New textbook on church history

Our seminaries are unhappy when it comes to textbooks. It is difficult and almost impossible to point out at least one of the old textbooks that would fully correspond to its purpose. In particular, church history has long suffered in seminaries precisely because the textbook is bad. They constantly complain about him in seminaries. The most zealous teachers often turn all lessons into indignant criticism of the shortcomings of the textbook, present entire sections themselves, and give students additional “notes.” And it’s clear how all this slows things down. We saw in seminaries that the most diligent students who were interested in the history of the Church had copies of the textbook, completely written with additions and corrections, which they either read from books or heard from the teacher in class. But such students are few; the majority, with a light heart, are content with what is in the textbook. It is difficult and even hardly possible for a teacher to ensure that his students all know church history, regardless of the textbook, and often in spite of it. The complete dependence of the church-historical knowledge of seminary students on the textbook is constantly revealed in entrance exams at theological academies. And in recent years, there have been increased complaints about E. Smirnov’s textbook from academic professors as well. The commission that carried out tests on general church history at the Moscow Theological Academy in 1907 pronounced such a condemnatory verdict on the seminary textbook. “The main reason for unsatisfactory test results is primarily rooted in the shortcomings of the textbook. Some sections of the textbook have long lagged behind science, while a number of others, and more important ones, have never been at its level. The most interesting sections of church history, which deal with the literary activities of the holy fathers and other church writers, are presented extremely mechanically, fragmentarily and with the absence of almost any description of the views held in them. The inevitable consequence of the current shortcoming of the textbook and the teaching that depends on it is that all the richness of the theological creativity of the ancient Church, the variety of ideas expressed by ancient church writers, goes over the heads of students, and the dry list of works discourages the last desire to personally familiarize themselves with them” (journals of meetings of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy for 1907, pp. 229–230). And here is what Prof. writes. A.I. Pokrovsky in his memoirs about the famous historian prof. A. P. Lebedev. “The one who took out this or that ticket, if, of course, he knew it well from the textbook, began to hastily and quickly tell it in the hope of avoiding objections and getting as far as possible. But that didn't help much. After two or three biting phrases from the examinee, A.P. rather abruptly interrupted him with his remark that all this was “a lie,” “nonsense,” and not at all what it should be.” (Theological Bulletin, 1908. July - August; according to a separate print, p. 10). We say all this to show how urgently the need for a new textbook on church history is urgent and how urgent the satisfaction of this need is. With understandable joy, therefore, one can welcome a new textbook on the history of the Christian Church, compiled in relation to the latest program of the Educational Committee for theological seminaries by the teacher of the Tula Seminary P. I. Malitsky. Vol. I. The first three Christian centuries. Tula, 1909. S. ΙΙΙ 194. The era of Ecumenical Councils and division of Churches (313–1054). Tula, 1910. S. IV308. Meeting the most pressing need, this textbook has great advantages. There are none of those factual errors that E. Smirnov’s textbook abounds in. True, the author, unfortunately, made several annoying typos and errors in the first issue, but he himself corrected them in the addition to the second issue. True, such corrections in the textbook are very inconvenient: the teacher must ensure that all students have these corrections made. But the good thing is that the new textbook does not contain those major errors that were noticeable in Smirnov’s textbook. The latest discoveries in the field of church history are reflected in the work of P. I. Malitsky, for example, in the section on the “structure and governance of the Church.” The history of persecution is presented by the author in a completely different way than it was presented in textbooks before. Here the author stands at the level of modern church historical science, especially when he talks about the causes of persecution, and divides the entire era of persecution into two periods (divisions - the author poorly expresses it). Here one page and a note on it [contain] much more for understanding the history of persecution than the entire section on persecution in the previous textbook. The author [writes] especially well about the persecutions under Trojan, Marcus Aurelius and Decius Trajan. It provides not only information on the history of persecution, but also gives the key to understanding persecution, which is incomparably more important. The extensive section on Ecumenical Councils is also presented completely satisfactorily. The historical course of the definition and approval of the dogmatic teaching of the Church at the Ecumenical Councils is presented here clearly, separately and understandably. There is no trace of the confusion that was in this section of Smirnov’s textbook (it would be good to delete note 1 on page 55, which little or completely does not correspond to the idea of ​​atonement that the fathers of the 4th century had). But the petrological element in the textbook under consideration especially attracts attention. The author introduced this element into his textbook on a very wide scale. The compiler of the textbook never gives a dry list of the works of this or that church writer, but always introduces the content of these works, [as far as] this is possible in the textbook. Of the writers of the first three centuries, the author dwells in more detail on Origen, devoting ten pages to him. The writers of the golden age of church writing are also discussed in more detail. Giving a brief biography of each of the writers, the author appends to it a list of their most important works, and then briefly outlines the complete system of their theology. This is what the author does in relation to Saints Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem. These essays on the theological systems of the most prominent representatives of ancient church thought, for all their conciseness, are distinguished by a remarkable richness of content. All the views of the holy fathers are briefly outlined, and not their individual thoughts. Each of them therefore appears to the reader with his full theological worldview. For these sections we should especially thank the author of the textbook we are considering. It is necessary to note one more feature of the textbook under review, which distinguishes it very favorably from the boring and monotonous background of ordinary educational literature - we mean the style. Among our colorless and extremely boring textbooks, P. I. Malitsky’s textbook is a rare and very gratifying exception. We consider it completely unnecessary to dwell on the importance for textbooks to be a lively and interesting book; this is obvious to everyone. An interesting and lively textbook can attract students' attention to science itself, and vice versa - the shortcomings of the textbook are so often transferred to the minds of students and to science itself. The new textbook on church history is precisely different in that [it is] an interesting book that can be read without feeling bored. The presentation is completely literary and lively throughout, and in many places even animated. Such a presentation can not only provide dry information for one mind, but also make an impression, create a mood, and provide food for the heart. Therefore, one can even hope that if the new textbook is recognized as a seminary guide, then the [currently] low level of seminary knowledge in the field of church history will significantly increase. And this can be expected, not only taking into account the perfection of the textbook in terms of content, but also in terms of its excellent animated presentation. One can hope for an awakening of love for church history. However, although we have such a high opinion of the new textbook, we are dissatisfied with something in it. It is completely unclear what significance its struggle with gnosis had for the Church. It is known that in modern Protestant science the significance of the so-called Gnostic crisis is assessed too highly: it is credited with almost the creation of a universal Church out of nothing. But there is no doubt that the fight against gnosis gave impetus to a more precise definition of the canon and to the scientific establishment of the principle of tradition. Meanwhile, the author, speaking about the canon of sacred books and traditions, does not mention gnosis at all. Several important additions can be made, for example, about the relationship of the Gnostics to the books of Holy Scripture (on this, see the book: Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. Göttingen, 1901). We consider an even more important omission to be that the textbook does not, in the proper sense, contain a history of church discipline. It can, however, be said that science has not given its justified solution to this issue, and Russian church-historical science has almost never raised it. (The latest Western work in this area was reflected only in the dissertation of Prof. S.I. Smirnov. “The Spiritual Father in the Ancient Eastern Church,” Sergiev Posad, 1906. Chapter 3) Meanwhile, important dogmatic questions are closely connected with the history of the penitential discipline, for example, about the “power of the keys.” The author speaks briefly about Novacianism, and in more detail about the Donatists, but in both cases there is a lack of ideological illumination, the dogmatic basis of church-historical movements. Novacianism and Donatism are not put in connection with Montanism (as, for example, in the work of D. F. Kasitsyn). From the point of view of church discipline, it would be necessary to dwell in more detail on the “Shepherd” of Hermas. In addition, the author completely fails to mention the disciplinary disputes of the first quarter of the 3rd century in Rome and Carthage between Hippolytus, Callistus and Tertullian. (For these disputes, see at Prof. S. Smirnova and others. Ivantsova-Platonov. Heresies and schisms of the first three centuries of Christianity. M., 1877, in Bolotov’s lectures, vol. 2. More details in Dollinger's works. Hippolytus und Kallistus, and especially in the new works of E. Rolffs). This omission resulted in the fact that the corresponding patrol sections in the textbook are also insufficient. The ideas of anti-Gnostic writers are not sufficiently disclosed. One can say nothing about Hippolytus of Rome. Who he was is not visible. The doctrine of the Church of St. should be stated in more detail. Cyprian of Carthage. Nothing is said about the content of the polemics of the blessed one. Augustine with the Donatists. It would be necessary to mention Optatus of Milevius. However, we do not blame the author at all for these omissions; Russian church-historical science in general is to blame for them. I would like to see a more detailed section of church historiography. The author avoids, perhaps for technical reasons, using Greek words, but when we are talking about trinitarian, for example, terminology or Christological, then Greek words are necessary. Isn’t it strange to come across such a mark as phisis? And in general, too little attention is paid to terminology. It would not hurt to sometimes cite the original titles of some ancient church theological works. This would save students from difficulties when reading scientific books, which often contain Latin quotations. The author mentions, for example, Tertullian’s essay “On Prescription.” But will the student recognize this essay when he encounters the quotation: “De praescriptione”? Yes, and the term praescriptio needs to be explained. In the translation of Tertullian published, for example, at the Kyiv Theological Academy, “praescriptio” is conveyed through “diversion of the case.” Another note. The author writes about Harnack: “In his church historical works, he is an exponent of the same negative rationalistic views on Christianity and the Christian Church that Baur also held. His main work, “The History of Dogmas,” is not an objective depiction of the fate of the Christian Church, but a justification of the rationalistic views of its author. With a bold determination unworthy of a serious scientist, Harnack denies one thing, distorts another, and replaces a third. In general, lack of thoroughness and tendentiousness constitute the qualities of Harnack’s church-historical works. Its popularity in Germany is based on that groundless liberalism, for which only liberal conclusions have value, regardless of their foundations on which they rest.” Strongly said! But first of all, Harnack belongs to the Ritschl school, which broke with Baur quite decisively in the person of Ritschl himself (especially in the 2nd edition of his famous work, “Die Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche”). And then, in any case, Harnack is the greatest of modern scientists, whom it is difficult to reproach for lack of historical thoroughness, moreover, in a seminary textbook. The lines we quoted were written in vain! We noted that we were not entirely satisfied. But these are secondary departments, comparatively less important. The most important thing in the new textbook of church history can satisfy the most demanding reader. Therefore, we can say that the seminar’s educational literature received a very valuable gift from P. I. Malitsky. Everyone has been in need of such a textbook for a long time, and we are quite confident that in interested circles it will be greeted with the most lively sympathy and with gratitude to the venerable author, who took upon himself the work of compiling the textbook and achieved a brilliant result. It should be wished that the last issue be published as soon as possible, and in general that the new textbook be widely distributed, which it fully deserves for its outstanding merits.