations.” This guaranteed great scope for subjectivism and tendentiousness, as long as abundant and good-quality material was not sought and selected. Thus, a decisive need was created for Russian church history for material enrichment and the corresponding reproduction of historical life. This great mission was unforgettably served by the Reverend. Macarius (Bulgakov), who died as Metropolitan of Moscow. He left before the archbishop. Philaret in the field of church-historical science, having published back in 1846 “The History of Christianity in Russia before Prince Vladimir, Equal-to-the-Apostles, as an introduction to the history of the Russian Church,” but the latter, having appeared in 1857 in the first three volumes, ended with the XIIth, published after the death of the author (t June 9, 1882) in 1883 and extending to the consideration of the Bolshoi Moscow Council of 1667 If we take into account that some volumes of Macarius’s work (for example, XII) are almost equal to the entire work of Philaret, although the first covers time less than one and a half hundred years and does not touch upon many of the major events of the later era, such as the abolition of the patriarchate and the establishment of a synodal structure in the Russian Church, then it is easy to understand how grander were the plans and intentions of Metropolitan Macarius, although they expanded gradually with the progressive development of the work itself. In this enormous scope one senses a fundamental desire for factual completeness, as complete and completely exhaustive as possible of its subject. But then historical reality will testify to itself with its natural concreteness and will not need additional illumination. Hence, an essential property of church-historical creativity is a purely documentary substantiation of the entire movement of church life, so that all phenomena in it are sufficiently motivated in fact and satisfactorily explain its consistent course in all historical transformations. The “Introduction” itself eloquently spoke about this, separated into a separate book, of course, in order to provide a true understanding of its Christian revival, which received well-known typical forms and, in turn, prepared the further course in the direction chosen here, by depicting the pagan past of Russia. This is a fruitful idea - of actual genesis in history, which always animated Metropolitan Macarius and was observed by him everywhere. In his colossal work, worthy of competing with the “History of Russia”, prof. S. M. Solovyov, it is embodied through factual thoroughness, which imparts a special shine of novelty and originality. The author was happy with valuable discoveries and enriched science with many treasures of undoubted and high value - in addition to drawing on all available data, printed or noted and indicated by others. In this regard, the work of Metropolitan Macarius remains a great scientific monument, although it often bears the imprint of documentary copying by introducing the materials he obtained in extenso - sometimes almost in raw form. But this achieved factual detail, which also contained its own factual interpretation. And with him, perhaps, nothing more was required than a harmonious factual presentation with the plastic clarity of skillful depiction. So we have the second property of the historiography of Metropolitan Macarius in its artistic and narrative character throughout the entire series. This side perfectly sets off the entire historical structure and is all the more attractive because the author had a special gift for simple, clear and exciting reproduction, not weakened even by the documentary massiveness in many parts. But this advantage reveals that Metropolitan Macarius was actually a scientific narrator and is not so much a scientific commentator, revealing the inner, ideological creativity in historical continuity. Facts, of course, are put together in related groups and are sufficiently motivated by mutual coherence in their external phenomenality, but their concrete existence postulates the innermost driving factors that determine history itself, as a reasonable life development that realizes the highest goals of world progress within certain everyday and chronological frameworks of one or another nationality. Without this internal spring, the simple coupling of mechanisms never produces a harmonious organism with meaningful joint work, which is why stating them is even less able to show in the entire structure the broad expedient suitability that everywhere arises only from deep spiritual impulses. Metropolitan Macarius, undoubtedly assuming the latter, was content more with factual causality and with it he weighed the very reliability of various information and documents, not finding it necessary to extend his criticism beyond this ordinary. Naturally, he accepted and defended the chronicle legend about the Apostle Andrew’s visit to Kyiv, since it contained a motivation for the Christian enlightenment of Rus' that was quite satisfactory in content. True, this was admitted in an early historical work, but even then it was not taken back with complete categoricalness, because for the author himself there was no historiographical compulsion to do so. Over time, the critical element appears more energetically and widely in him, although it remains purely factual even now, limited to an assessment of the immediate applicability of the data of interest for immediate use, which directly assessed historical credibility and eliminated further research. As a result, the third feature of the historiography of Metropolitan Macarius will be the relativity of historical criticism, which was fundamentally satisfied with the actual probability by direct association of events. There was no special flaw here, but only a defective quality of work, which by its very nature could not have been different. In it, everything was kept in mutual factual order and was closed by the latter. In this case, a common beginning was enough to fasten the individual links, like a cord with rings put on it, as Metropolitan Eugene wrote about Metropolitan Plato that he “had beings strung on the bast of chronology without order.” This is the fundamental basis that the taxonomy of the Reverend. Macarius is borrowed from now on and is established on the relationship of the Russian Church to the Constantinople Church in periods - a) dependence of the first, b) its gradual liberation and c) complete independence, and in each of them it 1) has a certain contingent of people in the hierarchy and flock, 2) has its own means in teaching, worship and administration, 3) serves its special purpose in planting the faith of Christ and Christian morality among its own children and 4) has peculiar complications with other Churches and religious societies. The externality of this criterion is obvious already from its complete coincidence with the fourth special heading for all periods; therefore, he is an integral part of them, and not a factor dominating them; by his own essential dignity, he could serve as a measure of Russian church history only on the sole condition that he was its soul, the deprivation of which threatened inevitable death, meanwhile, even in the ancient era of Russian church subordination, he was distant, and in later times did not reveal the historical course of his weakening or absence. But for Metropolitan Macarius this general frame was enough, because the historiographical mosaic was well connected by the actual cohesion of its ingredients and could only be decorated with a more or less impressive frame, and from this side it was difficult to come up with anything more majestic than the picture of a humble daughter reaching the heights of her glorious mother and almost eclipsing her. However, being purely external, the latter property also illuminates in relief the art of a visual and grandiose depiction of the church-historical life of Russia. The external impression of this pictorial reproduction was enchanting and attracted one as close as possible to contemplate and touch directly, when the true quality of each of the mosaic stones was accurately assessed and the strength of their composition was tested. After all, only with the presence of these obligatory virtues did the whole cease to be a deceptive artificiality and retain its constant effectiveness. There was an urgent need for scientific criticism of all particulars and for a strict verification of mutual combinations in historiographic reproduction. This most difficult and often thankless task in its destructiveness fell to the lot of academician Professor E.E. Golubinsky and was heroically accomplished by him in “The History of the Russian Church,” of which the author during his lifetime († January 7, 1904) managed to publish the first volume in two huge books and the equally monumental first half of the next volume, and the second was just beginning to be published under the editorship of S.A. Belokurov; but in its entirety, the entire work covers events up to and including Metropolitan Macarius (1542 - 1563). With his usual decisive and undisguised directness, E. E. Golubinsky, already a venerable scientist, categorically testified about himself: “History comes in three kinds: stupid, taking everything that the past time left us with the name of historical material at face value and therefore telling old wives’ tales; a liar who does not deceive herself, but deceives others, who, for various practical reasons, represents white as black and black as white, blasphemes what is worthy of praise and praises what is worthy of blame, etc.; and the present, which strives to recognize the past as accurately and as thoroughly as possible and then try to reproduce it just as correctly and thoroughly. While allowing those who want and produce to be supporters of stupid or lying history, I, for my part, am an ardent admirer of real history.” The latter “according to its scientific ideal, is a possibly satisfactory reproduction of the past historical life of people - such a reproduction that this historical life stands before us as real, in all its vital liveliness and in all its integral completeness (with that addition against the present - so that with all its meaning).” “This ideal of history requires that the people who make up the succession of hierarchical persons, and in general all historical figures, should be depicted as living people with an individual personal physiognomy and with the individual moral character of each, since in history, like real life, which it reproduces, every person matters only as a living moral personality and since our moral sense seeks to be in living communication with historical people and wants to know whether we should give them honors or pronounce a strict, so-called historical court." This reciprocity with the past entails that “to be a historian is in some respects almost as delicate as to be a publicist. The history of any society cannot be a word of praise or a panegyric, but must be an accurate reproduction of its past life with all the advantages and disadvantages of this latter; otherwise it will lose all its meaning and cease to be history. But speaking about the shortcomings of the past tense, sometimes it is impossible not to capture the present to some extent for the very simple reason that sometimes the past still continues to more or less remain the present. Thus, in some cases, a historian, willy-nilly, becomes a publicist, especially since he is a “living person” who, “talking about the past, cannot completely detach himself from the present.” And here, “allowing for silence, he would be forced to bend his conscience; and as soon as he allows himself to do this, then history is no longer history.” After all, “there is no great sense and no great benefit in portraying ourselves as beautiful in the past with the help of writing and imagination. We should not do this, but something else, so that, having the courage to recognize the past as it was, we should try, in deliberate compensation for it, to become, perhaps, better in the future.” All this in the mouth of E. E. Golubinsky expressed the unconditional demand that a true and honest historian must comprehend and clarify reality with the best accuracy and in its name “cut the truth,” even if it “pricks not in the eyebrow, but right in the eye.” For these purposes, “every history regarding its material - whether it is abundant or scarce - must be subjected to critical processing. The rule of ordinary life: not to believe everything that people say and write has exactly the same application to history; just as nowadays, when preparing material for future history, people, partly out of ignorance, partly out of direct intentions, write about affairs and events that are destined to become the property of history, far from being the only pure truth, so it was in ancient times. In ancient times, according to the conditions of social life at that time, there was still much greater freedom for unintentional and intentional lies; and to this day folk art creates historical legends, but these legends no longer have the opportunity to acquire the significance of historical material... In general, the need for criticism in relation to the material of any history is completely clear and obvious, and no matter how naive that future historian of our time will be who gives complete faith to everything that he receives from us in the form of historical material, we would be just as naive if we treated the material of past history in our hands with similar complete faith. In my study of Russian church history, I set as my deliberate task a critical attitude towards its material.” This means that systematic criticism was the main scientific-historical postulate of E. E. Golubinsky, a conditio sine qua non of the very credibility of any conscientious historical work. This was the main stimulus of the entire scientific achievement and constituted the essential quality of all its results. We can safely say that the scientific history of E. E. Golubinsky is a continuous and complete criticism, which covers absolutely everything, not excluding the last little things like the inscription of the name “Vladimir”, which, according to special research, he proposed to write “Vladimir”. He critically reviewed to the very end the entire baggage of material data and scientific opinions and theories, weighed and evaluated every detail with the most scrupulous care, all judgments and conclusions were documented and inexorably verified. Nothing without the strictest critical testing: this was both the confessional motto and the embodied essence of the scientific church-historical work of E. E. Golubinsky. Unlimited in quantity, such criticism did not allow qualitative restrictions in this direction, not stopping before any authorities of traditional sacredness or universal respect for pious custom and learned reputation. This property is no less decisive and everywhere in the scientific construction of our historian. To illustrate, it is enough to mention that - to the horror of most believers and to the bewilderment of many scientists - E. E. Golubinsky, well aware of this, fearlessly and categorically rejected the chronicle story of the baptism of St. Vladimir and directly declared it a later legend, as if cutting off the roots and hitting the head with the historical beginning of Christianity in Russia... It is clear that with the merciless implementation of the critical method, everything old and accepted, inherited and mined received a new look and unexpected light. This determined the second feature of the scientist - his complete independence and complete originality. All opinions and statements were always formulated by him and expressed only “according to his own sincere convictions.” On this subject, he testified from the objective side that “every history has the hope of being properly developed, not in the case when those working on it put aside concerns about independent research, which is the cause of differences in views, but, on the contrary, in the case when they consider this independent research to be their obligatory task.” As a result, it turned out that the author - in his words - “deviates too much from his predecessors” and sometimes so much that everything is the opposite or even contrary to them, as is especially true regarding the ancient period. All of the above does not exhaust the scientific typicality of E. E. Golubinsky. According to the striking remark of one opponent (Prof. N.I. Subbotin), at his doctoral disputation on December 16, 1880, he “approached the erected solid edifice of history with the heavy hammer of criticism,” unceremoniously knocked all its parts and broke many of them into pieces, crushed entire main stones into powder and let them go to waste. Such an operation would simply be a pogrom, handing over all historical acquisitions to “flow and plunder.” Such barbarism was least consistent with the scientific interests of the historian, but would inevitably triumph if it were not paralyzed by equal opposition. The danger was rooted in excessive criticism, and serious, creative criticism only cleanses the neglected field and pulls out weeds in order to sow good-quality grain on the soil cultivated by it. It is necessary to have more and better of the latter, so that all the work does not come down to the destruction of what is available, even if it is small and weak. New and good building materials are needed in order to evaluate the old ones on their merits, to mutually polish the entire aggregate and from all this processed mass to build a historical church on a critically prepared foundation. To do this, it is necessary to involve abundant factual information and the most documented justification. This side, parallel to the two described and harmoniously in solidarity with them, is furnished by E. E. Golubinsky with rare pomp and amazing splendor. He did not suffer from a vain mania for discoveries in his field and did not strive for them, but everything accessible to science was known to him down to the subtleties of all the main and secondary things that served as the subject of his discussion. The actual competence of this learned recluse was simply amazing on every – even the smallest – issue, and he tried not to say a word without documentary support, out of simple conjecture. In the memory of all his listeners, this professor, who did not care at all about his lecturer success, was preserved with reverent glory that E.E. Golubinsky is historical truth itself, unable to add even a faint sound beyond what is authorized by indisputable factual evidence. And this is his entire “History” in every line, to the extent that such documentation was feasible for learned human self-sacrifice. But E. E. Golubinsky knew well and sharply confirmed the actual insufficiency of Russian sources - especially for the ancient period - and was often left without documentary means in his criticism. In these numerous and important cases, he found scientific salvation in the fact that Church Rus' essentially fed and lived from Byzantium, and therefore had to be explained from it by analogy in all its conditioned and similar elements. Hence, he has the broadest development of related data, deep and detailed study by independent investigation and systematic use of the obtained results in Byzantine studies to illuminate the gloomy historical reality of Russia, as a direct reflection of the Byzantine radiance. E. E. Golubinsky was an independent and learned Byzantinist, who showed here the most competent authority - in addition to the immediate applications to his church-historical needs. And in this last respect, his scientific and creative successes are so great that, for example, he again creates the entire history of church administration in the Kiev period, which is extremely vague in our chronicles, reveals much that was hitherto dark in Russian monasticism and, in general, extremely enriches it with comparative church-archaeological observations, bringing sufficient clarity to all corners where previously it was impossible to walk by touch; even the mute and humming monuments began to speak clearly and clearly. Historical reality was resurrected with vivid clarity. But at the same time, its true historical genesis was actually revealed, serving as the most important element of scientific knowledge and providing it with comprehensiveness. E. E. Golubinsky firmly established and unshakably ensured the dominance of historical criticism in science in general, which he generously enriched over a vast space far beyond the boundaries of the church-historical field. This is his enduring merit, but also his inevitable defectiveness. The venerable historian proceeded from too extreme distrust of all historical sources and, sometimes falling into petty pickiness, missed very large things without the necessary assessment, when, for example, he characterized the church-liturgical and canonical orders of the Kyiv period according to the so-called Charter of Metropolitan George, and Prof. A. S. Pavlov later discovered with certainty that this document was not genuine. E. E. Golubinsky directly turned the human possibility of making mistakes into the actual potential to lie, which is necessarily inherent in all historical materials. This boundless skepticism threatened to undermine all historical authenticity and shook scientific existence itself, since in the name of absolute and therefore empirically non-existent factual certainty, it destroyed in advance all relative reality and was unable to replace or provide for the lack of factual indisputability, which actually never happens anywhere in this world. For the sake of scientific self-preservation, it is necessary to revive the subjectivism of personal suspicion and sophisticated fortune-telling, which are equally disastrous for sober scientific-historical knowledge, even if only conditional. Against these applications that are murderous for science, a great talent is needed, as huge as it is subtle, so that, while purifying false and side effects, one does not severely damage the very core and discovers its natural energy (an example of which is the more careful scientific research of Academician A. A. Shakhmatov). E. E. Golubinsky did not have all the advantages of this rare gift. His critical hammer was not just impressively heavy, but also indiscriminately rough, hitting on its way right and left everything that fell directly to death for simple weakness, depriving it of its very right to exist, always conditional in earthly limitations. In general, his critical side is much higher than his constructive side, for which he had less inclination and ability. The great historian himself avoided great extremes due to the restraining enormity of his phenomenal erudition, and among his successors and successors this danger is eliminated and smoothed over by a healthy instinct of scientific struggle for a threatened and trampled life. In such an ennobled form, the method of E. E. Golubinsky, one might say, reigns in Russian historical science, fertilizes and moves it in progressive development along all lines. Russian church historical literature is extremely rich in valuable monographic works on all branches and more or less important issues. Only the parish white clergy, along with the state influence of the highest hierarchy, which most contributed to the introduction of Christianity into the depths of people's life throughout Russia, has been studied incompletely and insufficiently, as is true regarding the state of the people in history on its religious and church side: in this direction, broad prospects open up and rewarding tasks that promise an objective scientific solution are more accurately outlined. And there are already enough processed works and systematized materials about the Russian Orthodox parish. XII. History of schism and unity of faith A completely independent branch of Russian church-historical knowledge is formed by the history of the Russian schism, which arose in the second half of the 17th century regarding the correction of liturgical books and church rituals carried out by Patriarch Nikon (1652–1658) and finally broke away from the dominant Greek-Russian Orthodox Church since the Great Moscow Council of 1667, when - with the participation of the Patriarchs of Alexandria Paisius (1663–1676 with a break) and Macarius of Antioch (1648–1672) - all supporters of the Old Belief were condemned and excommunicated with decisive “oaths”, as violators of church unity and opponents of the highest church authority. In the church proper and generally in historical terms, this was and remains a phenomenon of enormous importance, consolidating and maintaining a deep and severe division in the entire course of Russian national life. However, both in school teaching and in scientific consideration, the schism was not isolated into an independent area for a long time, except for utilitarian works of a polemic-practical nature and private attempts to collect, describe and systematize various materials. The direct question of the scientific specialization of this subject was raised only in the early 50s of the 19th century, to which time the opening of the corresponding professorial departments at the Theological Academies dates back to. But even in this formulation, the tasks were predominantly polemical, judging even by the official name of this discipline “history and exposure of the Russian schism,” and historical analysis, of course, should have been aimed at best disgracing it. This fundamental view was most convincingly expressed by the metropolitans - Moscow Philaret (Drozdov) and St. Petersburg Grigory (Postnikov), and Macarius (Bulgakov) scientifically developed and substantiated it in a separate historical work, since, wanting to “explain and depict with possible fidelity, clarity and completeness one of the most remarkable and complex events of our church history,” the author sought “to present a historical picture of the schism so that, looking at it, schismatics could clearly see their errors and repent of them, and the Orthodox could receive correct concepts about schism and in these concepts find warnings for themselves against drifting into schism.” Here the latter was previously and fundamentally portrayed as negative in its origin and content, requiring study, moreover, for the sake of condemnation and healing, as rebellious and sick. In its ideological basis, this was a church-philanthropic plan, although it was previously revealed in unusual forms of church-government constraint, sometimes almost persecution, especially from the secular authorities, which forced the church authorities to do the same. In comparison with this aggravated state of affairs, the new turn was illuminated by glimpses of humane science, but then there was an era of emerging platonic sentimental “populism”, which idealized with fanaticism and enthusiasm everything “folk” in all the distinctive qualities of being and worldview. It was an exalted cult of the people, who were considered “humiliated and insulted” in their very shortcomings, for the latter were declared simply reflexes of popular oppression and necessary self-defense. Since the schism – in the overwhelming majority – continued to be exclusively a “popular faith,” it naturally received the partial sympathy of the “populists” in spite of and in opposition to the official discrediting of it. The fiery embodiment of this sentiment was the Kazan professor A.P. Shchapov, who back in 1857, in his master’s thesis, strongly supported and argued the thesis that the schism was actually a broad popular protest against the contemporary state of the Church, the state, and society. If here he was nevertheless condemned for church backwardness and inert ignorance, then after A.P. Shchapov dispelled this shadow, proclaiming that the schism represented “the communal opposition of the tax-paying zemstvo to the entire state system - church and civil, the denial by the masses of the Greek-Eastern, Nikonian church and state, or the All-Russian empire, with its foreign German ranks and institutions.” Church-ritual attachment now turned out to be only a historically conditioned, external form for the internal popular impulse for independence and identity, which directed the people's soul to deep self-knowledge and objective self-justification, why among the populist writers (I. Yuzov [I. I. Kablitz], A. S. Prugavin, V. V. Andreev, Ya. V. Abramov) led by the learned historian prof. N. I. Kostomarov began to portray the schism as a “major phenomenon of mental progress”, “an educational element for the common people” with “national educational significance for him.” It is inevitable that with such extreme exaggeration, the traditional interpretation also acquired a sharp formulation that the schism is a dead fossil of dark antiquity, detached from the historical movement, slowing it down and harmful to it to the point of irreconcilable hostility. Church-theological schism studies were faced with an equally rewarding and equally difficult task - to free the matter from tendentious artificiality and impart strictly documentary objectivism to the study. Naturally, church science, starting from the church-conciliar verdict, looked at the schism as a deviation from Catholic truth, deserving of exposure and correction. The animated and talented bearer of this mission was the Moscow professor N.I. Subbotin, who energetically and successfully carried it out both in various scientific works and in his special journal “Brotherly Word”, where over the 18 years of publication (1875–1876, 1883–1899) many monuments and all kinds of messages important for the history of the schism were published, as well as in a practical way - through the “Brotherhood of St. Peter the Metropolitan" (1308–1325 in Vladimir, 1325–1326 in Moscow) and similar provincial institutions of this kind and at the missionary congresses organized by him, which in his “spirit and strength” met periodically until the “revolution.” N.I.’s closest collaborator Subbotin was smart, persistent and well aware of his former significance in the schism, the Edinoverie Archimandrite Pavel, nicknamed Prussian, but gradually a large circle of students, imitators and successors was formed, who served the same purpose in the journal and publishing field (in St. Petersburg “Missionary Review” by V. M. Skvortsov since 1896, in Ryazan "Missionary collection" from 1891). Much in the works of N. I. Subbotin was historical both in its value and in convention, and the scientific importance of both his most important scientific works and his carefully collected and critically published “Materials for the history of the schism during the first period of its existence” (I-IX vols. Moscow 1864 - 1895) is quite indisputable. Kazan professor N.I. Ivanovsky, who was also known for his energetic and extensive missionary and educational activities, belonged to this movement and was inspired by its principles. St. Petersburg professor I.F. was more committed to historical-subject study. Nilsky, but he always has a noticeable practical polemical application in the most important studies, as is undoubtedly the case for Professor A. I. Predtechensky’s book “On the Necessity of the Priesthood against the Priestless” (St. Petersburg, 1861) and for N. I. Ivanovsky’s doctoral dissertation on the analysis of the teachings of the Old Believers who did not accept the priesthood about the Church and the sacraments. However, a purely historical method gradually took hold, where denunciation is resolved by stating the fact that in the schism we find a “self-divided kingdom” with doctrinal vagueness and sectarian fragmentation in the absence of a fundamentally dogmatic support for its denunciation against the ruling Church. The representative of this healthy scientific view is Petrograd professor P. S. Smirnov, who focused special attention on the study of predominantly internal factors in the history of the schism. Along with this, a living current of a scientific-critical nature breaks through with many overtones of “populist” tendentiousness (but without its ideology and justifications), which undermines the historically valuable works of the Moscow professor N.F. Kapterev, and a deeper objectivity, although not alien to polemical exaggerations, imprints the treatises of academician prof. E. E. Golubinsky, collected in a book entitled “On our polemic with the Old Believers” (Moscow, 1905). In accordance with this scientific evolution, although much slower, there was a change in the legal status of the Old Believers, for which previous government measures were gradually softened (see the publications of D. F. Khartulari and the Department of General Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the very unstendentious book of V. I. Yasevich-Borodayevskaya), and then the May laws of 1909 eliminated all restrictions to the detriment of the ruling Church (see N. D. Kuznetsov and Prof. I.S. Berdnikov), immediately after the Russian “revolution” of 1917, deprived of any shadow of privilege, finally completely transformed into outright persecuted... However, this legal metamorphosis in the civil state of schism was not dangerous for the science of it and, rather, opened up vast horizons for the free development of the subject without the former external constraints and timid precautions. In any case, scientific schism studies could follow the path of historical-critical research and has a fairly rich monographic literature, summing up the results both for pedagogical purposes in good teaching aids (K.N. Plotnikov, professors N.I. Ivanovsky and P.S. Smirnov), and to provide new constructions on the most controversial issues (for example, Prof. V. Z. Belolikov on the origin, essence and meaning of Russian split of the Old Believers). At the same time, monuments that are especially important for the Old Believers are considered (the so-called “Cyril’s Book” by bachelor A.I. Lilov), entire historical periods, individual significant facts and episodes are reviewed, church-dogmatic and historical features are revealed in connection with the development of schismatic trends and interpretations, the local spread and unique nature of the schism in different regions, outstanding schismatic and Orthodox figures, etc. are discussed. The Orthodox Church has always considered the schism to be a breakaway branch of its own and therefore naturally tried to graft it into the living tree of universal Orthodoxy. This was met by long-standing quests among some prominent Old Believers, who did not see insurmountable sufficient reasons for such a harmful division and defended only their well-known ritual peculiarity, which - under such conditions - could not interfere with unity in faith and Christian life under the leadership of the Orthodox hierarchy. These temporary mutual attractions received on October 27, 1800, under the Moscow Metropolitan Platon (Levshin) (1787 - November 11, 1812) the official sanction of Emperor Paul I, since which time the common faith of the Old Believers with Orthodoxy has existed in Russia on the condition of receiving the legal priesthood from the second and while preserving the ritual difference, although without acknowledging its dogmatic importance. At the beginning, too much hope was pinned on this original institution of a union nature, but their excessive exaggeration was shown by a far from brilliant history (see the works of Prof. N.I. Petrov, Fr. V.I. Zhmakin, M.V. Semenovsky, Prof. P.S. Smirnov, Fr. M.P. Cheltsov). There were no life-giving data for blessed success, for with external unity there was no internal unity. The Orthodox saw in Edinoverie a convenient bridge to the transition to the ruling Church of the entire schism and directed it against the latter (see E. E. Lebedev), which is why it was for these purposes that they tolerated the Old Ritualism, but in essence denied it and condemned this archaic antiquity for its actual irrationality and for its fanatical adherence to it. In turn, the co-religionists thought quite the opposite and, like “Old Orthodox Believers,” not involved in any church “innovations,” gradually strove for church-ritual and government-hierarchical isolation, which they partially achieved with the opening of the independent Okhten bishopric in Petrograd in early June 1918 and with the assumption of such in various co-religionist-schismatic centers... Hence, the question inevitably arose further about the The Orthodox Greek-Russian Church, how fair it is in its “corrections” - and the answer in the depths of the coreligionist conscience was hardly ever completely favorable... This was dramatically revealed in 1873-1874. during an open discussion of the issue “about the needs of co-religion” in the St. Petersburg “Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment”, when the zealous Greekophile and schismatic apologist T. I. Fillipov, on behalf of co-religionists, made direct accusations against Orthodoxy, but it was no less clearly manifested even at the convened St. Synod in January 1912 of the “First All-Russian Congress of Co-religionists,” where fundamental disagreements between the most typical representatives of both sides were reflected (see the publication of his works: “The First All-Russian Congress of Orthodox Old Believers.” St. Petersburg, 1912). Edinoverie wants to be a special Orthodoxy (and, of course, better than that preserved in the dominant Church) and, together with schismatics, giving fundamental force to its rituals, it demands the abolition of “oaths” on them (see Father S.I. Shleev “On the destruction of the conciliar oaths of 1656 and 1667”), despite the fact that the Orthodox categorically testify (even with their lips Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret in the treatise “Explanation of the curse laid down by the Council of 1667” in “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers”, 1855, Part XIV), that they are imposed only on ritual resistance with blasphemy against the Orthodox faith, as damaged Nikonian. All books about. S.I. Shleev (later the Edinoverie Bishop of Okhtensky Simon), which are devoid of objective scientific value, although they contain a lot of systematized material. There are two respectable academic dissertations on the scientific history of Edinoverie - for the preparatory period for Edinoverie by prof. V. 3. Belolikova about the monk Nikodim, and for his later fate - in the work of prof. N.V. Lysogorsky about Edinoverie on the Don in the 18th-19th centuries. XIII. History of the Slavic and Romanian Churches Russian theological church-historical science, expanding its horizons to the entire Orthodox East and heterodox West, naturally could not leave its searching attention to peoples of the same faith and tribes, and in the Petrograd Theological Academy from the 80s of the 19th century (actually from 1885) there was a special department on the history of the Orthodox Slavic Churches (with the inclusion of the Romanian one), introduced then (according to the charter of 1910) and in all other Academies. The general and main foundation in this area is still the work of academician prof. E. E. Golubinsky about the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, or Moldo-Vlachian Churches, gradually replenished with individual monographs - private and general (see the publication of Prof. A. P. Lopukhin “History of the Christian Church in the 19th century.” T. I. Petrograd, 1901, about the Bulgarian, Montenegrin, Serbian and Romanian Churches; Prof. A. I. Aleksandrov [Bishop Anastasia] “Political and church life of the Slavs”, 1911; Prof. T. I. Butkevich “Higher government in the Orthodox autocephalous Churches”, 1913; cf. Regarding Bulgaria, the works of, for example, academician prof. I. S. Palmova and prof. N. L. Tunitsky, as well as various monographs (Prof. N. I. Petrova, Prof. F. A. Kurganov, Prof. I. E. Troitsky, V. A. Teplov; cf. Bishop Feofan) about the Greek-Bulgarian church schism, which Russian science is trying to illuminate in the spirit of reconciliation (see, for example, Prof. G. A. Voskresensky). The studies and sketches of Archpriest M.P. are useful about Serbia. Chelydova and prof. I. S. Palmov, his own about Montenegro, about Austria-Hungary - V. P. Mordvinova, prof. G. A. Voskresensky, Fr. D. N. Jakšić, especially about the Czech Republic - extensive works by prof. I. S. Palmova, about Romania - research by V. V. Kolokoltsev, prof. F.A. Kurganov, Metropolitan Arseniy (Stadnitsky), N.V. Pashkov (“Papism and the present position of the Church in the Kingdom of Romania.” Kyiv, 1884; “Dark period in the history of Romania: the political and religious fate of the Romanians in the territory they occupied before the formation of the Moldavian and Wallachian states.” Chisinau, 1886) and for Moldova - Metropolitan. Arseny (Stadnitsky). General character of Russian church historiography As can be seen from the presented review, Russian church-historical science both deepens and expands on an enormous scale, but at the same time it never loses its fundamental ground, but always and everywhere seeks higher justifications for all its content - both in the great and in the small. The most important and general idea is the idea of ​​​​Divine Providence in history, which is directed by him towards Christian perfection both in the entire composition of humanity, and in its best bearers in terms of their historical position and spiritual-intellectual aspirations and successes. Along with this, more specific principles are also formulated. More about. A.V. Gorsky intended to consider church-historical life by discovering in it the actions of the Holy Trinity - God the Father (in the spread of Christianity, the firmness of martyrs, victorious apologetics in relation to paganism), God the Son (in teaching, worship and hierarchy) and God the Holy Spirit (in the moral and practical sphere of the implementation of Christian ideals of good and truth). Prof. V.V. Bolotov said that “history does not pretend to be the metropolis of philosophy, although it is its first stage,” for which he tried to proceed from a philological and theoretical analysis of the very concept of “Church.” Prof. B. M. Melioransky not only explained “the philosophical constructions of the triadological dogma (and its analogies) before the court of the Orthodox view and the philosophy of criticism,” but no less decisively stated “the philosophical side of iconoclasm.” E. E. Golubinsky constantly had before him the “ideal of history” as a measure of his scientific research and critical conclusions, guided by the “concept of the Church in itself” even when highlighting the destinies of the Russian Church specifically, and a later worker in this field (A. V. Kartashev) predicted and expected in the future “the philosophy of the history of the Russian Church”. XIV. Church (canon) law The Church, realizing itself in the world, introduces its own norms, according to which it establishes and regulates a typically Christian life, different from any other in its very structure. It is clear that it has its own obligatory and natural normalizing factors with corresponding reflections in concrete. This is how an ecclesiastical legal order arises, which, due to its decisive importance, requires a specially scientific, historical and theoretical consideration, and for ecclesiastical legal life this will be church law. The latter became completely independent in academic teaching only under the charter of 1884. as a compulsory science for all students; in universities, only according to the charter of 1884, “church jurisprudence” was introduced in law faculties. Despite such late scientific recognition, it is this subject that has the largest number of sufficiently completed special manuals of authoritative origin, but there is no completely consistent solution to even some basic issues. There was considerable hesitation in the very designation of the science, which at first was called “ecclesiastical jurisprudence” and focused primarily on the commentary and coherent presentation of “church laws,” mainly of a special canonical nature, which is why it acquired an overly theological character (Archim. Gabriel: “Church law is theology revealed in laws and legal, especially ritual and sacramental actions that make up the visible life of the Church”). Subsequently, the qualification “ecclesiastical law” with its knowledge in “ecclesiastical jurisprudence” (Arch. Gabriel) prevailed, but it also allowed for such different understandings that, for example, in the academic charter of 1884 the science itself is noted under this name (§ 100, paragraph 7), and those who received the highest academic degree in it are called doctors of “canon law” (§ 141). Meanwhile, in principle there is a significant difference, for “canon law” is limited to the area of ​​“canonical”, or actually ecclesiastical (in origin and nature), norms that relate entirely to the ecclesiastical sphere; whereas “church law” theoretically presupposes the entire set of legal prerogatives that the Church possesses and which it can implement in all areas of its life in the world according to the dignity of a “legal entity.” However, in practice, this difference did not lead to fundamental differences, since all disciplines take the church canons as a common foundation, which is why further only constructive differentiations result. Much more noticeable and important is another feature that - legally understood - the Church becomes a legal institution as a “society organized canonically and legally,” and for it church law is conceived as a purely legal science, discussing jus not divinum, but humanum in the legal side of the church system and subject to all logical operations on an equal basis with all other legal specialties (Prof. Fr. M. I. Gorchakov). With such a view, the originality of the “church rights” themselves in their legal codification and in actual historical life - in origin and development - is inevitably undermined. In these interests, Prof. P.A. Lashkarev tried to scientifically argue that all “the law of our Church, formed on the basis of the Greco-Roman and partly, perhaps, Byzantine, is a product of the so-called ancient civilization, which is sharply different from the modern civilization of European peoples, is a product of ancient life and science,” for “on the initiative of Emperor Constantine, Christianity forever turned into the national religion of Rome, received all the rights that the Romans enjoyed as a national religion in the state and civil." Hence, it is natural that for the sake of the canons, the author, in a special work, reveals “the attitude of the Roman state to religion in general and to Christianity in particular.” As a result, “church rights” turn out to be simply an adaptive modification of old religious-legal norms, which in their depth are devoid of specifically Christian independence and, of course, are alien to any confessional naturalness. From here it absolutely inevitably follows that with such a view, Orthodox church law cannot radically diverge from any other church law. At this point, prof. N. S. Suvorov with his system, in which the rights of all Christian churches are drawn as parallel, since these are only branches of a single universal Church, which has broken up into well-known large confessional groups, which through it have a common root. This means that their law is also essentially the same and, varying and becoming more complicated according to confessional trends, goes back to the same primary source, and continues to retain its original typical character. But if there was an imperial application and further development of state laws on subjects of faith, then even now the monarch or the head of state in general is a “church-structured factor” and the “supreme subject of legal formation” in the Church, as the author was forced to this result by the overly legal understanding of the latter, almost directly merging it with the state and seeing in it primarily a legal entity, subject more to legal study. Such an “imperialistic” concept was greatly served by the overly exaggerated praises of enthusiastic Byzantines about the predominant role of the Byzantine “basileus” in church legislation and administration, where they acquired the rightful dignity of decisive stewards. The first thesis has rather an archaeological and genealogical meaning, since Orthodox church law in any system was actually isolated and specialized scientifically. But the second retained its living, immediate effectiveness, and, persistently pursuing it in his scientific works, Prof. N. S. Suvorov passionately, although lonely, defended this formula in his abstracts and discussions at the Pre-Conciliar Presence of 1905–1906. This theory is undoubted in its originality and is rightly noted (by Prof. P. E. Kazansky) when considering the issue under discussion, but it did not have an impact and did not meet with approval. On the contrary, they categorically oppose that “the connection in the person of the All-Russian Emperor of the highest state and church power is a historical heritage from the ideas of natural law,” and “in Russian legislation it found an expression that at present can have neither theoretical nor practical justification,” “the beginning of the connection in the person of the sovereign of the country of state and church power, which appeared as a result of the dominance of a doctrine that did not generally recognize the freedom of the individual from the imperious state care in any whatever the region, must disappear” due to the conviction that “religion constitutes an absolutely forbidden area for state rule”, which “extends to the autonomous region of the Church, but does not penetrate there”, why “in a law-governed state there must be a law-based Church” (Prof. E. N. Temnikovsky). In the same way - contrary to the legal interpretation - it is fundamentally stated in relation to the Church that here “power is a force arising from the feeling of dependence of believers on the dominant and guiding Church of the Holy Spirit” (see Prof. P.V. Gidulyanov). From this side, every civil ruler is completely equal to all subordinates and cannot be a church-binding factor for them. For these reasons, even at the Pre-Conciliar Presence, it was argued that the monarch acts in the Church not by any special right over it, but only as the most powerful member among his fellows, who, by his Christian subordination, is naturally encouraged to promote church prosperity and protect church prerogatives with all available means of his position and influence (Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky). As a result, we find that whatever the actual supremacy of state power in the ecclesiastical sphere may sometimes be, it has always been and will be a usurpation of despotic seizure or “historical necessity”; in essence, any ecclesiastical rule of state elements must be a service for the benefit of the Church through the concrete implementation of its Divine right, which belongs to it inalienably and entirely (cf. Matt. 20:26–27; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43–44). In this form and the indisputable facts of the former historical supremacy of state bodies, on which cases the construction of prof. N. S. Suvorov, lose their exceptional sharpness, since they irresistibly refer to perfect church autonomy in their own legal structure and special legislation, where strictly canonical principles invariably dominate. On this basis, all currents of the Russian canon are reconciled, since the Church itself is accepted everywhere as the last subject of canonical legal formation by virtue of the Divine power naturally inherent in it. Therefore, there is already complete unanimity. In our canonical science we do not find the slightest echo of the extreme view of the Leipzig professor Rudolf Som, that the idea of ​​law is absolutely alien to the nature of the Church and, through empirical humiliation, distorts it internally, which Berlin professor Adolf Harnack energetically opposed, not to mention the decisive protests of Russian specialists (Prof. N. A. Zaozersky). Tendentious modernistic and vulgar polemical attacks of this kind in our general literature are devoid of minimal seriousness and rest (even in Count L.N. Tolstoy) on a primitive confusion of the Church with the Kingdom of God, which is on the way to achieving the Kingdom of God and the Father, when “God will be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), is revealed historically precisely in the Church, gradually taking possession of the universe and establishing its own order among cosmic conditions, where religious and moral truth is embodied in the right of life, obligatory for everyone according to its moral and divine authority. Otherwise, with only ethical soaring, the Church would find itself hanging in the air without a solid real foundation, and it “would have to come out of this world” (1 Cor. 5:10) contrary to the essential requirements of its saving mission in the midst of our earthly existence. Therefore, for example, prof. M. A. Ostroumov, intending to build his course on the principle of love, recognizes and develops “Orthodox church law.” Then the latter, differing from state norms, will certainly contain a legal element (Prof. M.E. Krasnozhen), because without it there is no law, but there is simply moral reciprocity or lawless hostility. The difference consists only in the dosage of the participation of this legal factor in the complex of the Church, and sometimes excessive expansion is allowed. In principle, everyone attests to the legal qualification of the current Orthodox Church law, although at the same time the Church is understood (by Prof. P. V. Gidulyanov) “in the sense of the house of God,” or “spiritual family union, the head of which is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself,” why there “everything is based on the subordination to the will of God” of “individuals bound by a sense of common dependence (on it)” upon their sonship to God the Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit. Because of this, the special nature of church law in the divinity that belongs to it is no less decisively proclaimed, and for it a Divine source is necessary for the very origin of ecclesiastical legal capacity with its inherent “fundamental principles” (Prof. I. S. Berdnikov). Together with the Church itself, such a source will be contained in the teaching and work of Christ, revealed by the didactic and practical exploits of St. apostles But all these Divine data were cast into specific legal forms, adapted to historical functioning, in the consistent codification of church authorities and Councils, which embodied traditional dogmas into legal norms for honest application in local Churches throughout all subsequent centuries. For this reason, ancient church legislation, including the era of the Ecumenical Councils, is revered in the Orthodox canon as valid law, and the canon is apodictically said to be “alive and life-giving” (hieromonk Mikhail Semenov). The “Book of Rules” remains to this day a normative code both in the Russian Church and in canonical science, which served as the best edition (by the Moscow “Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment”) of the “Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and Holy Fathers.” In Russian theology, church law is placed on a broad ideological basis and successfully develops in depth, and in the future it is directed towards enrichment with new materials and documentary verification, when fundamental creativity will follow in parallel with this. If Christianity is the grace-filled life of the unity of believers with the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, then it should be expressed by the living interaction of Christians with God, sanctified by the sacraments and reinforced by prayers in deliberately chosen places, alien to everyday use. This is as much a natural and inevitable manifestation of Christian existence itself, as it is a direct commandment and a decisive apostolic rule, which does not allow believers to evade participation in liturgical meetings (Heb. X, 25). Hence, in the Church, the primordial existence of the latter in specially adapted buildings or churches, but in this case the systematic study of these areas with the formation of special sciences - liturgics and Christian (church) archeology - is understandable. According to the indicated connection, their long-standing and magnificent development would be expected, but in fact in Russia it was quite the opposite. In 1886 prof. Al. P. Lebedev stated that in the theological and scientific cycle it was “the most abandoned science, the most unfortunate stepdaughter,” and prof. A. A. Dmitrievsky called her “poor”; in 1898, prof. A.I. Almazov classified these disciplines “as extremely poorly developed sciences,” and even in 1907–1908. prof. N.V. Pokrovsky proclaimed them new and still young. This sad circumstance is explained by the fact that both of these specialties have long been considered practically applied, serving for the edifying interpretation of church and liturgical rites with all the material and economic accessories. The first was accepted and considered here in the finished form of some motionless fossil and in this form was, as it were, dogmatized, since by its antiquity it was necessarily traced back to the apostolic source in all its main elements. Historical genesis was either completely denied, or was barely allowed for random illustrations of what was frozen in stereotypical integrity. It is natural that without the disclosure of historical development there could be no objective understanding of the true nature, without which correct comprehension and correct interpretation, which are replaced by scholastic symbolism, are unthinkable. As a result, both liturgics and church archeology turned out to be completely dead and deprived of all vitality for their own growth and corresponding influence. This situation was inevitable by its very nature and therefore prevailed almost to the point of complete dominance without hope of radical improvement, for private successes and the intense efforts of rare workers did not help the matter while it continued to be in the lethargic hibernation of forced and encouraged sleep. There was necessarily a saving awakening with the creation of a favorable atmosphere so that the revived organisms would become stronger internally and function energetically with cheerful confidence and bright prospects. This era begins with the blessed academic charter of 1869, which decreed a full-time department of “ecclesiastical archeology and liturgics” with the dignity of equal subjects in the scientific and theological system. This period opens fruitful growth for them and from here comes the actual history, although - due to its short duration - the latter is still exhausted more by individual individual exploits than by the progress of the disciplines themselves, which is why an informative review should be resolved by the actual characteristics of the main representatives and the list of their works. Liturgics in its previous structure was so tightly guarded that it fettered all attempts at internal mastery. With partial modifications by various builders in this area, there were not even bold breakthroughs towards decisive reform. Only the great prophet of the new Russian theology - the unforgettable professor and rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Fr. A.V. Gorsky - called (according to A.L. Katansky) for a deep study of “Orthodox worship, which represents the flower and fruit of the tree of life of the Church of Christ.” But it was destined to take root on Russian scientific soil only in the 70s of the 19th century. However, now liturgics took second place in the academic course compared to church archeology and could be independently cultivated solely by the amateur choice of a specialist - right up to the latest changes (dated July 29, 1911) of the academic charter, when an independent compulsory department was established for it. Fortunately, there were diligent and talented workers in the academic environment who accepted the rudimentary premonitions of their few predecessors (Prof. V.I. Dolotsky, Prof. A.L. Katansky), but only Prof. I. D. Mansvetov was a fundamental reformer of liturgics and became the actual founder of its scientific existence. He firmly argued that in liturgical research it is necessary to go back to the original grain, from which the entire further liturgical system gradually developed, either by organic growth according to internal impulses, or by mechanical stratification due to random external reasons. Along with the historical restoration of liturgical rites and rituals, it naturally resulted in a strictly “historical explanation of rituals,” as the treatise on “liturgy” by Prof. A. P. Golubtsova. Obviously, with such a construction, a genetic study of the main parts was necessary in advance in order to recreate an organic whole from them. Science expected, first of all, private development, which was carried out with excellent success by Prof. I. D. Mansvetov, who knew how to harmoniously combine detailed analysis with broad synthesis, moving from a certain bright center to the foggy peripheries. But having enriched, provided and advanced scientific knowledge in its field, I. D. Mansvetov’s research irresistibly revealed the urgent need to attract and review new materials. This responsible service was carried out with great and fruitful zeal by another liturgical specialist, Prof. N. F. Krasnoseltsev, who left behind an abundant and valuable scientific contribution. However, only the latter’s student, prof. A. A. Dmitrievsky, is actually the successor to the gifts and works of I. D. Mansvetov. This is the best and most competent liturgist in Russia, who has deservedly earned the name of “Russian Gohar” with colossal, beautifully annotated publications and is known for many other major works. These luminaries of Russian liturgical science are in one way or another joined by all its other figures, of whom Prof. A.P. Golubtsov, who especially stands out for his documentary works about “cathedral” services. Of the private issues, Typikon was the most fortunate (Prof. M. N. Skaballanovich, Archpriest M. A. Lisitsyn, Prof. I. A. Karabinov, Archpriest K. S. Kekelidze). Prof. A.P. Golubtsov testified in 1889: “The word of scientific evaluation will always be lower than those living, immediate impressions that the liturgical service gives by itself and with which we have become familiar thanks to the influence of our upbringing, family traditions and religious ideas. And modern liturgical science strives only to elevate our reverent, but sometimes unconscious respect for church rites to the level of its historical understanding and conscious attitude towards it.” These expert statements correctly characterize the scientific ideals of Russian liturgists and are successfully fulfilled by them in the interests of general scientific progress. XVI. Ecclesiastical archeology In addition, church archeology is also being directed, although not as widely. Its adherents say that it is “almost the youngest in terms of the time of its birth, in terms of the degree of processing and systematization”, “it is still groping through some departments and has not yet had the opportunity to get out on a straight and well-traveled road” due to the “lack of a strictly developed method and precise criteria for the scientific assessment of existing data”, and even about the “archaeological monument” an indisputable concept has not been formulated, while without all this a systematic formulation is unthinkable archeology as a science, etc. If these disappointing revelations of the competent professor A.P. Golubtsov are correct for church archaeological knowledge in general, then for Russia they are purely undoubted, because here the discipline under discussion was previously directly driven into theology, serving as an addition to the applied science of liturgics and being a kind of addendis superaddendum. She limited herself to considering the church and its accessories as a setting for worship and actually tried to illustrate the latter, relying almost exclusively on literary evidence. Therefore, its content was a rather strange mixtum compositum of sometimes completely alien matters, embracing (in the first quarter of the 19th century) information about sacred persons, times, places, sacred actions, church government, sacred clothes and liturgical books, and our indisputable and profound sage, far from being for his only age and fatherland - Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (Drozdov) - back in 1860. He had a dislike for this science and referred to it questions about the rights of metropolitans and the title “exarch”. Even Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), who clearly understood the difference in the tasks of church archeology and liturgics, categorically stated (in the “Introduction”) that “with great benefit, both of these sciences are combined into one, which first shows the origin and history of each sacred rite, and then its meaning and real use; from here there is a benefit for these sciences themselves, which thus become one another’s complement, reinforcement and explanation,” so that they “can very conveniently be presented together under one general name of Liturgics, or the Doctrine of Divine Worship.” This completely erased any individuality of church archeology, which was deprived of the very roots for its growth, and in the scientific and theological field this discipline was approved only by the academic charter of 1869 and developed in connection with its progress in Russia, encouraged at regularly repeated (from March 19, 1869) archaeological congresses, at the first of which they authoritatively petitioned for a special spiritual and academic teaching of this subject by a separate professor and even about introducing it into the course of Theological Seminaries (Prof. F.I. Buslaev). At the same time, its content was precisely and firmly defined, that this science operates primarily with material monuments. But even now there were many obstacles to its prosperity on theological grounds. The West has so far been richer in materials, plans and fortune-telling than in clear results and important provisions. The use of foreign scientific acquisitions in Orthodox theology was all the more doubtful because Orthodox eastern monuments were hardly touched upon or comprehended there, and perhaps they were not even aware of Russian ones at all. However, it was an indisputable truth that “it is impossible to understand the meaning of the current church rite and determine the nature of the art that once existed among us (in Rus') except in connection with the church and partly political life of medieval Greece,” why “this task lies with the special responsibility of our (Russian church-archaeological) science and constitutes a significant difference in its formulation in comparison with the Western school” (Prof. A. P. Golubtsov). Russian theological innovators immediately fell into the unbearable burden of developing completely virgin soil, but in this regard, back in the late 60s (at the first archaeological congress in Moscow on March 19, 1869) prof. P. S. Kazansky quite reasonably said that “archeology is a science for rich people, or at least wealthy people.” Under such difficult conditions, Russian church archeology emerged with honor from such great difficulties and achieved in theology that, according to the academic charter amended on July 29, 1911, it received an independent department with a special teacher, obligatory for all students. Despite all this, she did not interrupt traditional ties with liturgy, continuing to profess that “a church archaeologist deals with two categories of data, namely: with the forms of church worship (i.e., cult) and partly of ancient Christian life. The concept of church cult includes two sides: liturgical, that is, various forms of liturgical rites in their historical development, and monumental - those material means that make up the setting and material of liturgical actions, that is, the church as an architectural whole, with all the devices related to worship, church painting, clothes, utensils and all material liturgical accessories in general; the task of the first part is to present the history of church rites, the task of the second is to present the history of church art, at least in its main branches” (Prof. A. P. Golubtsov). Of course, from a fundamental point of view, such a limitation of the sphere of “Christian” art to “ecclesiastical” art is narrow, but for theology it is normal and did not prevent church archeology from providing considerable service to general scientific knowledge, although it still has only one major name as an integral specialist. The problem here was to, having assimilated the best Western successes, apply them to the direct study of Byzantine and Russian ecclesiastical archaeological monuments, and then create our own system for interpreting the course and meaning of church art. Of course, this required a preparatory period, during which, rather, only fundamental theoretical adaptations to new theological goals using old materials were possible. First of all, all private church-archaeological works are inclined towards this, either perceiving and processing Western results, or introducing their own observations and additions. These include the solid excursions of Professor N.F. Krasnoseltsev. Equally great care is distinguished by thorough studies of a similar nature and prof. A. P. Golubtsova. But the actual special and authoritative figure of Russian church archeology in the theological world was the professor of the Petrograd Theological Academy and director of the Petrograd Archaeological Institute N.V. Pokrovsky, who was the first worker in this scientific field in Russia and remained here in the same size until the end of his days († March 8, 1917). Having studied and perceived everything important in the West directly, he was well acquainted with Byzantium and Athos, and in his homeland he knew perfectly well all the valuable church-archaeological monuments, which he himself often attracted to scientific attention, described and commented on, and added to the documentary reserves of his discipline. But N.V. Pokrovsky discovered the widest scope and boldest concept in his major doctoral dissertation on the Gospel in iconographic monuments, mainly Byzantine and Russian, where huge and heterogeneous material - iconographic, literary-exegetical, legendary-apocryphal and scientific-theoretical - acquired a holistic unification and rich interpretation in historical and ideological terms. Possessing enormous information, verified through his own observations and considerations, N.V. Pokrovsky considered himself entitled to popularize ecclesiastical archaeological knowledge in publicly available manuals, and finally (in 1916) published an effective textbook on ecclesiastical archeology in connection with the history of Christian art. N.V. Pokrovsky created and established church archaeological science on a theological basis and undoubtedly moved it forward regarding Byzantine and especially Russian monuments. Here he himself found a lot, brought it to light and put it into scientific use with enormous scientific weapons, ensuring an integral place in the scientific apparatus. The deceased was an ardent champion of church-archaeological studies and indicated the closest theological interest for them, authoritatively testifying that “in the monuments of (church) fine art, the people’s soul, the people’s church mood are expressed, the idea of ​​​​Orthodoxy is expressed in the usual forms of popular education.” Through this, church archeology achieved fundamental support in theology and received all the resources for successful development in this special atmosphere. It must, however, be categorically stated that this discipline flourished much more magnificently outside the latter and has a wider panorama there, captures and illuminates more extensive horizons, where it itself is outlined much more clearly and comprehensively. At the head of this movement was its leader, academician-professor N.P. Kondakov, who, with the dignity of a generally recognized patriarch, combined inexhaustible productivity and the captivating infectiousness of excitement, encouragement, and inspiration. His works, especially devoted to Christian iconography and Byzantine and Old Russian Christian art, are almost innumerable in quantity and valuable in terms of immediate importance and the most diverse scientific impact. In them, a subject - sometimes private, even small in appearance - is always taken and considered in connection with general cultural problems and resolved in the name of the latter, and therefore from here fundamental scientific results for large historical eras and entire branches of knowledge are substantiated. The church-archaeological analysis of N.P. Kondakov is such that its threads extend to the East and West, are intertwined in Byzantium with ancient Greek ones and are peculiarly intertwined in Russian branches. Later works are recorded on iconography, which this learned luminary served significantly and practically, by establishing rationally organized icon-painting schools and organizing (in 1901) the “Highly Established Committee of Trusteeship of Russian Iconography,” contributing to this with methodological explanations and major publications. Many forces participate in this great cultural-scientific work (for example, Prof. Yu. A. Kulakovsky and Academician V. V. Latyshev on Christian monuments and inscriptions in the south of Russia), mainly from the host of members of the brilliant school (in the broad sense) of N. P. Kondakov (Professors E. K. Redin, D. V. Ainalov, B. A. Turaev, academicians: Prof. N. Ya. Marr, Ya. I. Smirnov, Prof. M. I. Rostovtsev, Prof. S. A. Zhebelev) with their documentary research and scientific research. To complete the review of Russian theology based on its literary discoveries, we should note that there are already solid experiences of combining the results achieved by it, which is especially served by the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia” published (in 1900–1911) in St. Petersburg (Petrograd); so far it has been published in twelve volumes: the first five (based on the words “Alfa-Ifika”), edited by prof. A.P. Lopukhin is more popular and the next seven (to the words “Iavan-Constantinople”), edited by prof. N. N. Glubokovsky on the widest and highest scientific scale. In conclusion, it is necessary to mention also the timely “spiritual” publications, of which there were quite a lot in Russia, not counting local church organs (usually published in each diocese under the name “Diocesan Gazette”). The most respectable and influential were four academic journals: at the Petrograd Theological Academy “Christian Reading” (since 1821, and in 1875–1913 together with the weekly magazine “Church Bulletin”); at the Moscow “Additions to the Works of St. Fathers" (1843–1864, 1871, 1872, 1880–1891), transformed (since 1892) into the “Theological Bulletin”; under the Kievskaya (instead of the weekly “Sunday Reading”, which was originally published under it since Easter 1837) - “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” (since 1860); under Kazan - “Orthodox interlocutor” (from May 1855); This also includes the magazine “Faith and Reason” published in Kharkov at the Theological Seminary (since 1884). We almost did not touch upon this vast literature, but its content is varied and rich, as can be judged also because, in the absence of an organized theological publishing house in Russia, which so beneficially relieves all authors in the West from any hassle of publishing and distributing books, many major works (for example, even theological dissertations for master's and doctoral degrees) were initially published precisely on the pages of spiritual journals and then came out in separate prints. Concluding our essay, we can now convincingly state for everyone that Russian theology is too complex and very ramified. And if it, without being some kind of mechanical conglomerate, forms a harmonious organism, then it must have its own internal forces that give it a typical individuality. And from this side, its two most important features are most characteristic. Orthodoxy unshakably and essentially professes that Christianity is life, and not a simple doctrine, and, therefore, all theoretical teachings are only secondary in it, reflecting and rationalizing real life phenomena. But life, while it actually exists - at least among the storms and upheavals that are fiercely and mercilessly tormenting all of great Russia to this day - it is necessary to reconcile and unite in a common channel all the diverse currents, so as not to cease from their clashes and not to perish in this chaos. It is clear that normal scientific reproduction of it is certainly quite appropriate or no less integral. For this reason, Russian theology remains united by its nature. In it, of course, there have always been different views and divergent directions, but there were and are not separate theological “schools” that diverge to the point of exclusivity and hostility. Since the closest connection between theory and vital sources is invariably maintained, Russian theology at its core is neither dogmatic stereotyping nor scholastic deadness, preserving vital mobility with all its specific properties. Hence there is some uncertainty and incompleteness of strictly formulated results with a constant striving forward and continuous inquisitiveness specifically in relation to the knowledge of God; There is even a considerable circle of “God-seekers” who have not lost or rejected God at all, for they only strive to find Him with all their being, lofty inclinations and soaring of the human spirit. But life, as the deepest mystery of God, is necessarily an unchanging request and constant interrogation about its reason and purpose for every reasoning thought. Therefore, Russian theology never confines itself to statements and generalizations, but everywhere tries to penetrate into objects and discover their ideological basis. We noted that all the works of Russian theological knowledge in all its areas are ultimately concentrated on philosophical comprehension and fundamental interpretation. This scale is steadily applied to both the great and the small: some explain the “philosophy of gospel history” and construct a “philosophy of life” (the works of Prof. M. M. Tareev, published under such titles), others (Metropolitan Dionysius) enthusiastically illuminate the “ideals of Orthodox-Russian foreign missionary work” (Kazan, 1901), others think to guess “the trinity of the Divine” in “monuments of the general history of art” (abstract by N. I. Troitsky, Tula, 1908), they look for its idea in the Orthodox church (his treatise, Tula, 1916), open it at the “exhibition of religious paintings by V. M. Vasnetsov" "Orthodox Christian philosophy in Russian art" (brochure by Archpriest I.I. Solovyov, Kharkov, 1910), comment on our "speculation in colors", considering "the question of the meaning of life in ancient Russian religious painting" (speech by Prof. Prince E.N. Trubetskoy, Moscow, 1916), etc. It is possible that there are more often and more problems than answers and achievements, but true scientific progress is created not by the ready-made quietism of contentment, but by the unquenchable flame of hot inquisitiveness about the highest ideals and the best paths to them. On this side, Russian theology - even apart from any concrete successes - accomplishes the great cultural and historical mission of an invoking reminder and cheerful foreshadowing of the Divine and Eternal, the most important for every being in the world from the beginning of days to the end of time... You might be interested in: