I. Рабство и свобода

During the days of the difficult war with brutal Germany, we persistently started talking about the dominance of the Germans in all corners of Russian culture. They also started talking about the dominance of Germans in Russian theology. They started talking recently, and now it’s already a fashion. It began, it seems, with the newspaper Kyiv (1914 No. 297 Nemetchina in theological academies). Prof. responded soon. Bronzov is one of the venerable representatives of modern theology, a specialist, one might say, the pillar and affirmation of the moral and theological department - with articles in the Church Bulletin (1914 No. 41) Hypnosis of dishonest and shameful barbarians and in the “organ” Bell Captured by the Germans (1915 Nos. 2631 and 2632). He reminded himself, also in the Church Bulletin (1914 No. 49), with the article German influence in Theological Science P. Nikolsky. The well-known and everywhere-keeping priest did not hesitate to respond. P.Ya. Svetlov, the theologian - a fighter on four fronts, in the same Church Bulletin 1915 No. 3, wrote the Question of non-metchina in Russian theology. Prof. prot. A.M. Klitin, offended by the Moscow Academy, or better yet, by the Synod, which denied him the degree of Doctor of Theology, found it timely to read the abstract “in the meeting of the Russian Brotherhood of Teachers of the Law in the chambers of His Eminence Nazarius, Archbishop of Kherson and Odessa, and in the presence of His Grace Alexy, Bishop of Nikolaev,” an abstract on the topic of the German direction of the Russian Orthodox Theology and submitted it to embossing on his own money - in the form of a brochure under the same title. In one of the academies, a speech was delivered at the dinner table with curses on the past of Russian theology and hopes for its future. Something similar happened in other academies. Article by Prof. Bronzova Captured by the Germans (Bell 1915 Nos. 2631 and 2632) is rich in factual indications from the history of moral theology. “In the 18th century, the models for Russian theologians and moralists were: Baumeister, Breithaupt, Zufendorf, Budday, Miller, Schubert, Gerhard, Gollazi, Quenstedt and others. Feofan Prokopovich was guided by Gerhard, Quenstedt, Gollazi. Platon Levshin wrote under the influence of Quenstedt. Theophylact Gorsky followed Schubert, Miller, Buddey, Breithaupt. Methodius Smirnov reproduced Breithaupt, Gollazius. Innokenty of Penza followed Buddey, Mozheim, Rambach. Platon Kazansky was influenced by Reiberger. Innocent of Kherson depended on Buddey and Reinhard. John of Smolensk handed over Shtapf. Paisiy Pylaev - Girscher. Plato of Thebes copied Shtapf. Filaret Filaretov followed De-Wette. The Solarsky system was written under the influence of Riegler, Shtapf, and Schreiber. The best Russian “scientific” system, owned by the unforgettable I.L. Yanyshev, bears the clearest traces of the influence of the Germans on her. Wuttke, Chr. Palmer, Bittner, Martensen. Prof. M.A. Olesnitsky was imbued with a deep affection for the Germans." These memories inspired Prof. Bronzov shows deep sadness, and in the same “organ” (No. 2642) he calls Russian society to repentance. “It is time to repent and promise not to sin again.” His article (titled) in the Church Bulletin is filled with lyrics. “Take a look at the notorious Harnack - this sophisticated enemy of Christianity, who enjoys special respect from Russian theologians, at least in his lectures “on the essence of Christianity”, remember the famous F. Delitzsch with his “Bible and Babylon”, remember all sorts of Rau with their “Ethics of Jesus”, etc. - and you will see everywhere that Messrs. the Germans are using every effort to overthrow Christianity, especially in its purity and integrity... From here the conclusion follows naturally: if Russian theological science did not know anything about German science, it would not have lost anything. Moreover, she would have won in the overall result: without learning the small positive grains, she would not have learned the huge negative things. Having sacrificed only a little, she would have avoided the colossal evil that has now become her lot. “We don’t learn from the Germans. Not with these greatest Pharisees of all time... The Slavic soul and the Teutonic soul will not and cannot understand each other. It is unnatural to transplant German “science” (!) onto noble Russian soil. We should learn from the holy fathers, from the ascetics of the Church of Christ. It's time to free yourself from Teutonic hypnosis! It's time to loosen up! The time has come. Otherwise, we would not wake up and shake off the Teutonic dirty paws. Russian theological science should be built not on a Teutonic basis, but on a purely Christian one - on the basis of the Word of God, patristic tradition. It’s time for us to come to our senses and throw all sorts of German cribs into the trash pit once and for all”... Prot. P. Svetlov introduces readers to the Church. Vestn. with the articles of their predecessors in the fight against German dominance. He adds something of his own experience to their voices. “I experienced the German dominance in Russian theology early on myself, thirty years ago with my master’s thesis (“The meaning of the cross in the work of Christ. An attempt to build an Orthodox teaching about the essence and methods of redemption performed by our Lord I. Christ”), the history of which is outlined by me in the appendix to the book “The Cross of Christ.” Experience in explaining the dogma of atonement “(ed. 2. Kyiv 1907). This first attempt in Russian theology to explain the dogma of redemption in an Orthodox way, independent of heterodox models, was subjected to severe persecution and, among other things, it was accused of ... dependence on German Protestant theology.” Prot. Svetlov pays tribute to the protest against German dominance in Russian theology. In the originality of Orthodoxy, he sees a sufficient guarantee against the need for Russian theologians to be trained by the Germans. “We, thank God, have nothing to learn from the Germans in the most important things, in faith and piety, the scientific disclosure of which constitutes the main content and direct goal of theology. From the full and bright light of the Christian faith, preserved in its entirety in Orthodoxy, we do not have to go to the twilight of Protestantism. Here, by the will of Providence, Orthodox theological science, as an interpreter and faithful reflection of the light of Christ, is placed “at the top of the mountain,” like a bright candle, to shine for the Western world and illuminate the lost road to the pure light of the Christian faith in the Orthodox Eastern Church. Ex Oriente lux is not the slogan of some party like Slavophilism, but a truth with which all Orthodox-Russian theological science must be imbued with no differences in its directions: in this consciousness of its significance, Russian theological science is given everything that is necessary for its strength, growth, prosperity, it only guarantees its Orthodox-Russian originality and independence from any foreign influence, harmful to it, including German. In Orthodoxy, with its Divine treasures still inexhaustible in thought, Russian theological science possesses such a source of life and strength that it can and should tell the world in its entirety the truth of the Gospel, which is known to the West under the cover of Latinism and Protestantism, instead of being an echo of Western Catholic-Protestant, exhausted and dilapidated religious thought.” Joining the protest against German dominance in Russian theology, Rev. Svetlov “does not share a straightforward and extreme solution to the German question.” “Let us not rush from one extreme of excessive enthusiasm for non-technical things to the other extreme of complete disregard for German theological science. For Russian theological science, both are harmful, and the truth here, as elsewhere, is in the middle. It is true and beyond doubt that the neglect of our science towards German theological science would be accompanied by damage to our theological education and theological science. Our enormous advantage over not only German, but over all Western theological science lies in the fact that we know the latter well, which this one lacks, to its obvious detriment. Let us not deprive ourselves of this great advantage we have over Western Christianity, which so perfectly corresponds to the very nature of the Russian soul, capable, according to Dostoevsky, of understanding everyone, recognizing everyone, reconciling everything, without dissolving in anything! Let our theology continue to be all-human, the theology of the Russian “all-man,” as opposed to the selfishly self-contained, shallow and self-satisfied German theology, which is narrowly national and therefore does not correspond to the ideal of Christian universalism. “You cannot timidly, in fear for your faith, shun what is alien and negative. Knowledge of the alien and the negative only contributes to a better understanding of our own and the positive and strengthening in it, if we want to rise above the blind faith of infancy to the rational faith of spiritual maturity. And it is unnecessary to talk about the pitiful impotence and helplessness of spiritual leaders, pastors and teachers of the law, before unbelievers in those cases when they know less than those led. No, for the good of your neighbor you have to know about Haeckels, Bebels, etc., just as a doctor needs to know about microbes that produce diphtheria, typhus or scarlet fever... Knowledge of the negative can be harmful to those who have not yet strengthened in faith and truth and to unformed minds in their youth, but even here, knowledge of the negative is harmful only if it is one-sided and is not accompanied by a critical attitude towards it, i.e. e. by appealing to criticism, the voice of the other side. But smart people, even from a young age, always know how to follow the rule of listening to the other side in everything (both in reading and in everyday matters). “There is no reason on our part to neglect those branches of theology in which the Germans are successful and even ahead of us, for example, this was done by them in the historical and grammatical study of the Bible, which they put forward by itself as a formal principle of Protestantism or the doctrine of Holy Scripture as the only source of doctrine. Of course, what German-Protestant science produces here for Orthodox theology, especially exegesis, can only serve as raw material, subject to Orthodox processing in the light of Orthodox consciousness and church teaching. In general, in other branches of theology, German raw materials, considered by the Germans to be inviolable values, we must process in the Orthodox way and in this way get something from it for science, if anyone needs foreign raw materials. This rule is significant in relation especially to systematic theology, which deals, among denominational differences, with the truths of faith and morality of general Christianity. Contrary to the ultra-aristocratic view of Khomyakov, I even recognize the necessary friendly joint work of the entire Christian world, all Christian confessions, in the fight against its common enemies (unbelief, paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism) and in the defense of common Christian shrines and values. From this point of view, Protestant science in the field of ethics, dogmatics and apologetics cannot but attract the attention of the Orthodox theologian, who values ​​the triumph of Christian truth in the world and rejoices at every success.” Prot. Svetlov gives a unifying formula for “the correct relationship of Orthodox Russian theology to German-Protestant theology.” “The services of the Germans to our theology are limited mainly to the delivery of raw material and facilitating the rough work of religious and theological thought, without extending to its internal, ideological and creative area. I find this place in the forefront of our theology completely sufficient for a German. Any ideological German leadership in the field of religious thought is unthinkable for us: in the Christian understanding of life and in the knowledge of Christian truth we are guided, and will be guided by the light of Orthodoxy alone, sufficient not only for us, but for the whole world. Let all Germans know that the true Orthodox theologians of the Russian Church are filled with every joyful and gracious consciousness of their superiority over the theologians of Western Christianity, given to them by God not because of their merits, but by birth and upbringing in the Orthodox faith! It is indecent for anyone, and especially for us, to be enlightened and learn wisdom from the Germans, who in forty years have managed to become savage to the point of bestiality.” Articles by Prof. Bronzova, following the newspaper "Kyiv", sounds the first alarm, depicts the horror of the current situation: he has facts and lyrics. Prot. Svetlov discusses the situation, draws the boundaries of the danger, and outlines a way out. What new does the abstract of Fr. Klitina? He makes a concrete application of the protest against inhumanity to our day, points the finger at the traitors to the idea of ​​Russian Orthodoxy, and pronounces “word and deed.” The general state of Russian theological science, according to his observation, is far from sad: evil is in isolated exceptions, to which the attention of the curious is directed. “As in the past, so now, in particular, the question of the relationship of our Russian theology to Western theology represents in many respects an interesting, and in some, not entirely gratifying page of our spiritual enlightenment. This question is extremely difficult. To trace the development of our theological science, to note all the stages of its dependence on the Western, to indicate the degree and nature of this dependence in solving certain issues, to prove the independence and outstanding properties of our Russian theological science, to evaluate its influence and significance in the church-historical life of Russian society - this task requires extensive and hard work under broad favorable working conditions 1 . Not having the courage and ability to take on such work, at this time we intend to make only a few feasible comments on the alarming request raised in journalism for our theology in general. It should, we think, note how much there is reason to worry about the direction of Russian theological science, as it was expressed in theological works of the past and as expressed in some works of the present time. We can confidently assure our society that, both before and now, Russian theological science stands at the height of its calling and fully fulfills the tasks of its service to the Russian Orthodox Church. And although, for all this, there are some minor exceptions (like the work of one theologian we are examining), these exceptions must be looked at as just an accidental hobby or misunderstanding that has no cardinal significance either for theology or for the Orthodox Church.” Who is this “one theologian”, guilty, in the midst of general theological well-being, of “slavery to the Germans”? It turns out that this is Prot. P.Ya. Svetlov. “While some people think the German direction of our theology is so harmful and destructive for our enlightenment and the church, there are, due to some unfortunate misunderstanding and deep regret, Russian theologians who see only the bright side in this German direction. It is in this German dominance, or captivity, in which, in the words of Prof. Bronzov, our Orthodox Theology is located, one of the representatives of this Orthodox Theology is prof. Svetlov (“Christian doctrine in an apologetic presentation.” Volumes I and II) sees definite and persistent grounds for the unity of all churches – Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox among themselves.” What is this? We just saw that prot. Svetlov belongs to the camp of protesters against German dominance and claims one of the first places among them. But while Rev. Svetlov in a Petrograd magazine pronounces philippics against non-mechanics, in Odessa the accusation of Archpriest is reviewed. Svetlova in “non-metchina”. What does this mean? Isn’t a picture of the mutual extermination of parts of an army retreating in panic unfolding before us? Are we not present at the scene of rebellious slaves, who previously tried to outdo each other in slavish servility, and now have turned “slavery” into a “moral nickname”, which they use to settle personal scores, and subsume everything in sight under the category of “captivity”? Isn’t the fight against the German, as a racial and political-economic unit, being replaced before our eyes by the fight against the farcical “German” of market women? The case is worth considering, and it, first of all, boils down to the question of how well-founded the accusation against Prosecutor is. Svetlova in literary slavery to the Germans. It turns out that I take prot. Svetlova under his patronage. Let no one think that I am doing this out of personal affection for Rev. Svetlov: no, I am guided only by the interests of scientific objectivity. Among the friends of Rev. I don’t belong to Svetlov. Quite the contrary. At this point I will allow myself some digressions, some reminiscences. The reader will see that this “deviation to the side” relates to the essence of the issue - he will see that the method that is now applied to the prot. Svetlova prot Kalitin, the method of a farcical, market understanding of “non-breeding”, that Fr. was also tempted by this method. Svetlov. In the book “Christian Teaching in an Apologetic Presentation,” Archpriest Svetlov, who is generally generous with “various unflattering and rude epithets addressed to some theology professors who in some way did not please Father Svetlov,” pays special attention to me, simply speaking, “he scrubs me clean.” “The principle of absolute individualism can take place not in Christian theology,” but in decadence, where “individualism of religious thought” is accompanied by “denial of historical Christianity.” “Therefore, the presentation of the principle of absolute individualism and its implementation on the basis of Orthodox and, moreover, Russian theology would be a surprise. However, an example of such “Christian” theology is given to us here in the theology of a certain M. Tareev, a former professor at the Theological Academy. According to him, “religious creativity and knowledge, like artistic creativity and knowledge, forms a completely autocratic area”, because “all Christian knowledge develops only from the experience of the theological (? God-filial) experiences of Christ, which are assimilated by believers”, and the knowledge of God “is given exclusively by the experience, experiences and demands of religious life (M. Tareeva “Religious synthesis of the philosophy of V.S. Solovyov”, Christ. Read . 1908 No. 1 pp. 45, 46). Hence, the individualist theologian insists on the principle of absolute individualism or “religious creativity” in Christian knowledge, as a result of which everyone’s theology receives only a subjective-autobiographical meaning, as an expression of the various internal “experiences and requests of religious life” of the individual (see Bog. Vestn. 1908, May, p. 143 and June-July p. 338). Of course, the “religious creativity” of M. M. Tareev is not original or “autocratic” in its entirety. In a significant part of its theology, M. Tareev is an echo of Lutheran Richlean theology, so he borrowed from here the agnostic or adogmatic principle, by virtue of which everything that goes beyond the limits of Christian experience (“experiences”) is not subject to theology; There is nothing new with M. Tareev in his undisguised contempt for “church-dogmatic” Christianity, which supposedly distorted the “pure gospel idea”; there is nothing new in this sharp opposition of church Christianity to biblical Christianity of the Gospel, which would distinguish M.’s theology. Tareev from the theology of Richlianism and rationalism in general. The denial of the church or the denial of its significance in Christianity, characteristic of rationalism, is not new in the theology of M. Tareev. The denial of the dogma of atonement or the usual “abolition of the Cross of Christ” in atonement, which is expressed here in an extremely frivolous manner, more ridicule than denial of the idea of ​​satisfaction, is not new. Compared to vulgar rationalism, M. Tareev’s free treatment of eschatology and the moral and symbolic interpretation of dogmas from this and other areas of dogma, for example, the second coming and the Last Judgment in the sense of the judgment of history, are not new. Neither original nor new is the “spiritualization” of the Gospel idea of ​​the kingdom of God, according to the hackneyed template of rationalism, which was brought only by a straightforward Russian imitator to the point of an absurd attempt to deny the very idea of ​​the kingdom of God (according to the proverb, probably – plus royaliste que le roi même). All this and much similar in the theology of M. Tareev is not original and not new at all.” So, the main idea of ​​the review about. Svetlova about my system is that it is all the result of German influence 3. In the review about. Svetlov about the Fundamentals of Christianity there is not a grain of truth: to show this, I will return to him below. In this place, the reader already sees from what has been said that personal relations with Archpriest. Svetlov is eliminated from the possibility of suspecting me of a friendly bias towards him, and the fact that we have a widespread epidemic of mutual accusations of inhumanity, so that my deviation to the side did not lead us beyond the boundaries of our topic. Prot. Svetlov did not consider it necessary to look for other means to destroy me, other ways to clarify my insignificance, to express his organic antipathy to my way of thinking - except for accusing me of being dependent on the Germans. And what an irony of fate! Here's the prot. Svetlov is in the dock, so he is being held up as an example of “German slavery.” And he is irresponsible before the court of the strict Nemesis: he is beaten with the very stick that he himself had previously juggled so deftly, for every stick has two edges; a method is being used on him that he himself abused. He must now listen: – Tu l’as voulu, George Dandin! You, Father Pavel Yakovlevich, will cry out: “Have mercy! After all, when prof. Bronzov spoke about German dominance in Russian theology; he meant Russian theological systems copied or translated in whole or in large part from some foreign system. We are talking about the mechanical process of compilation, plagiarism. Where have I copied or compiled anything from the Germans?” Your cry is touching. But what did you yourself do as a reviewer, calling Professor Tareev’s system an echo of German literature, although you did not show a single borrowed line in it? What about ideas? There is not a single correct, Orthodox thought that, having been slightly altered, exaggerated, distorted, could not be passed off as German. Seeing Fr. Svetlova in the dock, slandered, slandered by the prot. Klitina, I take his side, impartially, without being among his friends, in the name of objective truth. Prot. Klitin, accusing Fr. Svetlova is wrong, just as Svetlov himself was wrong before. Prot. Klitin understands non-Metschina in a farcical sense, swears by the German, as Svetlov and many others did before. The fight against a fake German only hinders the defeat of a real German. What's the matter? Klitin sees a “German direction” in the theology of Archpriest. Svetlova? The fact is that Rev. Svetlov smoothes out, rather than exacerbates, differences between religions in the interests of the idea of ​​​​unifying churches. “Svetlov is trying to prove that there are essentially no differences of opinion between the churches. Having sorted out these differences of opinion and brought them to zero, Fr. Svetlov establishes the following provisions: 1) In essential or main ways, all Christian denominations coincide with each other. 2) Differences among Christian denominations, even dogmatic ones, are insignificant and exaggerated. 3) The heresy of Western churches has not been proven and cannot be proven. 4) Western Christian denominations, along with the Orthodox, are Christian churches and belong to the Universal Church, and not extra-church societies separated from the church. 5) All Christian churches existing in the West and East are local churches or parts of the Ecumenical Church, and therefore the assignment of the rights of any of them to the Ecumenical Church is illegal. 6) From the totality of all these five theses, the concept of the Church is determined. “The Ecumenical Church of Christ is the totality of true believers, scattered everywhere in local or private Christian churches in the West and East or, in the absence of the possibility of an ecumenical council, with the external division of the church, deprived of complete external or visible organization, with an internal unity of faith and grace-filled life in Christ, who heads His Church or Body.” This is the German fault, prot. Svetlova according to the indictment of Prot. Klitina: prot. Svetlov takes a broad view on the question of the relationship of the Orthodox Church to the Catholic Church and to Protestantism, while a narrow view of Orthodoxy is possible, identifying it with the Universal Church. This latter is obviously adhered to by Rev. Klitin. Concept prot. Svetlova may be correct, perhaps she may be wrong, but what does German influence, literary dependence on the Germans have to do with it? What is the connection here with what was exhibited in the Kyiv newspaper and by prof. Bronzov’s thesis that “Russian theological science has always been captive of the West, especially the Germans?” Prot. Klitin disagrees with Prot. Svetlov in his view of religions, but why is the view of Prot. Is Svetlova branded with the name of a German? In secular literature, we know two trends - Westernism and Slavophilism. Were the Westerners literary dependent on the Germans? Aren't these two directions of Russian thought? Svetlov's view of religion is a kind of Westernism in theology. Moreover, it is better than Westernism, it is universalism in theology: what does the German trend have to do with it? This is one of the directions of Russian theology. Prot. Klitin stands at the level of a market trader who scolds a German customer or competitor who did not please her. As soon as the question of German dominance in theology was raised, it had already degenerated into popular jargon, into a method of summing up personal accounts; it would be better to say that the long-standing farcical use of the accusation of Germanism, as a kind of “word and deed,” was immediately mixed in with it and blocked its path. At the end of his brochure, Rev. Klitin makes a foray against prof. Tareeva: how can we keep silent about Tareev? “After all that has been said (about Archpriest Svetlov), do we not have the right to assert that even in our theological science German colonies have been built that will willingly open their doors to our serious and dangerous enemy. There are, unfortunately, other colonies, not yet so noticeable, where they claim that Christ was resurrected in the spirit and faith of His disciples (Prof. Tareev)”... This is “the resurrection in the spirit and faith of the disciples”: how much has been written about this, how many explanations I have given - at least some result! How difficult is this dense, persistent repetition of an absurd, meaningless invention, stupid misunderstanding, unwillingness to understand... All the signs are there that prot. Klitin is not familiar with the work about which he reviews that he avoids it with “prejudice.” Let's look at the matter fundamentally. There is, say, a Russian theological system, in five volumes, Fundamentals of Christianity, in which there is not a single borrowed line. Prot. Klitin writes: “this German colony,” - he pronounces his sentence offhand, without the slightest shadow of evidence, without any anxiety in his heart, on the contrary, frolicking and playing, with the complacency of frivolity. And now, pay attention to the ease with which Russian territory is ceded to the Germans and declared a German colony. Poland? German colony. Little Russia? Give it to the Germans. Moscow? Not ours... Our undeniable property is the Siberian tundra, the works of the Stelletsky fathers... What kind of territory is this that is so easily ceded to the Germans? Its merits may be disputed, its fruits may not be liked by anyone. But the Germans themselves declared that territory Russian and did not make any claims to it 4 . In a recent review of the Fundamentals of Christianity on the pages of a secular magazine, exposing a careful acquaintance with the system, it was said (in conclusion): “This is not the field of philosophical gnosis, but the field of living psychology. This is precisely the psychology of living facts, in contrast to V.S. Solovyov and gives by prof. MM. Tareev. And this is precisely his great, immeasurably greater merit to Russian, and indeed to human religious thought in general, which, of course, can only be fully appreciated by those who have gone through its entire long historical path. I searched, yearned and found. I found it and believed! This is not German semi-nationalism of an intermediate school, but genuine Orthodoxy, purified and unobscured” 5 ... This year in the Christian magazine, M. March, A.M. Tuberovsky (Ideology of the Resurrection of Christ) 6 assessing the experimental method 7 of my system, writes (p. 533): “In the establishment of this method and in its brilliant implementation in the system of Prof. We see Tareev's greatest merit, an exceptional fact of Russian Theology, in which all errors can only have a petty significance 8. Everyone dares to have a judgment. Assessment by A.M. Tuberovsky is his word and nothing more. And yet this word is already a part of history: The foundations of Christianity are called, can be called, an exceptional fact of Russian Theology - and one cannot help but be amazed at the frivolity, the haste, the eagerness with which oo. The Klitins are conceding Russian labor and Russian territory to the Germans. It is a complete accident that I, the author of these lines dedicated to the question of Russian theology, interfere in the judgments of others about my own book - an accident that does not interfere with anything and even has its own beneficial side. Nothing prevents us from reasoning objectively. How many works do we have that can be called or called by someone “an exceptional fact of Russian Theology”, and is frivolity tolerated in calling such works “German colonies?” The gatherers of the Russian land did not act this way; they tenaciously held on to every inch where the Russian foot stood, where the Russian name sounded: we don’t need someone else’s, but we will not give up ours. Where do we get such extravagance? A quick review of the literature on the issue of German dominance in Russian theology notes two significant points: 1) the generally recognized fact of German dominance in our theology and 2) an equally undeniable tendency among Russian theologians to suspect and accuse each other of German dependence, to brand with the shameful nickname of a German colony all theological works that are objectionable to anyone, to give to the Germans everything outstanding and original. These two points are not only externally embraced by belonging to the same area, covered by the same horizon, but are also interconnected by internal affinity, like two poles of the same phenomenon, which can only be explained in the overall picture. Considering these two points in broader perspectives, and the second turns out to be a particular, most characteristic case of the internal intolerance that dominates us, internal slavery, not only our inattention, but also the direct persecution of our native original and significant, we will be even more convinced of the internal correlation of these points, these poles, but even now it is clear that the fact of German domination in our theology serves as an external justification for our suspicion, and the fact of our internal slavery, internal intolerance is the real cause of external slavery. The tragedy of our theological dependence on the Catholic and Protestant West is especially hard to feel in the moral and theological area. The moral angle reveals the deepest basis of Christianity and affects it from the most essential side. It is necessary to recognize the most solid truth, established in science, that Christianity stands under a banner that is not magical, not Gnostic, not aesthetic, but ethical: it is an entirely divine-human, spiritual religion. The starting point of Christian knowledge is spiritual experience, in relation to which dogmatic beliefs form the sphere of secondary phenomena. Moral and theological science leads to the main roots of church-Christian life, which has broken up into religions. Therefore, the state of the moral-Christian area is more indicative than the state of other areas of theology, in particular, dogmatic. A shortcoming in the moral and theological area, for example, dependence is accompanied by a corresponding direction in all theology. And this is all the more important because in the field of dogmatics it is easier to preserve the purity of Orthodoxy, and it is usually preserved even in translated works through partial corrections. On the contrary, in the ethical system - despite the appearance that here we are far removed from religious differences - most likely foreign influences creep in, even creeping in with one form, with one plan of the system. According to the archbishop. Sergius, “whoever wants to know the true essence of Catholicism, Protestantism or Orthodoxy must turn not to their theoretical teaching, but to their concept of life, he must ask each of the faiths what it believes is the meaning of life, its highest good. The dogma of the filioque undoubtedly concerns the cornerstone of our faith - but did he express this dogma, all of Catholicism, and is it possible to think that with its elimination Western Christianity will make reconciliation with us? Only one of the many points of disagreement will be eliminated, only one of the many reasons for bickering will be less, and the division will not weaken at all. After all, Catholicism is not from filioque, but vice versa. The dogma of the papacy, of course, constitutes the main spring, so to speak, the soul of Catholicism, but again, the perverted Catholic understanding of life did not come from the papacy, but from this latter the papacy, otherwise it is impossible to explain why and how the pope found and is finding in the Western world so many obedient, fanatically devoted servants and so many silent followers - only by forgeries and tricks, only by the Jesuitism and love of power of Rome of this phenomenon cannot be explained. In the same way, not as a result of the rejection of the sacraments and church tradition and not as a result of an exaggerated concept of the fallen nature of man, the Protestants came to their illusory, fictitious salvation, but, on the contrary, having distorted the very concept of life, they had to consistently distort the entire church structure and teaching. Suppose that all errors in doctrine and structure are corrected - the distorted concept of life will prove that this correction is only in words - after a while Protestants will have to create new distortions, new errors in place of the eliminated ones. In the same way, Orthodoxy is not recognized from its theoretical teaching. Abstract propositions and formulas, by their very abstractness, are equally incomprehensible and inconceivable for a person, whether they are Catholic or Orthodox. Would direct logical absurdity reveal the inconsistency of the heterodox system? As an expression of precisely objectively given truth, Orthodoxy is cognized most and more deeply where it most directly comes into contact with this objective truth, with the realm of real existence, in its description of the actual life of man, in its definition of the goal of life and based on this latter teaching about personal salvation. Only by finally having assimilated the Orthodox teaching on life can one fully (not just by logic) be convinced of the immutable, unconditional truth of Orthodoxy - one can understand, visually grasp this truth. After this, you will receive your deep, full-life meaning and all those theoretical positions, all those dogmas that previously seemed indifferent to metaphysical subtleties. All this will be one and the same, united in spirit and idea, the teaching of true life." To be more or less significant, the theology of each church, each confession must be independent, first and foremost, in its ethical part. An alien system of moral theology is doomed in advance to a miserable existence. What is the state of Russian moral and theological science? The answer to this question suggests itself in two theses. Firstly. Russia does not have its own system of moral theology. Our citizenship rights are entirely granted to the Western system. German dominance in moral theology must be represented in the roughest terms - in a direct form, in the form of an unsmoothed, unsoftened compilation. Our first moral and theological system of Theophylact of Gorsky Orthodoxae orientalis ecclesiae doctrina сhristiana de agendis (1784) is nothing more than a reprint, with rearrangements in the text and abbreviations, of the Lutheran system of Buddean Institutiones theologiae moralis 1727. Theophylact § l: Quamvis omnia sacrae doctrinae capita in credenda et agenda dispesci soleant, arctissimo tamen vinculo etc. In Buddei: Etsi ea, circa quae theologia occupatur, in credenda et agenda dispesci soleant, arctissimo tamen vinculo etc. Orthodox moral theology archim. Plato (Thebes) 1854 is a literal translation of the Catholic Stapf's system of Theologia moralis in compendium redacta 1827. Plato's book begins like this: Orthodox Moral Theology is a systematic exposition of what a Christian must do to achieve eternal bliss. From Stapf: theologiam moralem christianam definimus, quod sit scientifica expositio corum, quae juxta dictamina et instituta religionis christianae nos agere oportet, ut ultimum finem nostrum feliciter assequemur etc. Notes on Moral Orthodox Theology in three volumes 1860–1864 prot. Solarsky is in the same proximity to the same Shtapf and (even more) to Riegler (Christliche Moral 1825 and Compendium der chrictlichen Moral 1836). We have compiled a curriculum based on the Solyarskago system, which remains in force to this day. All moral theology textbooks are written on it. Secondly. Moral theology, as we know it, that is, in the Western Catholic and Protestant systems, is unanimously recognized by us as an insignificant value, worthless. Pupils of the theological school feel a strong aversion to moral theology. All the professors who have treated the state of our moral theology, Grenkov, Gusev, Olesnitsky, all the reviewers who have examined this or that system, this or that textbook on moral theology - unanimously declare this science to be dead scholasticism, which dries out the brains of students, instills boredom in both teachers and students, and is inconvenient for either teaching or reading. “Moral theology has long been considered a science that is not very easy to listen to, or, to put it simply, boring. The teachers themselves were reluctant to take on it,” etc. It was persistently revealed that neither the Catholic concept of Christian life, which subsumes morality under the category of law and duties, nor the Protestant concept, which leaves room only for the description of subjective processes, captures the essence of Christian life. It was emphatically stated that the systematic form of moral theology simply does not accommodate any Christian content, which is steadily replaced either by the Old Testament commandments or the rules of everyday prudence. Finally, it should be borne in mind that all original works from the field of moral teaching about Christianity, on issues of Christian moral philosophy, all Russian creativity in this direction consistently avoided being clothed in the systematic form of moral theology, and followed its own special channel, parallel to the official channel of moral theology. The history of moral theology in Russia is very instructive. It provokes abundant thought and authorizes important conclusions. Before proceeding to the latter, we will make one more important observation. Who were the culprits in the current situation of moral theology, the compilers of moral and theological systems, the main figures in the development of a certain type of them? Let's see. Doctrina Christiana de agendis belongs to Theophylact of Gorsky, rector of the Moscow Academy, † bishop of Kolomna. Review of theological sciences, where among the programs adopted by the Commission of Theological Schools is the program of Active Theology (according to Buddha), compiled by the famous Philaret, rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, later M. Moskovsky, Innocent (Smirnov), † bishop. Penza, gave lectures, which were later published under the title Active Theology, when he was an inspector of the Academy. Further in the history of our moral theology they occupy prominent places: the rector of the Kyiv Academy, Archimandrite. Innokenty (Borisov), † archbishop. Kherson, Jep. († Bishop of Smolensk) John (Sokolov), inspector of the Kyiv Academy archim. Leonty († m. Moskovsky), Archimandrite. Plato (Thebean), compiler of Orthodox moral theology according to Shtapf, † archbishop. Kostromsky. Even among the compilers of textbooks for the official program there are rectors: Rev. Khalkolivanov, archim. († bishop) Gabriel, Rev. Kamensky (Bishop Nikanor). Compiler of the Outline of Christian Moral Teaching, Bishop. Feofan was the rector of the Academy and professor of moral theology, Archpriest. Yanyshev too. Nowadays, Bishop works a lot on the program of moral theology. Stephen. If we were to recall from the past professors of moral theology who left their lectures in manuscript or left nothing behind, then we would fill entire pages with the names of inspectors and rectors of the Academy, archimandrites, who later were bishops, archbishops and metropolitans. Previously, theology in academies was usually entrusted to rectors and inspectors. During the entire time that our official type of system of moral theology was taking shape, the departments of our science in academies and the compilation of programs and textbooks were in the most reliable hands. The history of our moral theology is almost the history of our hierarchy. The created state of moral theology is inextricably linked with the fact that it was under the exclusive jurisdiction of representatives of the school administration and the church hierarchy, and cannot be discussed separately from this circumstance. What other, ignorant people dream of as a theological panacea, a hierarchical (eo ipso monastic) monopoly in theology, and especially in moral theology, was already practiced in our country on the widest scale and was the main reason for the sad state of moral-theological science. This is not difficult to understand. The rectors of the academy, monks, as usually happened and still happens, acted in the field of academic science, as professors of theology, and nothing more than as guest performers. Not to mention the fact that some of them had absolutely no vocation for science; they always served as professors only for the first and short years of their activity, which were insufficient to become acquainted with science. Further, those rector-monks who later declared themselves great theologians, in their role as professors of moral theology, left either pitiful compilations or insignificant scraps in manuscripts or in print. These are Metr. Plato, Met. Filaret, Archbishop. Innocent of Kherson, John of Smolensk. For rector-professors. if they did not refuse to give lectures (this happened too!), the only option was to use a ready-made foreign system, which students were sometimes tasked with translating, as Fr. Paisiy (Pylaev) with Hirscher's book Die christliche Moral als Lehre von der Verwirklichung des göttlichen Reiches in der Menschheit. The time when monastic rectors were in charge of the moral and theological department was the most favorable time for the transplantation of the Western system to us. In the hands of the leading professors, moral and theological science could not flourish, because they gave this science a predominantly practical, protective character. The compilation of a moral and theological system in their eyes merged with their church-hierarchical and school-administrative activities, and was a means to achieve the results of the latter, which is why we preferred the construction of this science according to the scheme of law and duties. There was not the slightest concern about the intimate comprehension of Christian truth, about the disinterested knowledge of Christian truth; all attention was focused on such a presentation of ethical science that would instill strict morals and obedience in students and readers, and would help to instill discipline. Among the motives of scientific activity, the personal search for heavenly knowledge was not included; it was all determined by political considerations about practical results. The study of science was expected to ease the need for intense disciplinary supervision, and scientific creativity was replaced by police ingenuity in divisions and subdivisions, with an abundance of rules and regulations. The goal of science was not to awaken curiosity, but to accustom one to unquestioning obedience, which for the students was brightened up by their own pastoral-administrative perspectives, so that they were already studying the system of governing the flock, for which naked obedience remained. It is clear that the example of the Catholic moral and theological system, as well as its traditionally related Orthodox Protestant 9, was coveted “more than honey.” The only thing forgotten was that the Catholic moral and theological system, built on the principle of law and duties, corresponded to the actual, namely legal structure of the Catholic Church, which in its teaching embraced the fullness of the external, personal and social life of the laity, while Orthodoxy, one of its foundations, has intimate freedom of spiritual life, as a result of which the Catholic habits of our hierarchy were not in our court, encountering energetic opposition even from the ruler Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, who for a whole half century defended the freedom of reading the word of God for the laity 10. For those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, and a mind to see, it is obvious that the collapse of an alien, Western moral and theological system on our Orthodox soil, contrary to the desires of the authors (compilers) in power, was predetermined by the organic properties of Orthodoxy and the spiritual instinct of the Russian people. The history of moral theology in Russia, through the negative path of experienced failure, teaches us to look for a way out of the current sad situation in the transfer of the moral and theological department from those in charge and hierarchical to simple professors, from the (white clergy and) laity. In the latter, a favorable condition for the development of ethical science, or moral teaching about Christianity, must be considered their non-authority, which opens up for them the possibility of personal religious quests, personal thirst for spiritual truth, making them akin to listeners or readers who participate in the process of the author’s ethical creativity. But one should also consider a favorable condition for the construction of an ethical system, a moral teaching about Christianity, and laity as simple Christianity, in patristic language, that is, non-monasticism. We do not need to raise the question of the comparative value of monasticism and secular Christianity: we will be content with the church teaching about two paths of Christian life, monastic and secular, and church recognition of both paths. And remaining within the circle of the church’s view, it is clear that asceticism does not exhaust the fullness of Christian life, that the ascetic concept of Christianity cannot be recognized as comprehensive. Asceticism does not capture worldly Christianity, that is, the Christianity of those living in the world, Christianity in life. A look at Christianity from the point of view of life, consideration of it in relation to life, this is the moral concept of Christianity, the moral teaching about Christianity (moral theology). The ascetic concept of Christianity cannot be recognized as exclusive, but along with it, the moral concept of Christianity is also legitimate. The ascetic concept of Christianity is not moral, and the moral concept of Christianity is not ascetic. Ascetic moral teaching is a contradictio in adjecto, and just as it is indecent for a layman to teach about ascetic life, so it is indecent for a monk to expound the moral teaching about Christianity. Intimate, spiritual Christianity is the same for a monk and a layman, but Christian ethics in its last part embraces social teaching, the doctrine of marriage and the state, and only this last part gives the doctrine of Christian life the concrete character of ethics. A monk is forbidden to baptize infants and perform the sacrament of marriage: it is equally indecent for him to teach about marriage and the state. Moral and theological teaching is the work of a layman. In other words, a moral-theological system must inevitably contain a moral-philosophical element. This is accepted by all our authoritative moralists. So ep. Theophan the Recluse in the Outline of Christian Moral Teaching writes: it is not true, “as if speculative moral teaching built on natural principles has no place at all in Christian moral teaching. On the contrary, it is impossible to do without it. Christianity restores our nature and places it in its proper order. Our nature, thus, serves as the point of departure for the influence of Christianity on it.” And this is not enough: other moralists have more detailed explanations. The moral teaching of Christianity is the assessment and justification of Christianity from a moral and philosophical point of view. In moral theology, the special area of ​​theology merges into the wide sea of ​​philosophy, and this is what makes this theological science different from other theological specialties. The teaching about Christian life, in order to become a moral teaching, must be part of the moral teaching about life in general, the philosophy of life. The moral teaching of Christianity can only be moral and philosophical. And it is beyond the strength of a monk who has renounced life. The history of moral theology in Russia empowers us to place our hopes, in the matter of moral and theological constructions, on the work of the laity and, above all, lay professors. But what does it mean to transfer science from the hands of rectors to the hands of professors? This means transferring it from under the banner of the conservative administrative principle and disciplinary goals to the banner of intimate quests, creative upsurge, under the banner of freedom. If this transfer is carried out only externally, formally, if the whole thing is limited to the fact that a frock coat will sit on the pulpit instead of a cassock, if it is not at the same time a significant change from exclusive conservatism to the right to move forward, to explore further paths, if the frock coat is not a symbol of worldly boldness, respectable ease, all-permissible questioning, then it will not be worth a copper penny. It's about freedom and only freedom. As soon as we uttered the word “Freedom”, many indignantly thought: Protestantism! Protestant individualism! But there is no need to be afraid of freedom, and the Protestant principle is not completely alien to Orthodoxy. Let's listen to what Prof. says. V.V. Bolotov. “The papal system is built on the fact that moral principles are replaced by legal ones; Once something is defined, it no longer needs to be defined. The Catholic Church makes it possible to reconsider known truths. Probably ninety-seven out of 100 believe that we are closer to Roman Catholicism than to Protestantism. In fact, despite the proclamation of freedom, Protestantism is still closer to us, because where there is no personal conviction, there is no faith. When a pagan converts to Christianity, we demand that he become superior to his ancestors, that he think for himself and not refer to their authority. The very conversion to Christianity is built on the beginning of personality. Everything that we do not accept in Protestantism is based on the abuse of this personal principle” 11. The difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is that the latter proclaims freedom outside the church, before the church, and professes absolute individualism, while Orthodoxy accepts freedom in the church. Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, comes from the concept of the church, but whereas for Catholicism the church is all of Christianity, for Orthodoxy, in the words of Bishop. Theophan the Recluse, - “it is not yet a decisive sign of true life in Christ, if someone is called a Christian and belongs to the Church of Christ” 12. Once and for all, we must remember that spiritual truth is revealed dialectically, that it has the form of an endless series of steps, so that a particular position can be true and false depending on whether it occupies its place, its step. The same principle has different meanings when placed in different places in the system. The Orthodox principle of freedom of personal Christianity follows the stage of Christian churchliness and has the meaning that it is necessary to belong to a church, but the church must accommodate the fullness of intimate life and freedom of personal experience. This is the undeniable essence of Christianity. We are now talking about the Christian freedom of the layman, about lay creativity, not only as the essence of Christianity, but also as a scientific and theological method. That mobility in Christian experience, in Christian thought, which distinguishes a layman from a hierarch, can be used in the interests of theological development. The theological thought of a layman, not bound by an official position in the church, is an inquisitive thought - the same as cruisers in the fleet: they plow the mysterious sea in all directions with an ease that is inaccessible to a heavy ship, and provide the latter with an irreplaceable service if it wants to remain motionless. If he tried all the ways himself, he might find himself in a dangerous position. Thousands of paths taken by cruisers will be unnecessary, but one of them will be the one along which the great ship of the church will go. In the freedom of cruising, in the search for something new, lies the possibility of heresy, but this possibility forms an inevitable condition of church life, church progress - ascension to heaven. This truth was recognized in ancient times. This is what we read in the Church history of Eugarius. “Let none of the idolaters laugh at us, that those who follow us overthrow the former, and that something new is always added to our faith; for, experiencing the ineffable and inexplicable love of God for mankind and wanting to honor and exalt Him in every possible way, we turn to one or the other opinion. And not a single inventor of heresy among Christians wanted to deliberately blaspheme, not a single one decided to intentionally destroy the divine, but everyone thought that, by affirming this, he was speaking better than his predecessors. However, the essential and most important things are confessed in common by everyone. The Trinity is our worship, the one is our glorified. This is the God-Word born before the ages, incarnated for creation by his second birth. If something new was decreed in another respect, then this happened because our Savior God gave us freedom in this regard, so that the holy universal and apostolic church would in one way or another lead to proper understanding and piety, and through this would come out on one open and straight path. This is what made the apostle say very clearly: “There must also be heresies among you, so that those who are skilled may be revealed among you (1 Cor. 11:10). Moreover, one must also marvel at the ineffable wisdom of God who spoke to St. Paul: “My strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). That is, what causes the members of the church to disband, the very same thing that promotes and disposes to the establishment of right and irreproachable dogmas - thereby the universal and apostolic church of God is excited to grow and ascend to heaven.” The same idea is expressed by the newest church historian, the famous V.V. Bolotov. “For true Greeks, αἵρεσις was not only not reprehensible, but even a desirable phenomenon. In this sense, ap. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians says that “it is fitting that there should be heresies among you (Christians), so that those who are skilled may be revealed” - οἱ δόκιμοι, i.e. representatives of pure, correct views (1 Cor. 11:19). A choice, αἵρεσις, between different views is necessary to distinguish a real coin from a counterfeit one. Ap himself. Before converting to Christianity, Paul lived, in his words, “in the strict Pharisee heresy” (Acts 26:5), “zealous for the traditions of his fathers (Gal. 1:14). In Judaism there were various αἱρέσεις - Pharisees, Sadducees - and, in principle, a Jew could not look at their existence as lawless. This is similar to the fact that in a constitutional state, different parties fight among themselves for dominance, but at the same time they all have the same right to exist. Ap. Paul states that he preaches "the way" and not heresy (Acts 14:14). There is only one path that leads to a known goal, place, but sometimes you have to make detours along the way. This is clear to anyone who is familiar with country roads. There is a choice to be made as to which road will most likely lead to the goal, and they usually choose the best one. In rainy weather, for example, a mountain road is more convenient, while in dry weather a low-lying road is preferable. From this point of view, αἵρεσις is a completely natural method, but one can only choose between equal, in principle equally good values” 13 In Protestantism, personal conviction is the final authority of Christian truth; in Orthodoxy, in addition to its intimate aspect, there is also an ecclesiastical aspect. The Church evaluates personal experiences, individual tortures, chooses between them: it rejects some, and allows others for church use. In the first case, according to the instructions of the Orthodox conscience, obedience to the church, submission to its verdict is necessary: ​​a Christian’s persistence in his own, individual, personal, would be a betrayal of the spirit of Christianity, a violation of the union of love. This is the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism; but its difference from Catholicism remains in that it gives room for individual diversity, personal depth, that it allows personal creativity for church use. This makes Orthodoxy a living organism, and not a dead mechanism. The entire process of theological creation is well depicted by Leontyev 14 “The laity can and should think and write about new issues, both because they are not bound by the duties of the rank, and also because their word does not have that more binding force that, for believing readers, the words of a patriarch, bishop, or spiritual elder, respected ascetic will always have. A layman needs to think and write about the new, but he should not consider his way of thinking infallible. One must be able to (publicly, even if necessary) renounce it if the recognized church authorities openly and imperiously reject it. It is even permissible, perhaps, to be consoled internally either by the fact that the hour for accepting these thoughts, according to God’s vision, has not yet come; or at least by the fact that it is more soul-saving for me, also according to the Higher Will, to now shut up and submit. Such temporary suspensions do not exclude either movement or even some later approximate triumph.” Freedom is one of the main elements of Orthodoxy, in contrast to Catholicism. It is regulated, but not suppressed. Orthodoxy knows the benefit of free creativity; violence is not characteristic of his spirit. The Lord sent to His creatures. May they be subjected to fruitless torture Flowers for the earth and wings for the birds. Leave the harmonies of Damascus Freedom is an element of Orthodoxy, necessary not only for members of the church, but also for its own life, for its living behavior. Orthodoxy has no other paths of progressive development other than personal quest. Only temporarily and locally can they forget about this element, and then both the church and its members suffer at the same time. Here is a page from A.V.’s Diary. Gorsky. “Yesterday I told about. rector that Vladyka (M.M. Filaret) in a conversation about reasoning, among other things, expressed to him the idea of ​​​​the lack of spiritual works in us. Our spiritual scientists, he said, do not write anything. Yes, how to write? Whatever is written with an effort to reveal a new side in the subject, it will all seem like heresy. Here, for example, heresy: the thought of the development of dogma, that is, it cannot be said that a dogma, remaining the same in its essence, without adding or decreasing in its content, subsequently became clearer in the minds, more definite due to special circumstances that prompted Christians to engage more with this dogma, previously accepted only through feeling. How to look at Christian dogma? Was it really always the same both in the number of truths explained and in the definiteness of these truths? When dogma is considered as a Divine thought, it is united and unchangeable, in itself complete, clear, and definite. But when a dogma is considered as a Divine thought, assimilated or still being assimilated by the human mind, then its external massiveness necessarily increases over time. It is attached to various relationships of a person, meets with one or another of his thoughts and, coming into contact, explains them and explains himself; contradictions and objections bring him out of a calm state and force him to reveal his divine energy. Sometimes centuries, peoples do not understand him, they reject him; he finally gains the upper hand. True, he was not defeated even when the lie triumphed over him: at least people didn’t think so. New discoveries of the human mind in the field of truth, its gradually increasing experience, add new clarity to it. What previously could have been doubted was now undoubted, well decided. Thus, each dogma has its own sphere, which grows over time, comes into closer and closer contact with other parts of Christian dogma and with other principles lying in the human mind: all this grows together, is embodied in one body, enlivened by one spirit: the entire area of ​​the mind is enlightened by this; all sciences, the more they are related to dogma, benefit from this in accuracy and positivity; over time, a complete, rigorous system of knowledge becomes more and more possible. This is the course of development of dogma, this is its life! This is a heavenly star. To the inexperienced and naked eye, this star was a small point of light. The more he then peered into it, the further he began to observe it, the more he used the necessary aids, the clearer the extraordinary enormity of this point became for him (he had been mistaken before); he began to distinguish various features at this point: then he found out her relationship to others around her; these various stars became for him one correct system. Dogmas are the same.” All this is a discussion about the development of the dogmas of the famous A.V. Gorsky is very interesting and relates to our topic. These words are especially noteworthy: “no matter what is written with an effort to reveal a new side in the subject, it will all seem like heresy.” These words find confirmation in the history of Russian theology, in the fate of all our outstanding theologians. Which of them was not under suspicion on the part of the guardians of orthodoxy? Let's start with the glorious Feofan Prokopovich, with whom theology in Russia became Russian theology. All the time before Theophan, before Peter the Great, for the history of free religious thought there was an empty place, an impenetrable darkness: then the Russians did not even have a concept of freedom in religion, they seemed to those observing them from the outside as “keeping their fatherly faith ... beings who are not curious and not cunning people” (Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem), they lived according to the inviolable rule: “not to have doubts and not to experience, and not to reason, but only believe” (Metropolitan Macarius). The first Feofan Prokopovich spoke about the pure and undamaged sources of Christian doctrine, about testing inherited beliefs, about independent paths of theology 15 - and his whole life passed under the sword of Damocles of accusations of heresy. His many enemies, born of envy of his brilliant career, looked for a weak point in his free theology to fight him, a weapon to remove him from their path. The first denunciation was made by Stefan Yavorsky - before the appointment of Theophan as bishop 16. And, what is especially curious, historians have established that Stephen was not driven by zeal for Orthodoxy. In science, it is generally accepted that Feofan Prokopovich was influenced by the Protestant systems of Gerhard, Gollazius and Quenstedt. It doesn’t matter to us now how correct this opinion is. In those days, the book “Thoughts of God in favor of the faithful” was translated and published (in 1710 and 1711), which is a literal translation of Gerhard’s book Meditationes sacrae. Stefan Yavorsky actively distributed the book in Moscow and St. Petersburg, “not paying attention to the fact that it expressed completely non-Orthodox opinions on the very issues on which Moscow theologians disagreed with Theophan.” The well-known freethinker Tveritinov “reproached Yavorsky with this, who had no choice but to admit that he was giving away this book without looking or reading” 17 . Theophan successfully acquitted himself and was ordained bishop. Stefan was forced to reconcile with Theophan, and admitted that he had not seen Theophan’s works and signed the denunciation slipped to him (by Archimandrite Theophylact Lopatinsky and Hieromonk Gideon Vishnevsky) without reading 18 . “The Life of the Heretic Feofan Prokopovich” compiled by Markell Rodyshevsky (printed in Readings in General History and Ancient Russia, 1862, book II) can serve as an example of extreme pettiness, pickiness, and shameless inventiveness in accusations, of which only cold hatred is capable. Feofan prevailed over Rodyshevsky and many of his other enemies, but the atmosphere of denunciations that surrounded him until the end of his life directed all his energy to fight his enemies and crippled his soul 19 . Not always on such a huge scale, the threat of accusations of heresy hung over later theologians. Metropolitan M. Platon in his Autobiography reports how this accusation threatened him in his youth, when he was still Pyotr Levshinov, a teacher at the Academy. “The success and praise of Petrov’s teaching, which spread throughout Moscow, inspired the envy of some, and especially His Eminence Ambrose, then the former bishop of Pereslavl, and after the archbishop of Moscow: and it was disclosed that Levshinov taught many things contrary to the Church; and therefore he should be punished and expelled from the Academy. This disclosure reached Peter, and confused him a lot.” And Innokenty of Kherson? Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow himself? Protopr. I.L. Yanyshev? The latter writes about himself: “The experience I made in explaining and defining concepts (Christian moral teaching) was, in the form of a dissertation, submitted to the Council of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy for the degree of Doctor of Theology, which was then required from an ordinary professor. But neither the council of the Academy recognized it as possible without the permission of the Holy Synod, nor did the Holy Synod allow it to be printed: so my feasible explanations of the most important concepts in the teaching of morality seemed unusual then.” And prof. Olesnitsky and a number of other modest professors of theology, mainly moral? It is impossible to say that we do not understand the importance of personal and, in particular, lay creativity in theology. Remember how M. M. Filaret, under whose regime the smartest Gorsky was suffocating, treated Muravyov with care. It is enough to cope with the letter (325) of Filaret to him. “May God save you from your “spirit losing” and thus stopping the matter. If you undertook a business for honor or for profit, and were in fear of not achieving them: this would be a case of being shaken in spirit. But when you have undertaken a work out of love for the Church, for the good of your neighbor, you must continue it with peace and firmness, entrusting it to the Providence of God. Whatever the consequences, your work is not lost before God. I think that your fear is in vain, and that things will not be stopped. It seems to me that the reasons for not stopping the work that I communicated to you and presented to the authorities are fair and strong. I am writing down your words: “tell me, why should a layman write something that is unusual for him?” “I didn’t say this and I won’t say it, because I didn’t think and don’t think.” I knew, by your power of attorney, about your undertaking to write the lives of the Saints of the Russian Church before you began the task. I ask you to remember, have you heard anything from me similar to what you attribute to me? If you had made this objection to me on behalf of others, I could tell you for permission: Symeon Metaphrastus wrote the lives of the Saints without being a Bishop or Presbyter. Even more expressive, due to its more fundamental form, is the reasoning of Archbishop. Anthony (Khrapovitsky). “If at the present time any, even a simple, humble Christian begins to talk about the truths of faith (in new terms), but without any contradiction to church tradition, then such an author, while remaining in agreement with Orthodox theology, does not reveal new secrets of faith, but from the point of view of the eternal truth of faith, explains new needs of modern human thought. The modern reader, seeing in his words a long-awaited answer to his perplexities in faith, is ready to proclaim such an interpretation as a “new revelation,” while another, alien to these requests, an admirer of school authorities, hesitates with distrust and hostility to agree with the author and persistently looks for heresy in him, not wanting to come to terms with the fact that the subject is explained better than in established textbooks. Meanwhile, he did not say anything contrary to the textbooks, and the very assessment of the comparative merits of his interpretations with educational literature depends primarily not on the presentation of the eternal content of faith, which is identical in both of these interpretations, but on the explanation of the changing demands of modern thought.” What, you might say, is a magnificent apology for lay creativity in theology! How magnificently the boundary is drawn between the eternal, unchanging content of Christianity and its temporary, local, individual vestments, personal experiences and opinions! But calm down your excitement. The Right Reverend author is not talking about every layman, but about a certain person, about Khomyakov, as Filaret wrote to Muravyov. Oh, if every lay professor were recognized with the right to think and write “for the love of the church, for the good of his neighbor,” if he were given the opportunity, “while remaining in agreement with Orthodox theology, to explain the subject as if better than in established textbooks, to meet modern demands,” what enthusiasm would have gripped the professorial corporation, with what theological originality it would have declared itself to the astonished Russian world. But no, “spring will not come for them,” but for Muravyov and Khomyakov. The living room is open to strangers; people will wait in the hallway. For strangers, breadth of creativity, courage of thought, for our own - modest execution of orders 20. Prof. N.I. Barsov, who wrote a lot about Khomyakov, in his article “On the significance of Khomyakov in the history of Russian theology” (Chronicles Reading 1878, I) praised Khomyakov’s courage, along with many other features of theology. “The very boldness in posing the problems of Christian dogma and in solving them in a unique way is a truly patristic trait” 21 . I became blind, spending whole days reading for many years, and not once did I happen to read that “patristic courage” was praised in a theologian of my own, although even the Spiritual Regulations in the section on “school houses” designed the education in students of a theological school of “honest courage, which is required by the preaching of the word of God.” There is a special speech in relation to the real activities of one’s own people. “Unable to interest students in their stale literary goods, liberal professors look with insatiable eyes at the Trubetskoys, Solovyovs and Lebedevs, and especially at the Tübingen professors.” And even worse. And yet the paper suffers when they dream of “arousing religious and theological initiative in the students of the theological school,” when they expect from them in the future “courage of thought, creativity, and moral inspiration,” they hope to see “an end to the sterility of academic science.” Where will all this come from? What can I say, in a theological school a negative attitude towards Christianity cannot be tolerated, but if anyone thinks that here lies an objection to “freedom of theological creativity,” he is allowing himself to be pitiful. We are talking exclusively about such creativity, which, without contradicting Orthodoxy, explains “from the point of view of eternal truth, new demands of thought.” Likewise, we do not even raise the question of the authority of the highest church authority, which undoubtedly has the decisive vote: that is not what we are talking about! The question is about the attitude towards works, positively, with love for the Church and the good of one’s neighbor, revealing Christian truth in view of new demands of thought - about the attitude towards such theological works from criticism, whether it be criticism from an official or a free person. We assume that such a critic has his own theological system, or that he is an admirer of school authorities, and that the new work represents a unique system. The entire condition for theological progress is that the new system should not be judged from the point of view of the reviewer’s system or established textbooks, that its Orthodoxy should be measured only by the dogmas of the church, and not by the opinions of the reviewer, that there should be complete tolerance for what is unique in the new system and does not contradict the dogmas of Orthodoxy. 22 We, in our church society, do not have such tolerance! - “Where there is a system, there is a personal consideration, where there is one’s own consideration, there is the possibility of one’s own opinion, disagreeing with others in one way or another.” This is read from Theophan the Recluse “The soul and the angel are not the body, but the spirit” (1868 p. 38). It is clear that the new system’s disagreement with the critic’s system does not yet mean disagreement with Orthodoxy. The diversity of systematic constructions is the life of theology. This is something we don’t understand. Anything that disagrees with the personal opinion of the reviewer is declared heresy. In our country, Orthodoxy is mixed with the established educational system. We have no curiosity about new constructions. Anything that bears the stamp of originality is persecuted. “Courage of thought, creativity and moral inspiration” are considered a personal insult to the reviewer: he is so inflamed with hatred. It is precisely this that all this cannot be forgiven for: the wild herd instinct. Everything creative and original is branded as heresy. The epidemic of accusations of non-marking is rooted here. “Nemetchina” is a fashionable term for heresy. It is the fruit of the same intolerance towards the original, original, creative. The intolerance of originality among one’s own people is only more emphasized. “Right there!” “Smarter than us!” If the reviewer fancies himself a theologian κατ’ ἐξοχῃν, this nickname eliminates the opponent; most often it is the voice of stupid complacency of herd leveling; Orthodoxy and nationalism cover up spiritual weakness and internal slavery. This is the psychology of slaves. There is no self-respect, self-confidence, courage to have your own values, your own heroes. Residents of Nazareth. But this is what slavery consists of. How can you free yourself from German dominance if you do not have inner freedom, if you cannot recognize your best, “brave and creative” as yours? In order to free yourself from the pathetic dependence on the Germans, on German compilations, give freedom to your doers, your creators. Otherwise there will be no end to slavery. In the spiritual realm, it is not the Germans who are our enemies; they were not the ones who imposed our compilations on us. Evil is in those of our orders that pave the smooth path for compilation. Our last evil is the Svetlov fathers, the Klitina fathers, the enemies of all free thought. The artists are booed by God's grace, and the stage is cleared for farcical parsleys. Here I find it appropriate to return to the review of. Svetlova about my system. Review about. Svetlova is a magnificent example of our prevailing principled, which in this case means: pathological, intolerance towards the individual element of theology. In addition, the very subject of my dispute with Svetlov is centered on the question of the individual principle in theology. And the fact that I have to talk about a personal matter - let it not leave the slightest trace of “a kind of inconvenience,” that is, I will make efforts to completely eliminate traces of personal irritation from my speech, I will reason in Spinoz’s more geometrico, geometric method, as si quaestio de lineis, planis, aut de corporibus esset, as if the matter were about lines, planes or bodies. It is especially necessary to follow this method when dealing with prot. Svetlov, who gained notoriety for his obscene arrogance and extreme, frankly, painful rudeness in his reviews of theology professors: with such people, in order not to be like them, you need to be strictly correct. Eliminating inconveniences, I will take advantage of all the conveniences of this circumstance, namely, complete awareness of the material that will be discussed. Review about. Svetlov about my Fundamentals of Christianity is an extremely instructive fact: if he does not distort my thoughts, which also happens, he reproaches me for what he himself has. In the review by Fr. Svetlova (Christian doctrine in an apologetic presentation, vol. I, ed. 1910), the theology of “a certain M. Tareev, a former professor at the Theological Academy,” is charged with condemnation of the “principle of absolute individualism” or “religious creativity” in Christian knowledge, as a result of which each theology receives only a subjective-autobiographical meaning, as an expression of various internal “experiences and requests of a religious person.” All this theology is a product of his individual and “autocratic” religious creativity, which represents absolutely no significance for those who in theology are looking for means to knowledge of Christianity, and not for the autobiographies of theologians, who are hardly needed by anyone due to the obscurity of their authors. Undoubtedly, as the most characteristic feature of the religious-theological “creativity” or religious worldview of M. Tareev, the penetrating religious individualism should be noted, which is especially regrettable for the Christian religion of love and unity of all believers in Christ, connected in life and knowledge “through all kinds of mutually binding ties” (Eph. 4:16) into the one Body of Christ, the Church. Instead, Tareev’s Christianity is a revelation of the fullness of life and knowledge, confined to individual individuals - some kind of absoluteness of the gospel life, the absoluteness of the individual, to use Mr. Tareev’s clumsy language. Religious individualism of this kind, as an integral mood of the individual, would be self-deification on religious grounds, abuse of the Gospel idea of ​​sonship with God, self-exaltation with an imaginary absoluteness, naturally combined with contempt for “worldly conventions.” It seems (oh. Svetlov), it is difficult to go further than Tareev’s Christianity along the path of absolute “creativity in theology,” and the caricature of Christianity concocted by the creative imagination of M. Tareev, based on some of his experiences, better than any words, actually warns against the extremes of individualism in Christian knowledge. In such a theology there is no place left for the objective, divine element; everything is reduced to the creativity of the “autocratic” personality, her understanding; therefore there is no Christian knowledge here (330–334). So oh. Svetlov characterizes my theology. Next, I will write out those passages from the Fundamentals of Christianity that caused the indignation of Archpriest. Svetlov, and then I will move on to his own “teachings”. Prot. Svetlov cited two series of passages from my writings, each of which has its own theme in Chr Thu. 1908 Jan page 45. 46 = Main. hr. IV, 339. 340 we are talking “about religious creativity and knowledge,” which is called autocratic in relation to discursive knowledge, that is, we are talking about what is called intuition, mystical comprehension. It says: “Religious knowledge is based on critical philosophy, which is of irreplaceable importance in the matter of expelling all gnostic superstitions from the field of religious thinking; but philosophy has no positive meaning in religious thinking; it does not contribute anything to its content. Religious creativity and knowledge, like artistic creativity and knowledge, forms a completely autocratic area, which is compatible with real-positive knowledge, but cannot be replaced by philosophical gnosis.” By religious creativity here we mean the spiritual life of religious people and, above all, the life of Christ, which is the subject of Christian theology. “The new revelation of the gospel is given not in the form of new theoretical knowledge, but in the form of a new experience of the divine (and not theological, as Svetlov rewrites) experiences of Christ, which are assimilated by believers. All Christian knowledge develops only from this experience and has absolutely no mystical-gnostic or rationalistic character.” This is what I call religious creativity and knowledge, autocratic in relation to real-positive knowledge. In the second group of passages (God. V. 1908, May 143 and June 338) we are talking about personal theological creativity, about systematic theological constructions, which are always imprinted with an individual subjective character. I write God. Vestn. 1908 May 143: “It is not difficult to understand that works of more or less lasting value in the theological field are either purely historical, setting out the objective truth, or those whose content is religious thinking, personal theological creativity. In the first, the identity of the author is obscured; on the contrary, the entire meaning of the latter lies in the personal element, in a consistent worldview, in a certain author’s physiognomy. The first lose nothing by appearing anonymous, and they, of course, must prepare and give way to subsequent more advanced research: secondly, the author’s invested soul, personal experiences, religious hopes and suffering have eternal, irreplaceable value. Our environment values ​​first-class work, understanding only the objectivity of research in the sense of impersonality, colorlessness of literary work; but she is completely unprepared and incapable of appreciating the work of the second kind.” And ibid., June 338: “In our country, long-term persecution of religious thought has given rise to a deeply rooted superstition that it is indecent to talk about one’s personal religious beliefs. To present accepted church teaching, to interpret an external church-historical fact, is scientific, but to build a personal religious worldview, at the very least, is not accepted: it offends common sense,” etc. There is an analogy between theological creativity and the mysticism of the Christian religion, as an object of theological thinking (congeniality: vol. II, 18. 312), but they are not identified, for theology is only the science of religious experience (the life and face of Christ). This topic is discussed in more detail in my introduction to the second volume. There I talk about the insufficiency of critical science for the construction of the Christian idea. “We understand the amazing sterility of critical theology in positive results, in the construction of the first Christian idea. Historical-critical conclusions are very valuable and necessary for the scientific understanding of the Gospel teaching - the historical perspective of Christian primary sources is excellently constructed, the historical basis, the historical background of Christian teaching is clearly developed; but scientific theology cannot reproduce the teaching itself, recreate the Christian idea on its own... External historical criticism can determine the external fate of a monument, its historical basis, and bring it to the threshold of its internal content, but here is the limit for it. To construct its own content, for its internal assessment, a new principle must be added to the principles of biblical theology - the principle of related creativity, internal comprehension. This would be a fruitful combination of scientific criticism with subjective creativity, which would fill the critical form with internal content and provide a scientific justification for religious value”... (11–13). Theology, being, in its subjective element, an adherence to the conclusions of critical science, is equally not absolute from the side of historical fact (the life of Christ) and church dogma. After all, all my theology is only an interpretation of the life and teachings of Christ, an interpretation of the Four Gospels, as accepted by the church, in a literal understanding of the facts of the life and words of Christ and within the boundaries of church dogmas. I say this directly in the introductory lines of the first volume (p. 6) “The author is obliged to declare that this religious system has in his eyes neither confessional-didactic nor purely objective meaning: he gives a personal understanding of Christianity, a personal religious worldview. These books discuss not that side of Christianity that forms the generally accepted church formula and the generally accepted external scientific frame of the Christian religion, but that in Christianity that lies behind this formula and beyond this frame and which inevitably presupposes subjective experience, individual illumination.”... On the dogmatic boundaries of theology, see especially II, 19–20; V, 215–227, God. West. 1910 July-Aug. 509. So, I am talking about the autocracy of religious creativity, first of all, of Christ himself, about the autocracy of the spiritual experience of believers, and about personal theological creativity, about subjective creativity in theology, that is, in comprehending the objective side of religion, but I have never fallen into madness to say: my theology is autocratic. Neither in fact, in the content of my system, nor in words, in my definitions of the theological method, do I have the principle of absolute individualism, so that “everyone’s theology receives only a subjective autobiographical meaning.” On the contrary, I never once apply the principle of subjective comprehension, theological creativity, except for the purpose of knowing the objective side of Christianity: otherwise there would be no place for religious knowledge, since I do not allow Gnosticism. “Biological evolution (phylogeny) is repeated in embryological development (ontogenesis): religious-historical evolution is repeated in personal-religious development. The two religious evolutions, historical and personal, are mutually illuminated. Because of this, religious research acquires personal religious value, and subjective experience and religious creativity, in contrast to scholastic theology, acquires epistemological significance" (II, 31-32 cf. 18-19). I expressly reject absolute individualism. "In addition to school theology, we have recently had many lovers of religious thinking among representatives of secular literature. Here we often encounter what school theology lacks - free religious thought, free religious experience. But it is noteworthy that these free religious thinkers have a drawback that makes them similar to representatives of theological scholasticism - they have the same and even greater disdain for the historical meaning of the gospel, in interpreting the biblical text they adhere to a method that can be called ventriloquist, they with unbridled arbitrariness introduce their own meaning into sacred sayings, up to and including the results of Nietzschean philosophy and decadent thought” (II. 10). The entire composition of my method is directed, on the one hand, against the one-sidedness of critical science, and on the other, against the extremes of absolute individualism. How did the reviewer manage to accuse me of both extremes, which would be unnatural? Now let us turn to Archpriest Svetlov’s own writings. On page 320 of the named volume of Christian Doctrine, he writes: “Christian knowledge in general and dogmatic knowledge, which has as its subject the Christian faith in particular, is composed of an organic interaction or harmonious combination of two elements of divine and human, revelation and reason, the teachings of the church or dogmas and private theological opinions or explanations of them by believing thought.” These two elements must be strictly distinguished “In Christian knowledge, the separation of these private theological opinions from the strictly dogmatic field is possible, since the dogmas or truths defined by the church are known to every believer from the catechism. In particular, a clear distinction between dogma and private theological opinions is not difficult for a theologian. It is mandatory for him and more than others. A constant, clear distinction between dogma and private opinion is a sure sign of a good theologian, and we find this trait in the great theologians of the patristic period, i.e. namely from the fathers and teachers of the church. Quite often they deliberately emphasized their own opinions to their readers out of fear that they would not be confused with the teachings of the church. So St. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom distinguish the said δογματι κ ῶς from ἀγωνιστικῶς, and Bl. Jerome expresses the idea that in the works of St. Fathers should always be distinguished between what they wrote διαλεκτικῶς and what they set forth as truth. As for bad theologians, on the contrary, they only try to ensure that their wretched opinions are accepted as the dogmas of the church; They have a bad habit of speaking δογματικῶς (dogmatically), in the name of the church.” This is what Archpriest writes. Svetlov. How does my principle differ from the principle he expressed here? Why on this page about. Svetlov did not remember me and did not say this: “as an example from modern theology - perhaps the only example - of a strict distinction between dogma and private opinion, Prof. Tareev, who, in the preface to the Fundamentals of Christianity, honestly and openly declares that he sets out here a personal religious worldview and does not pretend to elevate his intimate relationship to the historical Face of Christ to the level of a generally binding norm (Fundamental Chronicle, vol. I, p. 6)?” On what page, in what connection of thoughts would he remember me and remember me with praise. Svetlov, if only he had been more objective in his judgments. On the same pages (326–328) Fr. Svetlov defends the freedom of individual creativity in theology. “Church-administrative guardianship over religious and theological thought always has its source in the insufficient delimitation of the area of ​​​​purely church teaching from the teaching in the church of private individuals, its individual members, who cannot in any way be given ecclesiastical authority, and therefore there can be no harm to the church from providing private theological and literary activity with complete freedom, while clearly distinguishing it from the activity of the church itself. By transferring the property of immutability and immobility from the objective element of knowledge to the subjective or theological mind, theology, as a science, is crossed out: in Christian knowledge, this denies the place for individual creativity and freedom of thought in the field of religious knowledge, and to the detriment of the mobility, vitality and diversity of knowledge, unity in the sense of dead monotony is put forward in the first place, any individual manifestation in the field of theological knowledge, for example, in the form of even private theological opinions, even if not contradicting dogmas, becomes in the Latin type of religious thinking a sin, a deficiency, a violation of the principle of unity: originality and novelty of thought are persecuted, but conservatism is encouraged. Under such conditions, the existence of those branches of theological knowledge is especially difficult where, by the very essence of the matter, the individual must inevitably appear in a prominent place (the area of ​​systematic theology, which has as its goal the development and explanation of the positive content of the Christian religion, the development of an integral Christian worldview, the clarification and disclosure of the Christian ideal of life and knowledge).” So, but if o. Svetlov defends individual creativity in theology, freedom of expression of personality in the development of a Christian worldview, then why does individual creativity in my theology turn out to be “horrifying”? In places there are formidable philippics about. Svetlova sound like my apology. “Without faith,” writes Svetlov (335), “one cannot be a theologian. This is the truth and it is an indisputable conclusion from the teaching about the essence and conditions of Christian knowledge. In our country, apparently, this simple truth has been thoroughly forgotten, if the Tareevs are considered representatives of Christian scientific and theological knowledge, if only they could somehow master a certain amount of information about what was written about Christianity by those of little faith and non-believers and what among them bears the loud name of genuine science, critical theology, etc. If true Christian (Orthodox) knowledge is impossible without true Christian (Orthodox) faith, then true Christian (Orthodox) theological science is also impossible without the Orthodox Christian faith in theology, and, moreover, of course, the living, and not the rational, faith of jurisprudence. We will not have Orthodox theological science until we remember this old truth in theology and return in Christian knowledge to the path indicated by the Bible with its religious and ethical view of knowledge as a matter of will and feelings, conscience, the whole personality, and the teaching of the church fathers on knowledge, as well as their living example” (335). Fabulous. But this is my thought - this is what I was talking about, this, first of all, is my theory of the autocracy of religious experience! How is it possible for the theory of autocracy, which defends the independence of religious experience or faith from the claims of critical theology, to be declared a slavish adherence to critical theology? Something monstrous! The self-sufficiency of critical theology is the exact opposite of the theory of the autocracy of religious experience. This is not enough. Actually, in the Christian Doctrine, even in the third edition of the first volume (1910), which was published later than the Fundamentals of Christianity, the author does not rise above the thought of personal opinions in dogmatic matters. But the following year, 1911, he wrote a special article in Christian Rest (April): Life in Christ or internal Christian experience as the main basis of Christian confidence. Already in the previous article (March) The Life of Christ, as a visual historical evidence of Christianity and the basis of Christian confidence, where it is said that “the correct concept of the essence of Christianity (as a historical fact) for a student of Christianity and who wants to ascertain its truth first of all establishes the obligation of a scientific-historical examination of Christianity, its historical foundations, not theorizing about Christianity and its dogmas, but the study of Christianity in its historical foundations” (377–378), already in this article it is said (387): “only a Christian can understand Christianity and say a weighty word about it, the proof of which will be given below in the chapter on internal Christian experience as the foundation of Christian knowledge, the source of Christian conviction and the main condition for understanding Christianity, i.e. Jesus Christ, His person, deeds, teachings,” so the “unsuitability of negative literature on the history of Christianity, or so-called. scientific and historical negativity of biblical criticism to examine the historical foundations of Christianity." The article Life in Christ reveals this idea about internal Christian experience as the main basis of Christian confidence. On the external side, Christianity is the manifestation of God in the flesh, the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and on the internal side, Christianity is a new spiritual life brought into the world by Christ. From here - from the fact that Christianity is not only a historical, but also a psychological fact - the conclusion follows that the basis of Christian knowledge should be internal religious and moral experience, or Christian life, life in Christ. Our Christian confidence ultimately rests on this inner experience as its main foundation. The principle of the subjective basis of our religious confidence is not eo ipso one-sided Protestant subjectivism. According to the view of the subjective school, we come to faith in Christ not through history, but through the continuing influence of the glorified Christ living in his society on us. The Protestant theology of the Richlian and Erlangen schools neglects historical scientific research about Christianity, saying that they humiliate faith. On the contrary, it must be said that the truth, which became a tangible historical fact in the person of the incarnate God the Word, became accessible to even scientific-historical knowledge. Correctly understood subjectivism only joins objective knowledge. It is directed only against the preference of external knowledge to internal experience, against the desire to dwell on the external without penetrating it inside with experience: our knowledge is based not only on the external basis of historical facts, but also on the internal basis of experience... This is how Fr. argues. Svetlov, and I cannot but approve of his reasoning, for they seem to me to be an almost literal repetition of the introduction to the second volume of the Fundamentals of Christianity. From another point of view, one could consider the date of the Inner Christian Experience very important, but now for us the interest lies elsewhere. What kind of excuse or explanation can be found for the passionate attacks of Fr. Svetlova is against my theory of theological creativity, while the same theory is expressed by the reviewer himself? After all, the fact that he ascribes to me the theory of absolute individualism, having no basis for it, either verbal or factual, remakes my expression “divine experiences of Christ” into “theological experiences”, transfers autocracy from the religious creativity of Christ and believers to personal theology - all this is not a reason, not an explanation, but the result of passionate blindness. Likewise, by instilling in me false spiritualism, contempt for “worldly conventions,” the idea of ​​the fusion of flesh and spirit, he distorts my worldview, which is decisively directed against spiritualism, against contempt for worldly conventions, against the fusion of flesh and spirit. Explanations of attacks about. Svetlov can only be sought in his pathological intolerance to the originality and novelty of my system, and his hatred of the author of the Fundamentals of Christianity is fully confirmed by all these techniques: “former professor”, “unknown author”, “incomprehensible muttering”. I am pleased to emphasize this psychosis of the reviewer, because I have never come across a negative review about the Fundamentals of Christianity that was not of an affective nature. Rough review about. Svetlova stands out from others only in that the reviewer, being a supporter of the theory of theological individual creativity, is indignant at my principle of theological creativity and my system built according to this method. His review with spectacular clarity testifies to the prevailing lack of culture and bad manners in our society. Just as a savage, unable to rise to universally binding principles, says: “good is when I steal someone else’s cow, and evil is when they take my cow,” so is Fr. Svetlov writes: “freedom of theological creativity means that my right to personal opinions is recognized and that this right does not belong to others.” If Svetlov proclaims the theory of individual theological creativity and inner experience as a source of Christian conviction, then this is original, but if Tareev not only formulated the same theory even earlier, but also built a coherent theological system on this principle, which is much more important, then this is non-Metchinism, Richlianism. The epidemic search for unmarked goods is drowned in a broader phenomenon - in the fear of heresy, in the slavish fear of everything “brave and creative.” Likewise, real incompetence, the abundance of compilations from foreign languages, is only a special case of a broader phenomenon - spiritual relaxation, spiritual laziness. You have to be a baby to take non-meth literally. Do you think that we really had a serious attraction to German and Protestant theology? We copied from Latin (later French and English) no less than from German, copied from Catholics no less than from Protestants. And, remaining in the circle of compilations, we can recognize as indisputable that our copyists never dogmatically deviated towards Catholicism or Protestantism, that they were never guided by a predilection for non-Methodism as non-Methodism, to Protestantism as Protestantism. The question of the influence of Catholic or Protestant ideas in our theology must be separated from the question of compiling our systems based on foreign originals, with the inevitable elimination of dogmatic deviations from Orthodoxy. Of course, with the system the spirit of Catholicism or Protestantism penetrated to us, especially in the ethical field, where differences of faith are not striking to scholars as much as dogmatic differences; but still, during compilations, during the work of Theophylact of Gorsky, Plato of Thebes, Archpriest. Solyarsky, the defining principle was not the addiction to non-mechanics, but the need to borrow a system from anyone, the powerlessness to create one’s own system, to write one’s own book. When later our theological literature in Russian grew, then our weak scribblers began, like the inhabitants of one legendary island who found a means of subsistence by washing each other’s clothes, to copy from each other. The abomination of plagiarism, arising from the spiritual weakness and moral dishonesty of scribbler theologians who have filled the theological arena, which is carefully cleared for them, the abomination of plagiarism has only changed its appearance, and one must understand that the true heirs of Theophylacts of Mountains and Plato of Thebes are now our Fathers Malinovsky and Stelletsky, who washed each other’s linen. And the last evil is worse than the first, because those were the first steps in science, and now the dominance of plagiarists is created artificially, by all sorts of fathers Svetlov and Kalitin, and plagiarism is committed, in accordance with this new situation, fully armed with disgusting techniques and extreme impudence. I already had to write a review about the dogmatic system of Fr. Malinovsky, who throughout four large volumes “doesn’t have a single word of his own.” What Malinovsky is in dogmatics, what Stelletsky is in moral theology. In the Experience of Moral Orthodox Theology in Apologetic Light - there are supposed to be three volumes, the first one was published in Kharkov (1914), as an imprint from the magazine V. and R., where the printing of the second volume continues in 1915 - there is not a single word of his own. This is complete plagiarism with the usual oddities accompanying it: the originals are either not indicated at all, or are named in the indexes of the literature of the subject, and about these indexes a remark was made in advance that the author did not use the works named here, but they are only known to him 23 ; false quotations are put in, covering up the real trace: foreign quotations are abundantly advertised, always taken at second hand. In the first paragraph of the Introduction, the definition of moral theology as a science is set out according to the textbooks of Pyatnitsky and Olesnitsky, after which Fr. Stelletsky, without putting quotation marks, writes out Christ from the article. Thurs. 1868, part I Tasks of moral theology as a science. Stelletsky writes on pp. 1–3: “The Christian moral ideal, like Christianity itself, despite its unchangeable and eternal foundations, is a historical phenomenon. Before and after Christianity there were and are special moral ideals. Comparing them is absolutely necessary to understand the nature and content of the Christian ideal. Thus, the moral views of ancient religions”, etc. “Christianity did not provide definite forms for social life - this was below its task. The religion of the eternal ideals of life does not determine its transitory forms, changing under the influence of various historical conditions of human life,” etc. In Chrysanthus, page 358: “This ideal, like Christianity itself, despite its unchangeable and eternal foundations, is a historical phenomenon. Before him and after him there were and are other moral views, other moral ideals. A comparison of both is absolutely necessary to understand the nature and content of the first. Thus, the views of antiquity”, etc. p. 361: “Christianity did not provide a definite form for social life - this was below its task. The religion of universal truth, the religion of the spirit and eternal ideals of life - does not determine its transitory forms, changing under the influence of various historical conditions of life,” etc. Next, Stelletsky discusses the names of science - reasoning is borrowed from Yanyshev and Bronzov. So pp. 3–4: “The Greek name ethical (from ηϑος or in the Ionic dialect εϑος) is not of biblical origin, although it occurs three times in St. Scripture (1 Cor. 15:33; Acts 16:21; 26:3). The name comes from εζο - to plant (in the form of the middle voice εζομαι to sit) originally, precisely in Homer, it meant settledness, constancy of residence, and only in later writers did it acquire the meaning of a way of life, custom, nature of activity... The name moralis, obviously, originated from the Latin word moralitas, mos - disposition, which in turn comes from movis, moveo "... Yanyshev has Rights. hr. doctrine of morality ed. 2, pp. 12–14: “The Russian word morality, as well as the Latin moralitas, the Greek ηϑικα or ηϑος are not of biblical or ecclesiastical origin. The Greek ηϑος is found in the 1st last. Cor.15:33. Moralitas comes from mos, disposition, which in turn comes from movis, moveo.. Greek ηϑος, in the Ionic dialect εϑος, from the verb εζο - to plant, in the form of the middle verb: to sit... precisely in Homer it means settledness, constancy of residence; Only among later writers did it acquire the meaning of a way of life, custom, character." On pp. 6–7, Stelletsky defines morality in the words of Yanyshev with reference to him, but what follows this reference is also taken from Yanyshev, p. 16. The last paragraph is copied from Martensen, who is named in the footnote, but there are no quotation marks. Paragraph two: Morality and religion is drawn from Gusev, Gorodensky, Pyatnitsky, articles by A. B. The dependence of morality on religion in railways. V. and R. 1889, Levitova, Yanysheva. Olesnitsky. Book by Prof. Gorodensky's The Moral Consciousness of Humanity is not mentioned, but from it, page 136, Stelletsky took a quote from Guyot on page 10, putting in a footnote: Gyuau (sic) Esquisse d’une morale sans obligation ni sanction, ed. F Alcan. Paris 1905, p. 116, although in other cases, for example, page 241, he, following other leaders, quotes: Guyot's Essay on Morals. From Gorodensky, page 21 is taken: “The difference in this regard extends to the inability to understand each other: the savage, in response to the missionary’s admonitions that it is unjust and very bad to eat human flesh, assures that it is, on the contrary, very good. (In line note. O. Flugel Ueber die Entwicklung der sittlichen Ideen. Zeitschrift für Völker-Psychologie und Sprachwissenschaft S 31). From the point of view of the differences in human worldviews, it is also understandable why, at a certain stage of cultural development, every people recognizes such moral duties that they will later regard as crimes. Such, for example, is the custom of revenge, which always precedes criminal punishment for crimes. (Adapted note by I. George Humanität und Kriminalstrafen. Jena, 1898, p. 3.5. Cf. Grosse Forms of family and forms of farms and. Moscow. 1898, p. 56),” etc. In I. G. Gorodensky, pp. 2–3: “The differences in beliefs here extend to the inability to understand each other: the savage, in response to the missionary’s admonitions that it is very bad to eat human flesh, begins to assure that it, on the contrary, is very good. (O. Flügel Ueber die Entwicklung der sittlichen Ideen. Zeitschrift für Völker-Psychologie und Sprachwissenschaft. B. XII, S. 31) At a certain stage of cultural development, every people recognizes such moral duties, which later it will consider as crimes. Such, for example, is the custom of revenge, everywhere (I. George Humanität und Kriminalstrafen. Jena 1898, SS. 3, 5) preceding criminal punishment for crimes (... Grosse Forms of family and forms of economy M. 1898, p. 56), etc. Stelletsky copies the text from Gorodensky, borrows foreign quotations from him in footnotes, but not a word about Gorodensky. Without mentioning a word about Yanyshev in this place, Stelletsky borrows from him, pp. 24–25: “Religions are usually produced from a special need innate to man, called religious, by which we mean man’s desire to seek the root cause of everything that exists and to place himself in one or another relationship to it,” etc. Yanyshev pp. 269–270: “A person’s relationship to God or his religion is usually derived from a special need innate to a person, called religious, by which is meant a person’s desire to seek the root cause of everything that exists and to place himself in one or another relationship with it,” etc. On page 27 there is a link to prof. Kudryavtsev taken from Yanyshev p. 270 s. f. From Pyatnitsky, who is not mentioned a word in the entire paragraph, page 12 was stolen: “The psychological basis of religion is a religious feeling, and morality is a moral feeling. A religious feeling is characterized by a desire for infinity, a moral feeling is characterized by a desire for the truly good,” etc. Pyatnitsky p. 10: “The psychological basis for moral phenomena is a moral feeling, and for religious manifestations – a religious feeling. Moral feeling has as its characteristic feature the desire for what is morally good; religious feeling - striving for the infinite”, etc. (Continued on page 7). Gusev. A.B., Levitov are quoted, but the size of what was borrowed from them incomparably exceeds what is quoted. So page 17 is taken from Levitov From the course of Christian moral theology, vol. I, pp. 18–19 (and Chr. Thu. 1909 Jan. and Feb.) Drawings from Gusev and articles by A.B. are especially abundant. Paragraph three is complete plagiarism, but for the sake of even one such quotation, as on page 33: “See for more details...”, I bypass this paragraph (Also below, at the end of the chapter Nomism and Antinomianism, it is said (p. 301 substr. note) “This chapter is compiled according to Martensen.” The next large paragraph is “The relationship of moral theology to dogmatics and to moral philosophy” (p. 35–46) there are a number of unspecified borrowings from Levitov (pp. 36, 41–42), Martensen (37–39, 42–46), Chrysanthus (40–41) and Olesnitsky (46), - corresponding pages: Levitov issue I, 9–11 (and in Chr. Read.), Martensen I, 38–44, Chrysanthus. 363–366, Olesnitsky textbook p. 13. Page 36: “A close connection and internal dependence exists only between the entire Christian doctrine and all Christian moral teaching, but not always between the individual systems of both. Therefore, show how from each particular dogma,” etc. Levitov page 11: “A close connection exists only between the entire Christian worldview and moral teaching, but not between individual elements of both. Show how from each particular dogma,” etc. Eight pages were taken from Martensen, and in one place Stelletsky was not even able to copy it correctly. Page 45: “Rationalism does not pay any attention to the fact that natural reason in resolving moral, as well as any other, issues is damaged by sin, and that Christianity should treat reason in this respect in the same way as it treats human nature in general, that is, partly in a replenishing, partly improving way. Admitting, therefore, an ethical unity between reason and revelation, we reject, however, the absolute unity between them, precisely because of the damage to reason by sin; We affirm that for natural reason there will always remain in revelation something transcendental, something beyond its powers and something always victorious, as it progresses in the Christian moral life.” In Martensen I, 44: “Rationalism completely misses and even denies the fact that natural reason is darkened by sin, and that Christianity treats our reason in this way, as well as human nature in general, precisely by partly delivering, partly complementing and developing to perfection. But while affirming, therefore, a certain unity of reason and revelation, we still do not want to say that this unity is absolute as long as sin continues to exist: this unity rather embodies a relative opposition between reason and revelation - an opposition that can never be smoothed out during this life, because in all our knowledge there must always remain something transcendent that cannot be cognized by us. Replacing the “transcendent” that is appropriate in the context with the transcendental, with the addition of unnecessary words: “as you progress in the Christian moral life,” Fr. Stelletsky exposed his complete ignorance of philosophy 24. Paragraph five consists entirely, without exception, of other people’s passages, and paragraph six, “Historical outline of the science of moral theology,” pp. 53–68, is entirely borrowed literally from an article by Prof. Grenkova “The original origin of the science of Christian moral teaching and its brief history”, Prav. Sob. 1875, I, only in two or three places were modifications made according to Bronzov and some false quotations were made to cover up the trace. Among such quotes is a reference on page 61 to another article by Grenkov that is not relevant: “See Grenkov Bibliography. Deputy Orthodox Social security 1872 III, p. 87" This is how the entire book is compiled. Stelletsky: not a single line in it belongs to Father Stelletsky. This is how the continuation of the book is being compiled, which is being published this year in the journal. V. and R. 25 The course of Professor-Archpriest Stelletsky is a colossal scam, a colossal slap in the face to the entire spiritual world (and, first of all, the editors of Zh. V. and R.), a violation of the elementary rules of community life: The experience of moral theology, built by the unseemly method of falsehood and deception. This is an entirely mechanical work of a copyist, a copyist; there was not the slightest effort of thought, no intellectual labor, no cultural effort manifested in it. He does not choose the best manuals, not disdaining anything, he does not try to reconcile divergent sources, lumping everything into one pile, he is never able to correct errors in his originals, carefully rewriting typos and slips 26 . On page VII Stelletsky writes:.. “Prof. Levitsky in his notes on Moral Theology of 1817." This is from the bishop's book. Stefan On the question of the system of moral Christian moral teaching, page 8: “In 1817, at the Moscow Academy, Professor Levitsky developed and approved by the commission of theological schools a summary of moral theology, which had a tremendous influence on the further direction of this science.” Wrong message. Notes for the commission of theological schools were compiled by Philaret, rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, later Metropolitan of Moscow, in the Review of Theological Sciences (1814). And o. Levitsky in the History of the Moscow Theological Academy before its transformation by S.K. Smirnov we read the following (pp. 23–24): “Reading in the class of moral theology was first opened at the Academy by bachelor Grigory Aleksandrovich Levitsky, who began lecturing on this subject on September 6, 1817. In laying out the lecture plan, Levitsky followed the outline drawn up by the commission of theological schools.” In § 6 of the introduction, Stelletsky copies from Grenkov’s article, by the way, the following passage (p. 61): “With the transformation of theological schools, theological sciences began to be taught in Russian and printed works appeared; Among them is the “Active Theology” of Innocent of Penza.” There is an error here: Innocent (Smirnov) read his lectures in Latin, they were published, after his death, in Russian translation. Foreign quotations are usually taken second-hand, with no information about them, so they provide the reviewer of Stelletsky’s book with a kind of service. You need to find the original for this or that page. It is already obvious to the reviewer that the original must be looked for in such and such an essay, but the question is where exactly in the original is this place. This is easy to find if Stelletsky has a foreign quotation: then you need to run through the footnotes in the supposed original, and the riddle is quickly resolved. Thus, Stelletsky’s chapter on “internal or natural moral law” (pp. 106–127) is compiled according to Martensen and Gorodensky. I needed to find Prof. in the book. Gorodensky place corresponding to pages 120 and 121. Stelletsky has a quote here: see Steinthal. Allgemeine Ethik, Berlin 1885, S. 501. I skim the footnotes in Gorodensky’s book and find on page 103: Steinthal. Allgemeine Ethik, Berlin 1885, S. 50. This is the page corresponding to the text in the book by Stelletzky, who put S. 501 instead of 50, probably for impressiveness. Borrowing quotes from other people in huge quantities and arranging them in his book like decoration, Stelletsky loses his head among them. He does not realize that Guyau (according to Stelletsky Gyuau) Esquisse d’une morale sans obligation ni sanction (p. 10) and Guyau’s Essay on Morals (p. 241) are one and the same. On page 227 there are three quotations: 1) Arth. .Schopenhauer, Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik, Leipz. 1881, pp. 203–209. 2) ibid. S. 205210. 3) Schopenhauer, Free will and the basis of morality, trans. Chernigovets, St. Petersburg. 1896, p. 306 cf. 327–329. It does not occur to Stelletsky that Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik and Free will and the foundations of morality - original and translation. So that readers have no doubt that Stelletsky, who borrows quotations from the original from one source and quotations from the translation from another, takes the original and the translation for different works of Schopenhauer, he presents them with the following quote on page 230: Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik S 227–230 cf. Free Will and the Basis(s) of Morality, pp. 312–323 (? need 287–294). Stelletsky's anecdotal ignorance here reaches the pillars of Hercules. How could Stelletsky, with such an attitude towards quotations, dare to say in the preface, pp. XXVII–XXVIII: “We consider it a duty of conscience to declare that we did not look at our quotations as decoration for our book. Who doesn’t know how painful so-called blind references are if the reader is not familiar with the original works - who doesn’t know how important it is for the reader to understand the subjects under discussion for himself and to rely on solid ground in his conclusions?” Don't worry, reader, about Rev.'s conscience. Stelletsky: and this sworn assurance of Stelletsky is plagiarism. See From the History of Ethics. Socialism, vol. 1, page 2: “Who does not know how painful general statements and obscure references are, if the reader is not familiar with the original works, if indications of quotations are useless for him, - who does not know how important it is for the reader to understand the subjects under discussion himself, to rely on solid ground in his conclusions. I don’t look at my quotes as decoration for my book.”... For me, these words make sense: I use them to justify the very long extracts that I make from sources, not content with dumb quotations. And Stelletsky borrows dull quotes from the hands of others - and the tirade he wrote out serves to his deep condemnation: he dresses up and dresses himself up in someone else's feathers! Book of the prot. Stelletsky is a disgrace not only for theological science, but also for Russian affairs in general. It is the result of intellectual paralysis and moral insanity. Compared to the works of Theophylact of Gorsky and Plato of Thebes, it is a terrifying regression. Plagiarism, as a consequence of intellectual paralysis and moral insanity, is a greater evil than the “dominance of the Germans” - it is a broader channel in which the trickle of translated dependence on foreign literature disappears, in comparison with which even ideological contact with the West would be a distant dream. To fight German dominance in order to clear the ground for the Stelletskys means: out of the frying pan and into the fire. To overcome this evil, the struggle against German dominance is not enough: it can give way only to broad original productivity; on the contrary, its real cause is the epidemic search for heresies, the persecution of everything original, as an everyday feature. In order to overcome the German dominance in theological schools and, more importantly, to oust home-grown theological clowns from the stage of Russian history, a wide path is needed for original theological creativity: no more and no less. External slavery, together with spiritual insanity, can be overcome only by Internal Freedom. We can reassure Fr. Klitina: they are working on this topic. If they write like that here oo. Svetlovs, is it surprising that the legend is accepted (or promoted?) in the West. By the Jesuits, who are so not to the taste of the Fundamentals of Christianity. ... R. D. Fedoroff:... nuper denuo editum est opus, quod multum divul gatum est in Russia, celeberrimi professoris Tareev, de fundamentis religionis christiana, ubi traditionem omnino negat R.P. Palmieri: Tareev nunc iam non est professer. R. D. Fedoroff: Sed influxum alphabet. (Operum academiae Velehradensis tomus IV, Pragae Bohemorum 1912, p. 14). And quite a few other reviewers dismissed the Fundamentals of Christianity with the stereotypical phrase: “copied from the Germans,” although another magical formula is equally common: “gag”: the “pads of false prophets” that soothe the spiritual anxiety of society and lull its conscience. Theolog. Literaturzeit. 1909 No. 3 review of the Fundamentals of Christianity Bonwetsch'a Durchweg tritt zu Tage, wie Tarejew bestrebt ist, das eigentliche Wesen des Christentums in seiner Tiefe zu erfassen und es in selbständiger Weise als ein einheitliches Ganze vorzufuhren. Dies geschieht in fesselnder Sprache und oft glänzender Darstellung. Seine Schrift ist ein Beweis, wie nicht nur auf exegetischem und historischem Gebiet, sondern auch auf systematischem die russische Theologie darnach ringt, hinter der Theologie der andern Kirchen nicht zurückzubleiben. Likewise, the Catholic journal Slavorum litterae theologicae (1910 No. 1), emphasizing that in my book ubique ultima “criticae” inventa proferuntur, recognizes its ideological originality: licet non rara neque pauca systemata philosophiae christianae nostris temporibus lucem aspexerint, tamen hoc prof. Tarêev opus, vel potius haec opera, aliquid certe novi in ​​hac re videntur exhibere. K.A. Smirnov Immanent philosophy of Christianity (about M.M. Tareev) 1914 (originally in Russian Thoughts). I will also mention the book by V.P. Vinogradova The main points of the Christian worldview in the system of Professor M.M. Tareev. It would be possible to indicate many other positive reviews, one of which is prot. Svetlov calls him “enthusiastic.” I draw the attention of Rev. Klitina, that A.M. Tubersky has in mind, first of all, my treatise on the Resurrection of Christ. It is interesting to compare this high assessment of the experimental method with the mockery of the “autocratic religious creativity” of Archpriest. Svetlova. The caricature of this method of Christian philosophy is far from being a self-evident truth, as it seems to Svetlov’s rationalistic gaze. In the review by A.M. Tuberovsky has significant lines: “True, we began to read the Philosophy of Gospel history with a prejudice inspired from outside, we approached it with the “curse of Balaam,” but as we read it ... Yes, this is undoubtedly. Fate has protected the approach to the Fundamentals of Christianity with widespread prejudice, sowing psychopathic hatred of them in the hearts of the Svetlovs and Klitins... Not everyone has the strength to overcome this prejudice. We refer the curious to the study of Troeltsch'a Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. See I. I. Korsunsky About the exploits of Filaret, M.M., in translating the Bible into Russian. Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church, I, 35. Wed. Khomyakova, vol. II. 43 (ed. 4). Theophanes wrote (ep. VI) to the professors of the Kyiv Academy: ...non sciolorum premenda vestigia, sed eam studiorum rationem unicuique sequendam esse, quae solidae eruditionis parens litteratos, non licitatores efficiat, et quae olim ad publicam lucem non erubuerit, (quandoquidem satis iam nauseae cordatiori seculo commoverit eruditio), (si fas est ita loqui) illa, quae non ex fontibus auctorum integra manat, sed ex lacunis ineptorum ludimagistrorum per luridas chartas, eaque corrupta et guttatim scatet... Printed by I. Chistovich The Reshiilovsky case in appendices. See Feofan Prokopovich Morozova as a writer. Theophanes reports: illustrissimum Antistitem Resanensem mеа scripta theologica non vidisse unquam, et, quod plane mirum, ait, ipsum hoc scriptum (denunciation) mihi objectum non legisse, cum tamen manu propria, quasi ipse legisset, subscribere non dubitauerit In the life of Theophan, as well as hierarchs like him, the restrictions on theological freedom were complicated by the splendor of a hierarchical position, which arouses affection in some and envy in others, while true freedom of thought can be the indisputable property of only an unseeking layman. Rev. Ambrose (Zertis-Kamensky) Bishop of Pereyaslavl (later the Metropolitan of Moscow, killed by the indignant mob), complained in a letter to Arseny Matsevich, Metropolitan of Rostov, about “Asian immigrants and Athonite prelazataev” (Read in Obshch. ist et al. Ross 1862. II). To be a stranger, and as such to have success, there is no need to be an Asian (although a Greek or an Armenian is best): even a former high school student is preferred to his seminarian, an amateur lecturer to his professor. All these “outsiders” make their careers in a community with household dregs, calculated sycophancy, while generally ignoring the truth that “their own” are harsh and oppositional only because they cannot sell out to their own mother, because they take the interests of the “native shrine” too close to their hearts. This “imaginary opposition is the true and only conservatism” (A.O. Khomyakov). However, it must be remembered that Khomyakov, later glorified by representatives of the spiritual world, at one time did not receive recognition from them. More importantly, the Slavophiles were under suspicion in their own sphere. Every critic of a theological work needs to remember the words of Μ. M. Philaret in a letter to Archbishop. Alexy, former rector (p. 27): “I cannot, Father Rector, give you help in your battle with the thought of the tripartite composition of man. Enough is the need to fight against enemies, with teachings contrary to dogmas: what is the need to fight against opinions that are not hostile to any true dogma? Page ΧΧVΙΙ. “When using various sources and manuals, we usually quoted them as accurately as possible, in a footnote, and sometimes at the end of one or another chapter, in a footnote, we indicated the rest of the literature known to us on this issue.” See review of Stelletsky's course in the Department. Christ. June 1915, where it is rightly called “a book without an author” and where plagiarism of the published sequel is exposed. Work about. Malinovsky is no better - and I now do not insist on a softer previous review of this work: plagiarism must be fought with all our might.