On the historical presentation of dogmas

In the Protestant and even partly in the Catholic West, at present, the science of Dogmatic Theology has a form that is largely different from what it has in the Orthodox East and, in particular, in our country. While in our country Dogmatic Theology still retains the character of one whole, which has not fallen into parts, in the Protestant and Catholic West this science has long since embarked on the path of dismemberment, isolation of its component parts, and is currently experiencing an era of rapid and successful growth and development of these branches of it, which have acquired independent existence. Not to mention the separation from it of the Basic Theology, so recently among us, still merging with Dogmatics and only recently receiving the form of an independent science, thanks to the work of St. Macarius, - the science of Dogmatic Theology is divided in the West into the following main parts: 1) into Dogmatic Theology itself and 2) the History of Dogmas. Dogmatic Theology has a form similar to our dogmatists, i.e. in it, in the foreground there are dogmatic provisions revealed from Holy Scripture and Holy tradition and from the beginning of reason, with a greater or lesser predominance of one or the other, or a third element, depending on whether the work belongs to the Catholic or Protestant side and according to the personal direction of the writer. Along with this kind of works, more or less close in method to our dogmatists, there is a series of works bearing the title History of Dogmas. Recently, the West has especially fallen in love with this method, this method of research; There appear especially many historical and dogmatic works that have nothing similar in our literature. The histories of dogmas, in turn, are divided into the histories of dogmas of the biblical and patristic-church periods. The first, which began to appear in the second half of the 18th century 1, usually bear the names: Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, Biblical Old Testament and New Testament Dogmatics. Theology of the Old and New Testaments, New Testament and Old Testament teachings, and other various titles. Without being called the biblical history of dogma - as it should be called, although sometimes appearing under names close to this name, for example: History of Christian theology in the Apostolic Age 2 or Guides to the Ancient History of Dogma 3 - this kind of writings, nevertheless, form part of the history of dogma. This is how Protestant theologians of all, not only extreme, but also moderate trends, understand the task and directions of their biblical dogmas and theologies, despite their vague and varied names. Catholics also understand this, as can be seen from the example of Lutterbeck, who called his work on Biblical Theology: “A Guide to the Ancient History of Dogmas” 5, from the work of Langen, who entitled his work: “Judaism in Palestine around the time of Christianity, a contribution to the history of revelation and religion, an introduction to the Theology of the New Testament” 6, from “The History of Catholic Theology” Berner, who looks upon the results of research in Biblical Theology "as the first cornerstone for the creation of a truly scientific history of dogma" 7 . Getting acquainted with the content and method of all these biblical theologies, one becomes even more convinced of their belonging to historical-dogmatic literature. The second category of historical-dogmatic literature consists of histories of dogmas of the patristic-church period, which are usually called in the West in the narrow and strict sense of the name: Histories of Dogmas (Dogmengeschichte). Such writings began to appear in Protestantism since the end of the last century XVIII 8; in the present century they have proliferated to an extraordinary degree; Among the majority of dogmatic writers of our time you find the history of dogmas between their works. Among Catholics, histories of dogmas began to appear much later, from the second quarter of this century, although the idea of ​​the need for a Catholic history of dogmas was stated at the beginning of this century 9 . Their number is incomparably less than that of Protestants. Despite all this, however, the Catholic West has hitherto presented several very respectable works on the history of dogma; such are the works of Kle 10, Schwane 11, Tsobl 12 and several historical and dogmatic monographs 13. Thus, in both the Protestant and Catholic West, the science of Dogmatic Theology is currently widely developed, representing a literature that is enormous in volume and diverse in its method and treatment of the subject. There are very often cases where the same writer presented experiments, if not in all three types of dogmatic literature (i.e. on Dogmatics in our sense, on the Biblical Old Testament or New Testament, or both theology and on the history of dogmas 14), then at least in two types of dogmatic literature - on Dogmatics, for example, and the history of dogmas 15 , or on Biblical Theology and Dogmatics 16 , or on the history of dogmas and Biblical Theology 17 . Usually, a separate work is devoted to each of these departments of the science of Dogmatic Theology. But there is reason to hope that, over time, all these departments of science will be combined in one, more or less multi-volume work. The experience of such a combination is so far the only one that, at least to our knowledge, has already been presented in Western Protestant literature in the work of Kanis 18. It is impossible not to recognize the benefits for science from such a comprehensive and detailed study of dogmatic data, from arranging these data in various combinations. The variety of methods and techniques, due to the arousal of religious interests in the West, in turn, greatly contributes to the maintenance of dogmatic interest in the local society and the revitalization of school and theological science. But in this branching of the science of Dogmatic Theology, in this desire of Western theologians to pay special attention to the history of dogmas during the founding of Christianity, in the Apostolic Age and in the Fatherland period, and subsequent centuries, along with the bright side, there is also a dark side. A wide variety of motives guide Western theologians, we mean Protestant ones, when they embark on this type of research. The most prominent place among these motives is occupied by impure motives, aspirations destructive for the Christian faith, in a word, the tricks of unbelief to scientifically justify their attacks on the revelation of the Christian faith. This kind of aspirations, even in terms of the time of their appearance, occupy first place in comparison with other types of aspirations that appeared later. From the depths of unbelief in the last quarter of the last 18th century (precisely in the era of the struggle between naturalism and supranaturalism) the first experiments in the historical study of dogmas emerged. From these same depths comes a large number of historical and dogmatic works that hitherto 19. We are not saying, however, that this type of people does not have scientific aspirations. There were and still are such aspirations, but they are in the background. That's how it was at first. But the more time passed, the more motives of a different kind, more pure, appeared that guided the authors of historical and dogmatic research. Around the 20s of the present XIX century, along with the strengthening of philosophical unbelief, (Hegel and the left side of his school) there is a desire to reconcile unbelief and faith in the sense of piety preached by Schleiermacher. From this time on, works appear with a character that, however, fluctuates (mediating Theology) with the character of half-faith, half-unbelief; but for this, with the desire to avoid harsh judgments of a negative direction, to collect as many facts as possible of the most diverse nature and study them 20. For this type of personalities, scientific aspirations come to the fore, which, due to a lack of conviction, move them towards scientific research, although in the depths of the souls of these people there also lurk aspirations that are more or less destructive to the Christian faith. Finally, in the 30s of this century, the best people from the Protestant world came out with the goal of defending Christianity from the attacks of modern unbelief, to expose the troubled conscience of half-believers and half-unbelievers (the negative side of their task), to show that there is a historical, changeable side in Christianity, and that there is a positive side in it that is not subject to history and change. In a word, these people, since the time of Hengstenberg, who became their leader, are still working and working with remarkable success to solve the great task - to reconcile faith with knowledge, to determine the boundaries of both, without sacrificing either faith to science or science to faith. They brought much benefit to the maintenance of faith in modern Western Protestant society, showing the inconsistency of pseudo-scientific negative criticism and revealing an even greater inconsistency, logical primarily, of the indirect direction; Their works were no less useful in a scientific sense, showing the possibility of presenting Dogmatic Theology according to the historical method, enriching science with the study of very many particulars in the sources of Dogmatic Theology in the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition - particulars that usually escape in the systematic theoretical presentation of Dogmatics 21. The works of people of this direction, the so-called orthodox Protestant, confessional Protestant, prove as strongly as possible the justice of always - from the very beginning of the existence of the Christian Church - its inherent conviction that all the errors that appear in the Church turn to its advantage, because there are people who are most skillful in rebuking and teaching. Simultaneously with the appearance in the 30s of this century, the works of the best people of Protestant society, similar works of Catholic theologians appeared. Sensitive to all movements in modern society, the learned theologians of this church were not slow to present their own experiments in the historical presentation of dogmas in order, on the one hand, to counteract modern unbelief, on the other, to take away the opportunity from their ill-wishers to reproach their church that it is not able to justify its dogmatic beliefs and convictions through purely historical inheritance. As for scientific goals, Catholic theologians have them in the background. From an examination of the motives that motivated the authors of historical-dogmatic research, we see that the historical method in works on dogmatics, which is by no means new in the west of Europe, has brought and still bears good and bad fruits there. It has been and is being used by the enemies of Christianity, and by people who are sincerely devoted to it, by deniers, by orthodoxies, by Protestants, and by Catholics. Therefore, the historical method in itself is an indifferent matter. He is a tool with which one can destroy, and with which one can defend oneself, and which can even be successfully used in the creation of a scientific-dogmatic edifice, which eternally changes - along with the change in the state of the sciences - the outlines, shape, arrangement of parts, although it is built on the eternal unchangeable foundations laid in it by Christ the Savior and from the same material given once and for all to the church in the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition. We have briefly characterized the state of the science of dogmatic theology in the West. Now let’s decide the question: should or should not, sooner or later, our science take the path that Western science has taken. In our opinion, it should, and the sooner it joins, the better. We do not think this out of a frivolous enthusiasm (so common in our society) for Western models. In this case, we are guided not so much by the desire for our literature to fulfill its duty - to respond to the religious movements that are agitating the West and, thus, destroying the opportunity to reproach ourselves for silence at the sight of the ardent attacks of the unbelieving part of Western society on the divine truths of the Christian faith (although this goal cannot be unworthy of an Orthodox theologian), but by other even stronger motives. These motives are: the state and needs of our Russian society, the needs of the highest theological school and the requirements of dogmatic science itself. And above all, to want our literature, in addition to dogmatic theology, to present experiments in the historical presentation of dogmas, is prompted by the overflow of unbelief, which, unfortunately, is increasingly gripping our own society. This ulcer of our society can be counteracted to a significant extent and with particular success, in our opinion, in addition to works on basic theology, by a historical presentation of dogmas. Our Russian unbelief, brought to us from the West, is composed of not only materialist elements, based on a misinterpretation of the data of the natural sciences 22, but also of rationalist elements, based on the distorted data of the philosophical and historical sciences. In the non-believing part of our society, standing on a rationalistic point of view, the desire to explain everything in religion through the historical, natural development, creativity of the human spirit, at different stages of its discovery, manifests itself, not only in pre-Christian religions, but also in Christian religions in different eras of its historical destiny. The Christian system of dogmatics allegedly developed in the same way as the dogmatics of all other religions, that is, through the gradual natural development of ideas, starting from their insignificant embryo, taking on over time an increasingly wider scope and a strictly defined form. The vast majority of our so-called educated society is infected with precisely this kind of unbelief. The rudeness and extremeness of materialism or nihilism, which recently occupied such a prominent place in our society, now attracts few people. Meanwhile, refined rationalism with some respect, of course only outward, relating to religion and Christianity, rationalism is not ignorant, but scientific, philosophical, finds itself a huge number of followers in the majority of our thinking society, who are little familiar with our Orthodox theological science and do not even want to get acquainted with it in its present form. Where such a phenomenon comes from and how Western rationalism penetrates us is not our business to solve these questions. Let us only note that Russia has been subordinate to Western European thinkers, including rationalists, for too much of a century and a half. In the near future, she was alternately brought up on Voltaire and Rousseau, then on Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, greedily reading the works of all those who carried out the views of these scientists in various fields of knowledge. Our secular science is not native and is still not independent. Until now, in all branches of knowledge, we make our living for the most part with what the West gives us; and Western science is saturated primarily with the views of the latest German rationalist thinkers. – It is true that learned theological works, in which the views of the above-mentioned rationalists on Christianity are presented, have been and are still being found by few readers. But on the one hand, it takes a little intelligence for the reader of philosophical works to draw one or another conclusion from well-known ideas, and, moreover, in many Russian works and translations devoted to history, philosophy, literature and other branches of knowledge, the reader constantly finds very transparent hints of a rationalistic nature; on the other hand, it would not be fair to say that the theological works of the German rationalists (Strauss, Baur, Renan, etc.) are not read at all by our society 23 . Thus, despite the fact that our Orthodox Church apparently stands in incomparably more distant relations than the Roman Church in the Protestant world, which primarily generates philosophical rationalism, our church and science hardly have less incentive to counter the spill of historical and philosophical errors with their historical and theological works than the Roman Church, which is closer in spatial terms to Protestantism. The Roman Church soon realized the needs of its society and hastened to satisfy them. The example of the Roman Church in this regard is worthy of our imitation. It does not in the least speak against all of the above that, given the state of our society, not a single special work of purely Russian origin has appeared in it with a negatively critical attitude towards the truths of religion. This is explained, in addition to the government's restraining force (censorship), by the lack of theological education in our society, the lull of scientific and theological interest in it and, in general, the lack of independence and initiative in it, the desire, in this case, to make money from the works of Western scientists. That is why it is content with the solution that the learned Germans give it and does not try to say anything original, even in the same negative direction 24 . For him, the religious question is a question that was solved long ago by others, whom, in his consciousness, he cannot solve better. Hegel, Strauss, Renan - these are his religious authorities. This state of unbelief, which does not even reason about religious subjects and therefore does not challenge others to reason, is worse than Western unbelief, which strives to prove its opinions, and therefore is less confident in its independence and invites refutation. This state of our society, which does not loudly declare or prove its convictions and does not provoke debate, is not only not proof of uselessness, but, on the contrary, an even stronger argument in favor of the urgent need for an antidote to a hidden disease that does not come out, but which is all the more powerful in corroding our social organism 25 . – The disposition of our society towards historical research absolutely requires that relief for the spiritual ailments of society be offered precisely in the form of historical research. At present, the undisputedly favorite method of scientific research in all fields of knowledge is the historical method. Everything that claims the attention of society, everything that is in a hurry to take on the form of historical research. So it is in the West, so it is with us. It would be extremely impractical not to take advantage of this mood of society in theological literature and not to benefit from it for the cause it serves. An example of imitation in this regard is given to us by the great fathers of the church, who spoke to the philosophers of their time in philosophical language, expounded before them the truths of faith using the method of the philosophy in use in their time, in rhetorical schools they studied the language and techniques of rhetoricians in order to more successfully influence the masses, in a word, they did not neglect any legal means to promote the triumph of the Christian faith. Not to mention the fact that it is impossible to successfully fight not on historical, but on some other basis against errors, which, using the historical method beloved in our time, are placed on the basis of history and clothed in the form of a historical presentation 26. In the fight against these misconceptions, not to stand on historical ground also means that in order to strike your enemy, standing at a distance far from him instead of approaching him means trying to ensure that the blows intended for him do not hit him, but disappear in the air. – The fact that our famous theologians (Reverend Macarius and Philaret Chern.), who undoubtedly knew the current state of Western dogmatic science, as well as the state of our society and its needs, did not consider it necessary (for some probably very good reasons) to devote their works to the historical presentation of dogmas, and wrote dogmatic theology, does not serve to refute our opinion. There are many reasons why our famous Russian theologians have not presented experiments in the historical presentation of dogmas, besides their denial of the need or benefit of such a presentation for our society. Their goal was to satisfy with their works the needs of our theological school, to give our theological schools an independent, complete, harmoniously presented, Orthodox system of dogmatic theology, a lack of which was noticeable, since before the extensive work of St. Macarius, our Orthodox literature did not have such a system, supplementing it with compilations from the systems of medieval scholastics and the latest Protestant scholastics 27 . Ave. Macarius, to the credit of our Orthodox theological science, accomplished the enormous work of building an independent, complete, harmonious system of Orthodox dogma, presenting in his work the results of almost everything that science had achieved in the ancient, middle and much of the new centuries, and presented his work in the excellent classical theological language he developed 28. Ave. Filaret partly supplemented the work of Pr. Macarius with the results developed by predominantly Protestant science in recent times and purified by criticism of Orthodox theological thought, enriched our science with many deep, bright thoughts. The dogmatic works of these famous theologians were so persistently evoked by the above-mentioned needs of our school and domestic theological science that it is completely understandable that they appeared with this and not another character; on the other hand, they are so great that it would be strange to demand from their authors, in addition to the published ones, even new works of the historical-dogmatic kind. No one can be asked to do everything in one area or another without leaving anything for the next generations to do. So, we do not think that the fact that dogmas with a certain character appeared among us speaks against the historical presentation of dogmas and that our theologians, writing their dogmas, recognize the historical presentation of dogmas as unnecessary or useless for society. On the contrary, we have evidence to think that, having carefully looked at the mood and needs of modern society, they were far from against such a presentation 29 . Here is what we read, for example, in the preface to the dogmatics of St. Philaret: “In the past, writes the multi-learned author, the opinions of German rationalism were known in Russia from foreign works, for people obliged by their rank to follow the fetters of human thought. Recently, these opinions began to appear in Russian books and became known in Russian society. Therefore, an essay written not without attention to such opinions seems not out of place at the present time 30.” A careful study of his work is even more convincing that the author, directing his presentation against errors not only materialistic, but also rationalistic, especially the so-called negative-historical-critical direction, introduced quite a lot of historical-critical element into his work, so that his work can be called a transition from dogmatic theology to a historical presentation of dogmas. If the author did not present the experience of a completely historical-dogmatic work, this is explained by the fact that the basis of his dogmatic theology was formed by his academic lectures, given by him at a time when the method of historical research in the field of dogmatics in the very West was not nearly as dominant as it is now, when Strauss had just appeared, around the 40s 31 . Thus, it does not seem to us that the authority of our famous Russian theologians is against historical and dogmatic works. As for our dogmatic literature in general, its history shows that historical-dogmatic research is not something completely alien to our theological literature. In the modest field of dogmatic monographs, historical research has long been de facto allowed in our country. We already have several historical and dogmatic monographs 32. The historical-dogmatic method expected recognition only de jure and in a broader sphere, in the sphere of a separate branch of science. “Finally, we do not think that the technique, which was and is still used by deniers and orthodox Protestants and, even to the highest degree, conservative Catholics, a technique even partially used among us, should be forever rejected as a method of a separate branch of dogmatic science, only because it was the first to use it by the enemies of Christianity, and that it was mainly developed by Protestants. We do not think that there are people in whose opinion the historical fate of the historical method in the field of dogmatics has forever left the stamp of rejection on it and therefore, even with the consciousness of not only its harmlessness, but also its significant benefits in maintaining faith and Orthodoxy in our society, it, for the sake of one name that sounds Protestant, must still be forever rejected by our Orthodox dogmatic science. The needs of our newly transformed higher theological educational institutions (academies) also cause the strengthening of the historical element in the teaching of dogma and necessarily require the separation of a new branch from it. According to the new Charter in our theological academies, dogmatic theology is taught as a special subject in one theological department. Meanwhile, church history is not read in this department. The historical presentation of dogmas should to a certain extent fill this deficiency, and it can fill it, since it is known that the history of dogmas constitutes the soul of church history, its most important department. Without a doubt, in these, by the way, types in the statutes of theological academies, when listing the subjects assigned to the theological department, and when naming dogmatic theology on this occasion, a significant increase was made. § 122 of the Charter states: Dogmatic Theology with a historical presentation of dogmas. This addition can hardly be interpreted otherwise than that through this phrase the new Charter introduces into the circle of teaching dogmatic theology a new branch of this science, which has long existed in the West under the name of the history of dogmas, but is still unknown in our country, with a slight change in our only Western name, with the adoption of a name more appropriate to Orthodox science. Otherwise, this addition would be pointless and strange, since general and brief outlines of the history of this or that dogma were usually placed before in dogmatic systems and therefore there was no need to mention them. To mention the historical presentation of dogma in this sense would mean the same thing as to mention the evidence of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, just as necessary components of dogma. In a word, the said words of the Charter do not leave the slightest doubt that the Supreme Authority, in attention to the needs of the time, legitimized Acad. The charter for the existence of a new branch of dogmatic science in our country. Finally, regardless of all the above requirements arising from the modern religious-intellectual state of our society and the modern needs of our higher theological school, a new branch of dogmatic science is called to independent existence for purely scientific purposes. The dogmatic system as a system, no matter how perfect it may be, by the very nature of its task and method, suffers from important shortcomings. It pursues one goal, explores primarily one side of the subject, and therefore cannot achieve another goal, study other aspects of the subject. The historical exposition must do what it cannot, in turn, using the system of dogmatic theology as a guiding thread in its work. One must complement the other; one must benefit from the results of the other. But all these purely scientific goals and needs will not be quite clear and obvious to the reader without prior acquaintance with the aspects of the subject of dogmatic science and the ensuing task of dogmatic theology as a system, and the historical presentation of dogmas, as a new branch of dogmatic science, necessary for a more complete and comprehensive study of the subject. Therefore, we consider it necessary to move on to clarifying the various aspects in the subject of dogmatics, hoping with our presentation to directly answer the question we have just proposed about scientific purposes, giving rise to a new branch of science. At the same time, we hope to answer another question: is it possible, from an Orthodox point of view, for a historical presentation of dogmas and, if possible, in what sense? Dogma has two sides: unchangeable and changeable. These two sides, however, are far from equal in volume. One embraces itself in dogma more than the other. The unchangeable embraces the entire content of a dogma, extending to a certain extent to its form; the change is limited exclusively to the form of the dogma, embracing in its form either all or not all of the content, depending on the difference in the era in the history of the dogma. Dogmas, in terms of their content, are contemplative, divinely revealed truths, once and for all committed to the church by God and invariably in all centuries, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, preserved in the living church tradition as indisputable and unchangeable rules of faith. From this side, no historical change, either in each of them individually, or in all of them collectively, has occurred or could have occurred. – Dogmas were not formed gradually in one way or another. Dogmas, in terms of their essential content, were not formed by mechanical layering of various elements on the original basis of Christian teaching. They were not formed through the organic development of the grain of Christian truth, through the assimilation by this grain in its growth of elements related to it, for example. philosophical views, borrowing and organic assimilation of elements from the soil on which this grain developed. Dogmas, in terms of their essential content, were not formed, finally, through the logical development of a system of Christian views from a few very general provisions, through logical conclusions from these provisions, at least without material influence, with only the formal stimulating influence of extraneous ideas on their development. Dogmas, therefore, were not formed in one way, nor another, nor a third way, nor through mechanical stratification, nor through organic development, nor through logical deduction. Dogmas were not formed gradually in human consciousness, but were immediately given to human consciousness from the outside - in the tradition of Christ and the apostles 33 . It was not people who developed and formed these truths, but on the contrary, these truths acted on people in an educational, developing way. So, dogmas, as thoughts of the mind of God 34, came into existence completely independently of the efforts of the human mind. – Having an origin independent of man, they also had and have an existence in the church independent of changeable and shaky human concepts. They are still preserved in the church in the form in which they were dedicated to it. Whoever has a proper concept of the church will not think that we are here either contradicting ourselves, allowing the unchangeable existence of given truths from outside in the changeable human consciousness (no matter what it is called - church or other), into which whatever falls - certainly undergoes change, or that we are only pretending to allow the unchangeable storage of divine truths in the human church consciousness, but in fact we represent their existence apart from the human, church consciousness, isolated from it, believing impenetrable the gap between dogmas in themselves and church dogmas. He who has a correct concept of the church knows that the church consciousness is not a completely human, changeable consciousness and therefore can, containing dogmas, keep them unchanged. Therefore, he will find that we do not contradict ourselves and do not pretend to admit the unchangeable existence of dogmas in the church, while in fact rejecting such an existence. The fact is that there is a difference between the consciousness of a private person, the consciousness of all humanity and the consciousness or tradition of the church. The consciousness of a private individual is extremely unstable; This is not the kind of consciousness we mean here; It was not such a consciousness that was entrusted with the preservation of Christ’s truth. The consciousness of humanity, although it is composed of the sum of the consciousnesses of individuals, is in any case higher, deeper, more comprehensive and more accurate than the consciousness of a private person and is generally considered a fairly strong guardian of ordinary human natural truths; but this consciousness cannot be a guarantee of the unchanging storage of truth; and it may be mistaken. The consciousness of the universal church, although it is also composed of the consciousness of individual units and therefore, with all its authority, does not itself represent all the conditions for the unchanging storage of truth, but it is strong and unchanging under the influence of the Spirit of God, the invisible leader of the church. With the ever-present guidance of the Holy Spirit, according to the Savior’s promise, the church consciousness loses the character of a humanly limited, changeable, unstable consciousness and appears with the character of a solid, unchanging, worthy and reliable guardian of the thoughts of the mind of God. To such a consciousness Christ the Savior entrusted the truths he brought to earth. And the church, as it accepted them, preserved them unchanged. In church tradition, and not outside of it, dogmas were preserved unchanged. In the Orthodox Church, dogmas did not increase or decrease in number and did not change in their meaning. How many of them were revealed by Christ the Savior and the Comforter Spirit to the apostles, and by the apostles to the church, the same number of them have always been in it; what meaning they had in the Church of Christ at the beginning of its existence, the same they had in it subsequently, they have - and now. That is why, from the point of view of content, dogmas cannot be differentiated into biblical and church, revealed and not revealed, basic and derivative, essential and non-essential. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church about dogmas as revealed truths, there cannot be dogmas invented by the church, there cannot be those that, having been revealed by Christ the Savior, were later rejected by the church, in a word, there cannot be church dogmas that are not at the same time biblical. There cannot be dogmas, the meaning of which would at first be unclear or incomprehensible to the church consciousness, and then understood, clarified by the church; there are no dogmas that are not revealed first and then revealed in terms of their essential meaning. There cannot be more fundamental dogmas, first given by God himself, and derivative dogmas, derived from the first by the church itself, therefore new, not revealed. In the same way, there cannot be essential and inessential dogmas; divine revelation cannot communicate anything unimportant; if God was pleased to reveal them, then they cannot be insignificant in themselves or optional in relation to their acceptance or non-acceptance by people. All these divisions are not applicable to dogmas considered from the point of view of their unchangeable, revealed content. It’s a different matter if you look at them from the point of view of their external formulation, systematization and clarification by purely human consciousness 35 . So the dogmas, from the very beginning of their revelation to the world, being preserved in church tradition, have not lost anything and have not gained anything either in quantity or in the quality of their content. – Speaking constantly about the content of dogmas, we, however, do not at all look at dogmas as the completeness of some formless content, we do not allow the existence of something elusive in the church consciousness. We do not forget that the dogmas of faith are devoted to the church and have always existed in its tradition from the very beginning, not in the form of some formless, elusive ideas that floated, so to speak, in the church consciousness without a definite expression that more or less corresponded to their essence (which is even impossible to imagine given the close relationship between word and thought), but they are betrayed and preserved in the living church tradition under definitions more or less corresponding to them in more or less brief statements of faith that have existed in tradition since the times of the apostles. But they were broader than the form in which they appeared; they did not fit completely into this form - especially at first. In general, even the most perfect form never corresponds to the idea; At first, the form usually appears in its most imperfect form. The correct understanding, their true meaning, was always preserved in the church; but at the same time, the insufficiency of their external expression was always recognized. That is why we consider it not only possible, but also necessary to consider dogmas from the side of their essential content, detached from their form, without confusing or identifying content with form, distinguishing both, although recognizing at the same time that there cannot be pure formless content. The experience of theologians of the negative-critical German theological school showed what confusion and identification of the form and content of dogma leads to, especially when studying the history of the first centuries of Christianity 36 . So, from the point of view of their content, dogmas are unchangeable truths of faith. This is not how they appear from their form. Dogma in its external expression is a truth that is not formulated in the same way at different times, not equally comprehensively revealed, not equally substantiated by evidence, and in a word, not translated into the language of human concepts in the same way. However, even in this changeable side of dogma, something over time lost its changeability and acquired the character of immutability, dogmatization; changes in this area (at least in some part of it) did not continue indefinitely. They rightly differentiate 37 this mutable side of the dogma into two parts that do not have the same degree of changeability, namely; 1) a positive presentation of the dogma, what we call its most precise definition, and 2) those explanations or evidence with which they can be accompanied - what we call the disclosure and explanation of the dogma. The presentation or definition of dogma was expressed at different times in different words, until known dogmatic terms were developed, perhaps accurate, which were accepted by everyone and thus no longer change. The imperfect human language cannot give completely accurate expressions. There is no such precise expression with which another meaning cannot be combined. There are only comparatively precise expressions. The lack of absolute precision in a human word is usually compensated by the condition of connecting one or another meaning to it. A conditional relatively precise expression in relation to the formulation of a dogma takes on the meaning of a completely precise expression and ends up changing the external side of the dogma. – The theological language was not developed suddenly. Providence was pleased, having given mankind true knowledge of God in the revealed Christian teaching, to leave it to him to work out the most accurate definitions of revealed truth in human language, no doubt with the beneficial purpose for man of instilling in him, as much as possible, an independent attitude towards the truths given to him, which is necessary for a being created rationally free, although this benefit, like any good, could lead to abuse, as often happened. That is why neither Christ the Savior nor the apostles gave completely precise, uniform formulas of dogmatic teaching. Christ the Savior used a wide variety of turns of speech, spoke in parables, similitudes and comparisons, generally speaking in the language of his contemporaries, which was far from sufficient for expressing new sublime ideas, eliminating this deficiency by detailed disclosure of his thoughts, the effect of his divine personality on his listeners, miracles and other, many different ways. The apostles also spoke the language of their time, and, moreover, the language of each of them was distinguished by some unique features. All this, it seems to us, does not require proof; It’s enough to remember in what language and in what expressions the divine teaching is conveyed, for example. apostles John and Paul, Peter and James. They all say the same thing, but they express their thoughts far differently than we do now, and not in the same way one as the other. Their teaching is the same as is still held by the Orthodox Church; but in many ways it is not as expressed in their writings as it is now after eighteen centuries of dogmatic-philological work. The same must be said regarding the dogmatic definitions of faith that existed in different churches, at different times, in post-apostolic times 38 . That is why all church and patristic definitions of faith, being similar to each other in spirit and in internal meaning, until a certain time were different in letter. However, the church has always paid attention to this external side of the dogma. It cannot be said that at least one church was indifferent to the letter of its religious definitions and that the difference in the letter in the church definitions of local churches anywhere and ever came from the recognition of the unimportance of the definition of dogma, its verbal expression 39 . On the contrary, one or another local The church, having a well-known symbol, different in letter from the symbols of other churches, strictly demanded the acceptance of this very letter of its symbol from its members, forcing them to memorize and accurately repeat it at baptism, giving only itself the right from time to time, as required by circumstances, to protect against the reinterpretation of heretics, to make some changes in the letter of its symbols or creeds. This continued in the church until the tricks of the heretics, who took advantage of this literal difference in the symbols of different churches and the relatively incomplete, inaccurate and not generally accepted definitions of some of them, forced the church to take care of the most accurate, perhaps most complete and uniform for the entire church definition of the letter of revealed truth in all centuries, which was certainly preserved in its living tradition. From that time on, by common consent, the established and accepted, perhaps accurate, well-known way of expressing a certain part of the Christian doctrine became obligatory for each of the Orthodox Christians and was observed invariably in all subsequent times. Through this, the changeability of a known definition of religion was put to an end, so that this formal side of the dogma, changeable until that time, received from then on the character of immutability, dogmatization for all centuries. This is precisely the immutability of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol and other dogmatic definitions, for example, about two natures in Christ and about two wills. According to the beliefs of the church, not a single word can be added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol and not a single word can be subtracted from it 40 . This, however, does not mean that the Church refuses to compile new, more precise formulas to protect Her faith from new errors. She composes these formulas, but does not include them in the symbol, as the experience of the ecumenical councils themselves has shown (IV Ecumenical Council). Moreover, in these new formulas the church uses the same terms that it has already accepted, only defining their meaning even more precisely, so that everything worked out regarding the external definition of dogma once by the universal church receives firmness and immutability for all times 41. So, the era of ecumenical councils largely put a limit on the changeability of the external side of religious definition. But, however, the ecumenical councils did not do everything in terms of precise definitions of religion. Some dogmas were more precisely defined from the outside, from their letter, in the period after the ecumenical councils, such as, for example, the dogmatic doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and the doctrine of the sacraments in general, etc. 42. Some aspects of dogmatic teaching still do not have a precise definition, but without ceasing to be frank, universal, unchangeable dogmas: this is, for example. the teaching about the degree of participation of grace and freedom in the matter of human salvation, much in the teaching about one or another sacrament separately, some aspects in the teaching about the church, in the teaching about the fruits of redemption, etc. 43. – So, the side of the definition of dogma is changeable, but not unconditionally. Of course, the explanations and proofs of the dogma are completely changeable. Dogma in itself, by its very nature, as revealed truth, does not need proof or explanation. The nature of dogma is alien to proof; dogma, as revealed truth, is based not on evidence, but on the authority of divine revelation. Proofs and explanations of dogmas, being alien to their nature, follow from the nature of man, are needed for man, and not for dogma, and are completely a human matter, and therefore allow for endless change, despite the immutability of the truth they are aimed at clarifying or establishing. As a purely human matter, proofs and explanations are always strengthened by those mental means at the disposal of a given time and a given person, and therefore represent infinite variety and the most varied degrees of perfection. Thus, the mental and religious state during the first three centuries determined that dogmatic truths at that time were revealed mainly from the Holy Scriptures of the Old. Head 44, from the principles of reason, from the life of nature and the history of mankind, mainly from the history of the pagan world 45. The state of the church and education at that time explains why evidence was rarely borrowed from the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Head, from church tradition and from the data of the natural sciences, which were in their infancy at that time. The state of the church during the period of the ecumenical councils explains why evidence and explanations at that time were borrowed mainly from the Holy Scriptures of the New and partly the Old Testament, from the beginnings of Christianity and the testimony and authority of the church, less than before from nature and history! humanity. This also explains the nature of medieval evidence, partly based on the testimony of Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church, partly having a dialectical character. Hence it is clear why in modern times, in addition to previous evidence and explanations, evidence and explanations from the historical, philosophical and natural sciences receive a prominent place. We are not talking about the countless different shades in the character and development of this or that evidence at different times and among different persons of the same era. And not only private individuals, but the entire church, in the person of its councils, not only local, but also ecumenical, used the means that existed at a certain time to clarify and substantiate dogma and used these means as they were used then. Ecumenical councils were organs of the Holy Spirit only to the extent that they affirmed a known truth. The affirmation of this truth is the work of the Spirit of God dwelling in the church, but not its explanation or proof. This latter is a matter of feasible human understanding and effort to clarify the revealed truth. Here, in the field of explanations and evidence, the participation of natural reason is allowed for the benefit of man himself, in the types of development in him, as in a rationally free being, of an independent attitude towards this truth. Thus, all the activity of church consciousness was aimed not at the development of dogmatic truths in themselves, not at clarifying them for itself (church consciousness), but at finding ways for the most accurate and most appropriate external expression of their essence, at finding evidence and explanations for the human consciousness of individuals. The activity of the minds of individuals acting in connection with church tradition was also directed here. We are not talking about the consciousness of persons who have severed their connection with the general church consciousness. Their activity, not limited to the external side of the dogma, but also touching its essence, relates to the fate of the dogma as a destructive force, however, turned by Providence to the good of faith, to creation, not destruction, to the most precise definition of dogma, its clarification for the ordinary private human mind. We admit that the correct solution to the question of what belongs to one side of the dogma and what to the other presents great difficulties, especially in practical application, and therefore an incorrect solution to the question is very possible. It is very easy, more than it should be, to be attributed to the changeable side of the dogma and less to the unchangeable side on the other side; In both cases, the result will be a wrong concept of dogma. In the first case - harm to truth and faith, in the second - only to truth. But refusal to resolve this issue also leads to consequences that are also disadvantageous for faith and truth; it leads to confusion and identification of the external and internal sides in dogma. Confusion produces confusion and confusion of dogmatic concepts. And identification raises doubts whether the unchangeable is not just as changeable as that which is declared unchangeable, although it is obvious that it is not. Of these two ways of approaching the question of the composition of dogmas - ways that, if applied incorrectly to the case, can equally lead to consequences unfavorable for science and faith - science, as a science, must, of course, always prefer the first and cannot stop at the latter for the simple reason that its goal is to communicate not only the correct, but also the clearest possible concept of dogmas. That is why, despite all the difficulties in resolving the issue of limits, changeable and unchangeable in dogma, we, however, in our utmost understanding, tried to present the experience of delimiting these sides of dogma 46. Based on the distinction we have made between the two sides of dogma, we can define the task of dogmatic theology and the historical presentation of dogmas as follows: The task of dogmatic theology is a systematic presentation of all dogmas in their totality, as revealed, unchangeable truths, with a detailed disclosure of the Orthodox meaning of each dogma and with a brief indication of the grounds for this and not for another meaning in Holy Scripture and in the eternal tradition of the church, and if the dogma is comprehensible, then its agreement with the truths of the human mind. – Dogmatic theology primarily refers to the unchangeable, essential side of dogma. To find out what exactly should be considered speculative revealed teaching, how large this area is, what constitutes it and what does not belong to it, how exactly the Orthodox Church understands this or that dogma - this is the main task of dogmatic theology. The church-historical formula of dogma and its proof in dogma are a secondary matter. For dogmatic theology, it is not the letter that is important, but the meaning of this letter, that meaning that was connected with a known truth even when a known formula did not yet exist. Evidence matters even less to him. It deals, as we have already said, with truths that rely solely on divine authority, which makes any proof unnecessary. True, it offers universal formulas, but it is not its business to show how these formulas were formed, what formulas existed before, etc.; otherwise it will be distracted from its direct subject - clarifying the meaning of the dogma contained in these formulas. Its purpose, on the contrary, is to show how, despite all the perfection of these formulas, the meaning of the universal dogma cannot be contained in the forms of imperfect human language. In the same way, it refers and must refer to the evidence of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, but not as evidence, but as simply a means to confirm that the well-known definition of dogma is not the author’s personal concept of it. Therefore, dogmatic theology cites only the most important texts of St. The writings and works of the fathers, classical passages from them, considering these evidence from the side confirming this and not another concept of dogma, providing clarification of the differences in the letter of their text, from the philological, historical and every other side, another branch of its own, dealing with this external side of the dogma and its historical destinies. After this, it is clear why in dogmatists we do not find a detailed analysis of the texts of Holy Scripture and paternal testimonies, why the particular shades of both are not clarified, why it seems that all the testimonies say exactly the same thing. This is a flaw, but not a flaw of the authors. This is an inevitable inconvenience of the task of science, which pursues the goal of clarifying and demonstrating the unity and immutability of the content and meaning of dogma in all centuries. Moreover, naturally, dogmatic theology, if it points to the texts of St. Scripture and the testimonies of the fathers, then, in accordance with its task, presents them only on one side - from the side of the essential agreement of their meaning, but not from the side of the insignificant differences in their letter, method of expression and other features of the era or personality. – This is precisely the character of our dogmatists, with the only difference that, in the absence of a historical presentation of dogmas, they are often distracted from their main task. They cite too much evidence from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition; not limited to the most important ones - they bring everything. Many also deal with non-dogmatic questions, namely church-historical (which are all the essays on the history of dogmas), ritual (for example, about baptism through immersion or pouring; about unleavened bread and leavened bread, etc.), canonical (for example, who can perform the sacrament of the priesthood and what is required of those approaching it, etc.). etc.), finally, truths, however, related to the speculative area, but not constituting dogmas, but only in contact with them 47 , which appeared as a result of the desire of the human mind to solve questions that were not answered in revelation (for example, when evil spirits fell; when angels were created; how the soul of each person is born; will resurrected bodies have sex; what age will they have after the resurrection, etc.). All of the above-mentioned excesses in our dogmatists are explained by the desire of their authors to make up for the very noticeable lack of historical presentation of dogmas and will disappear by themselves, go to the latter when this branch of science exists in our country. At the present time, diverting attention from the essential task of dogmatic theology - a comprehensive clarification of the meaning of dogmas, harming the external and internal harmony of the system, expanding the scope of an already broad and rich science - all these details, however, do little to achieve the goal for which they are introduced. They do not provide a clear concept of the historical fate of dogmas, of the various ways of their external definition, expression in church life, clarification and evidence at different times. A system cannot, while remaining a system, at the same time be history. While studying the unchangeable, essential side of dogma, science cannot at the same time trace all the phases of development of its changeable side in different centuries. To do this would mean to conduct simultaneously, in parallel, two types of research. But man is designed in such a way that his attention in every task is focused primarily on one main task. It cannot achieve two goals and, moreover, directly opposite ones (for example, two completely opposite goals - to reveal the unchangeable and at the same time directly opposite to it changeable side of dogmas, in other words, the divine and human). So, the task of dogmatic theology, in our opinion, should be narrower and more definite. “We don’t think that anyone would object to us that if we exclude historical essays from dogmatic theology, we extremely limit the number and change the nature of the so-called evidence, and, finally, limit ourselves in the strict sense to dogmas, then in this case there will be little work left for the share of dogmatic theology.” Dogmatic truths are so deep and rich in content that revealing their meaning is hardly an easy task. What makes the countless number of dogmatic misconceptions is that if you do not even engage in a thorough refutation of them, but only their simple negation, then even then the mere negation of these incorrect concepts of dogma, without any historical details, will require a lot of work. Strict differentiation in each dogma of what is accessible and inaccessible to the human mind is also not an easy matter. But will the separation of dogmas proper from the circle of non-dogmatic truths, opinions and attempts of the human mind penetrate into the realm of what is hidden for man? In a word, dogmatics, having been reduced in volume, must become deeper in its content and require from the dogmatist no less, if not more, work than it required before 48 . The task of historical presentation of dogmas is of a different kind. If dogmatic theology pursues the idea of ​​the unity of dogmatic views in the church in all centuries of its existence, then the historical presentation of dogmas pursues the idea of ​​diversity in the external expression of dogmas with the unity of the essence of dogmatic content. The motto of the historical presentation of dogmas can be the words: diversity in unity or unity in diversity. – A historical presentation of dogmas should show how, among the labors of the entire church on the most precise definition, disclosure and justification of the truths of faith in human language and for ordinary human understanding, and the labors of private individuals on the same, partly accepted, partly corrected and rejected by the church, that external scheme of dogma arose in which it appears in the science of dogmatic theology. It goes without saying that, while following the history of the formation of the external scheme of dogma, the historical presentation of dogmas should not for a moment lose sight of its unchanged content. But the historical presentation of dogmas does not deliberately reveal this content; it presupposes it to be already known, given, comprehensively revealed in another science, in dogmatic theology. True, by gradually analyzing all the definitions, explanations and proofs of dogmas that were used in the church at different times, different in letter, but identical in meaning, the historical presentation at the same time clarifies the inner meaning of the dogma; but it does not clarify it immediately, but gradually, as a more accurate, comprehensively embracing dogma, its verbal formula, is developed, as the human language and mind succeed in accurately expressing and clarifying for ordinary human understanding the dogmas preserved by the church, and to the extent that clarification of the essence of dogma is necessary when analyzing the letter of dogmatic formulas and explanations and evidence used at a certain time. – So, the historical presentation of dogmas, dealing mainly with the external, changeable side of the dogma, following its gradual development, deals with the formulas, explanations and proofs of the dogma used at one time or another. In particular, the task of this branch of science, first of all, is to separate from the entire mass of data what should be considered the work of the church and what is the work of private individuals, then to what extent in this or that case this or that person was an organ of the church and to what extent he acted independently of the church, and finally, to isolate from all this heretical definitions and explanations of dogmas. Going further into the most detailed analysis of all the various definitions, explanations and evidence, the historical presentation of the dogmas must show what determined their different character, what this or that expression, this or that phrase means in the language of a certain time, further, how to reconcile the inaccurate, careless, apparently not even Orthodox expressions of some respected fathers about dogmas with the undoubted Orthodoxy of these fathers, with the undoubtedly Orthodox their teaching about these very dogmas, and finally, how to explain some of the undoubtedly personal shades in the formulation and explanation of some dogmas by these fathers, how these so-called opinions of the fathers differ from heretical definitions and explanations. Without confusing all these data, on the contrary, dividing them into categories, allocating a decent place to each given one and clarifying its meaning in the language of that time, in accordance with the state of philosophical and other sciences at a certain time, etc., the historical presentation should show what phases of development the dogmatic scheme went through. It should show in what form Christ the Savior and the apostles delivered dogmas to the church in accordance with the then intellectual state of society; how the church continued to preserve the revealed truths in all their immutability, but at different times, according to the different levels of development of language and enlightenment in general, differently formulated, presented, explained dogmas in the human word; further, how she defended these truths against attacks on them by the enemies of Christianity, depending on the nature of the errors, with various proofs; how then the fathers and teachers of the church tried at different times to do the same thing and, moreover, to bring the incomprehensible in dogmas closer to purely human private understanding, while often allowing for personal, more or less insignificant, shades in the understanding of revealed truths, thereby moving away more or less from the general church understanding and way of expressing dogmas; how the church corrected their mistakes; how, finally, some individuals, guided by a purely human changeable and shaky mind, diverged even further from the general church understanding of dogmas and their definitions and explanations, but did not manage to shake the revealed truths in the consciousness of the church, but only gave it a reason for the most accurate formulation of incomprehensible truths in human language and in relation to the requirements and laws of the human mind. Thus, the subject of dogmatic science appears in the historical presentation of dogmas in all its external diversity, which, however, does not deny the unity of its essence. – The historical presentation of dogmas removes from dogmatic theology the reproach of discoloring dogmatic data, of depriving the testimony of St. writers and fathers of the church, not a large one, it is true, but nevertheless their inherent share of historical and individual character - the character of a certain era and personality, in the unseemly, in the eyes of suspicious unbelief, concealment of the testimonies of the fathers and teachers of the church, who do not express the voice of the universal church, in a word, in a seemingly tendentious selection and distortion of dogmatic data. To satisfy all these requirements is the direct duty of dogmatic science. Science, based on eternal, unchanging, divinely revealed truths, cannot be afraid of such a task. The danger for her lies not in revealing this aspect of the matter, but in omitting it, in keeping silent about it. The danger lies in the fact that in the mind of the student of dogmatic theology, which, in accordance with its task, presents all the data from the side of their essential unity, there will be no doubt whether there are not more differences than similarities in the creeds of the church of different times, in the testimonies of various saints. writers, fathers and teachers of the church, so that there is no suspicion left, why the features of difference are hidden and only the features of similarity are exposed, why evidence contrary to the general church belief is not presented, etc. The historical presentation of dogmas, paying special attention to all these differences, showing their properties, degree, meaning, etc., and, thus, introducing the idea of harmony, unity into this world of external, insignificant diversity, provides an important service to dogmatic science, especially in our times - in times of critical study of the sources of Christian doctrine and tendentious philological and historical reinterpretation of the text of historical and literary monuments of Christianity. In conclusion, let's say a few words about the method of historical presentation of dogmas. Two techniques or methods are possible in the science of historical presentation of dogmas: the episodic or monographic method and the chronological or strictly historical method. – The first method is very rarely used in Western histories of dogma 49 ; which is very natural, since it presents a lot of inconvenience. It consists in taking this or that dogma or an entire department of dogma and setting out the entire history of the development of this dogma or department from the advent of Christianity until recent times, then moving on to another dogma or department and doing the same with it, etc. The disadvantages of this method are as follows. The historical presentation of dogmas, having as its task to study the nature and features of the scheme, the outer shell of dogmatic content at different times in connection with the nature and characteristics of the language and the level of education in general in a given era - instead of a complete presentation of all dogmas in general in the language of a certain time, with some external special shades in the presentation of dogmas characteristic of that time and the personalities of that time - takes not all of this shell, but a part of it, a scrap presented in this way separated from the whole. At the same time, the historical presentation of dogmas runs the risk of failing to clarify the features in the character of this shell - a character that is clear only when the part is taken as a whole, for example. expression in the whole language, or risks falling into countless repetitions if, wanting to present the expression of this or that dogma in connection with the expression of other dogmas, each time he goes into general reviews, which, moreover, in their generality, will have little clarity, thoroughness and persuasiveness. In particular, this method is not suitable for achieving the goal to which the historical presentation of dogmas should primarily strive at the present time, namely, to combat the modern German, theologically negative, critical trend. This trend, which has penetrated to us, is not a denial or distortion of one or more dogmas, but consists of an incorrect interpretation of the historical fate of all dogmas in general. It set out to trace the process of gradual development of the system of Christian views. Based on the external differences in formulation, in the methods of understanding and justifying dogmas at different times, the rationalists of this school argue that the teaching of Jesus Christ was one, and the teaching of the Apostles was different, the teaching of the church and the fathers of the first three centuries was one, and the teaching of the church and the fathers of the ecumenical councils was different, the teaching of the Middle Ages was one, and the teaching of the newest centuries was different. Science cannot successfully refute such a misconception except by using its method and techniques 50 . – So, purely scientific and apologetic purposes require the use of a second method in the historical presentation of dogmas, the chronological one. This is why this latter method almost exclusively dominates Western histories of dogma. True, it also presents some inconveniences; but the latter are not as significant as the conveniences they represent. In a historical presentation using this method, the entire dogmatic system must be repeated several times, depending on how many periods this science is divided into, i.e., the entire set of dogmas in one or another of their external expressions must pass before the eyes of the readers several times. But this kind of repetition is inevitable in science; Moreover, it cannot be said that the reader finds the same thing here every time. He finds one thing in the being, but in the expression each time there are quite a few features characteristic of time. Further, with such a presentation, the historical gradualism of changes - in the side of each dogma separately accessible to these changes - is not immediately given to the reader who wants to gradually trace the entire history of any one dogma. The reader himself has to extract the material he needs from all departments of science. But this is again an inevitable and essentially minor inconvenience and little work for the reader. This inconvenience is rewarded with better and more developed material than what the same science will give him, using the episodic method; just as when using the results of those sciences that hold scholastic rubrics, the user of the data of science does not face any difficulty, but for this he almost always receives raw, undeveloped material; as a result, he always has to work much more than when dealing with sciences, sacrificing these small conveniences, such as rubrics, in favor of the essence of the matter. We hope that, after all that has been said, it is more or less clear what kind of scientific goals a new branch of dogmatic science is bringing into existence in our country and whether a historical presentation of dogmas is possible from the Orthodox point of view 51. Among the first most significant works on biblical theology, one can point to the work of Zacharia - Biblishe Theologie. 5 Thl. Göttingen 1774–1786. 3 Antl. Reuss. Histoire de la theologie chretienne an siecle apostolique, Strasburg. 1852. Lutterbeck. The full title of this work of the Catholic theologian is as follows: “Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe: oder, Untersuchungen über das Zeitalter der Religionswende, die Vorstufen des Christenthums und die erste Gestaltung desselben: ein Handbuch für älteste Dogmengeschichte und systematische Exegese des neuen Testamentes. Mainz. 1852. For example, we point to Hagenbach – Encyclopedie und Methodologie der theologischen Wissenschalten (4 Aufl. 1854. § 62;, to the article in Beal-Encyclopedie-Herzog (2 Bd. Biblische Theologie), to Halm Theologie des N. T. (Leipz. 1851. 1 Bd, p. 7). See above for the full title of his work. Langen – Das Judentum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi. Ein Beitrag zur Offenbarung und Religions-geschichte, als Einleitung in Theologie des N. T. Freiburg. 1866. Werner – Geschichte der katholischen Theologie. Munich. 1866. Of the first, one can point to Munscher – Handbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte. Marburg. 4 Thl. 1797 – 1809 1. n 2 Tht. 2 Outl. 1802–1804. Schnappinger – Entwurf der katholischen Religions-und Dogmengeschichte . Karsrhue. 1807. Klee – Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Mainz. 1837 – 1838. Schwane Dogmengeschichte der vornicänischen Zeit. Munster. 1862. Dogmengeschichte der paristischen Zeit. Munster. 1869, Zobl – Dogmengeschichte der katholischen Kirche. Innsbruck. 1865. Eg. Staudenmaier – Die paristische Lehre von der Gnade. Freiburg. 1856, and the above-mentioned work of Langen. There are not many such people, however. As an example, however, one can point to Baumgarten-Crusius. There are quite a few of them. You can point out from Catholics to Kle, from Protestants - to Augusti, Mareinecke, Ebrard, Nitsch, Gaza, etc. Ammon, Breischieder, de-Wetts, Strudel, etc. Three volumes. The first is Die lutherische Dogmatik historisch-genetisch dargestellt. Leipz. 1861. Second – Der Kirchenglaube in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickiung. Leipz. 1861. Third – System der lutherischen Dogmatik. Leipz. 1868. As an example of this kind, one can point to the essay Baur - Vorlesungen über die christliche Dogmengeschichte. Leipz. 1865–1867. 3 Bde. As an example of this kind, one can point to Hagenbach’s work, which is distinguished by an extraordinary volume of materials – Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte von Hagenbach. 3 Aufl. Leipz. 1853. In addition to the works of Hengstenberg (Christologie A. T. 1849 32), Gafferink (Vorlesung über Theologie des Alten Testaments 1848), Hoffmann (Sch----beweis), Schmid (Bibl. Theol. N. T. 1853), and others, many who worked in the field of biblical theology can be cited as an example to the above-mentioned work of Kanis. Against this kind of unbelief, of course, any historical and theological study is powerless. Experience with Renan's book showed the opposite. Not to mention the fact that this work was read a lot in our country at one time in French, the Russian translation of this book, made abroad, was also smuggled into our country. Our educated society, in addition to Renan, knows Schgraus and Naur, and even Schleiermacher. An article about the latter recently appeared in one of the Russian magazines. However, the recently published work: “The Bible and Science,” which is a strange mixture of Orthodox and rationalistic elements, gives reason to assume that if not original, then at least compilative works with a more or less rationalistic tint for the future, perhaps, will not be rare in our literature. It cannot be said, however, that our society is not attentive to the works of people who guess what occupies it at a certain time. As proof, we point to the essay of Fr. Michael against Renan, met with great sympathy by our society. Shortly after the release of its first edition, a second edition was required, which was recently published. Thus, Renan's book in historical form aims to carry out purely dogmatic tendencies. Some of its chapters are predominantly dogmatic in nature; these are the ch. V, VII, IX, XVII. In the latter case, we mean the works of Feofan Prokopovich, compiled under the influence of the writings of Protestants of the 17th century (Quenstedt and Gerhardt), and the school of imitators of Feofan Prokopovich. The merit of the latter kind is not nearly as unimportant as some may think, who do not know the state of our theological language in the time preceding the work of St. Macarius and did not have the opportunity to compare in this regard the work of St. Macarius and St. Philaret Chern. In Dogmatists and Rev. Macarius and Rev. Philareta Chernig. we find general outlines of the history of some dogmas. Chr. Thurs. No. 5. 1871. In this last phrase, in addition to the modesty of the famous scientist, does not the author’s consciousness express that a thorough refutation of rationalist opinions required a completely different method of research, work with a completely different character? The first edition of Strauss's Leben Jesu was published in 1835. Of these, we will point to two of the newest and more remarkable monographs. In Reading to Moscow total spirit lovers enlightenment (book 9. 1869). – “Disclosure of the most important dogmatic truths in the writings of the apostles.” In Orthodox. Social security (1870, November, December, and continued 1871) - “The doctrine of the face of the Lord I. Christ in the first 3 centuries of Christianity.” If in the minds of private individuals revealed truths were often mixed more or less mechanically with various philosophical views, if further the mind of an individual could not suddenly perceive all Christian truths, and at first perceived only the grain of Christ. truths and the grain of faith grew little by little in his mind like a pea seed; if, finally, the human mind logically developed the truths of faith a lot and with significant success, examined them from various sides, bringing them closer to his understanding, then all this did not at all concern the essence of dogmas, did not add anything to them and did not take anything away from them. Expression by Rev. Philaret of Chernigov. Limited human consciousness, unable to grasp at once all aspects of divine revelation, perceiving first one, then the other, first from one side, then from the other, can, of course, consider one to be the main, essential, and the other not the main, insignificant, depending on the fact that, first of all, it amazes and excites him to mental activity, although in themselves and in the consciousness of the Church, all dogmas are the main and essential. Further, placing one dogma in connection with others, human consciousness can find, on the basis of the connection between one dogma and another that it discovers, as if one dogma follows from another, although in the thought of God and in the consciousness of the Church, replenished in its weakness by the Holy Spirit, there cannot be such a human gradualness of cognition, such a logical process. Finally, since, due to the weakness of the human mind, not all the truths of the revealed faith enter the consciousness of each individual person, then each person cannot be blamed when he does not know something and this ignorance is not accompanied by consequences disastrous for his salvation, although it does not follow from this that the truth that is not necessary for his salvation is not necessary for the salvation of other people, for all mankind, for the church consciousness. As soon as this truth, not recognized by one, enters the consciousness of another person, it becomes necessary for this latter and its rejection is just as disastrous for his salvation as the rejection of other truths, which is why the church excommunicates from its communion equally all those who stubbornly reject any dogmatic truth. - However, this entire classification of dogmas, which is not applicable to dogmas in themselves and to dogmas in the consciousness of the church, is allowed only in relation to the consciousness of an individual, is however allowed by the church itself in those cases when the church, having in mind the consciousness of individuals, condescending in their weakness, tries to make it easier for them to assimilate the truths of faith and therefore does not offer them all dogmatic truths, and, moreover, in a certain gradualness. Of course, in this, and not in any other sense, St. Macarius in his dogmatics (ed. 2, volume I. at the end of p. 28) expresses that the church derives particular dogmas from general ones. Taking the imperfection of dogmatic formulas in a certain era as undeveloped, unclear dogmatic ideas, they come to the conclusion that at that time dogmatic truths were still in their infancy, that their content was not yet clear and incomplete. Ancient forms of the creed. Op. I. V. Cheltsova, pp. 185 – 194. And here again the whole matter depended on the undeveloped and insufficient conventionality of the theological language. It is enough to recall how the most important dogmatic terms are gradually introduced into dogmatic definitions and given a conventional meaning: Trinity, being (o-isia), hypostasis, consubstantial, original sin, providence, etc.; what labor it sometimes cost the fathers of the first centuries, given the lack of development of the theological language of that time, to give any precise definition of a known dogmatic truth. This difference, in addition to the undeveloped language, the development of which should be given the necessary freedom before imposing a sanction on the first expressions that came to hand, depended on many external reasons, for example. in the first three centuries from persecutions that made ecumenical councils impossible and generally greatly complicated relations between churches. The Church sufficiently established the immutability of the Nicene-Constantinople symbol with its prohibitions on making any changes in it, expressed in the definitions of the ecumenical councils. Further, she sufficiently proved the firmness of her decision by the fact that she had not yet made any changes in it, although cases for this had presented themselves. At the IV Ecumenical Council there was, apparently, a very urgent need to add a symbol to the Orthodox teaching about the union of two natures in Jesus Christ; a very precise and very brief formula was drawn up, which, it would seem, was very convenient and useful to include in the symbol (for example, in this form: I believe in the unfused, immutable, inseparable and inseparable union of two natures in our Lord I. Christ) and - however, the church remained faithful to its prohibition. Finally, in disputes with the Latins about the origin of St. The Spirit of the Orthodox Church constantly reproached them not only for the incorrectness of their teaching, but also for their violation of the direct decrees of the ecumenical councils on the unconditional immutability of the letter of the creed. That is why we cannot agree with the opinion of the venerable author of the work: Ancient. forms of symbols faith, page 187. And it is not without reason that the Church values ​​so much the very letter of these formulas, not allowing them to be changed. "Without unity in the generally accepted expressions of thought, the author of the above-mentioned work rightly notes (Ancient Forms of the Symbolic Faith, pp. 203–204), it is no longer possible to ascertain the unity of thought itself. Persistent originality in the word in the essence of the matter would indicate originality in thought." The Church knows, let us add from ourselves, what dogmatic formulas cost her, what, often, every letter of these formulas cost her; Let us recall the history of dogmatic disputes during the period of ecumenical councils. Knowing thus the extreme necessity of conventional expressions, knowing further what they cost her, the church does not see any reason to ever replace them with others. She knows that she cannot come up with absolutely accurate expressions (by the very nature of the imperfect human language), but comparatively more accurate ones than those that she developed through centuries of hard efforts of theological thought in the flourishing era of her life, and she cannot expect either in the present or in the future. And even if she did expect, then, in the absence of absolute accuracy in these new expressions, what would reward her for those fluctuations between one or another expression and the harm that occurs for faith from these fluctuations, to which she would condemn herself in anticipation of new and yet not absolutely accurate formulas? Chr. Thurs. No. 5. 1871. In the debate about the origin of St. The Spirit has developed the most precise formula regarding the relationship of St. Spirit to the Son of God. Further, although the church has always distinguished sacraments from non-sacraments, and has always preferred to all sacred rites the seven that we know as sacraments, the formula that there are seven sacraments appeared after the ecumenical councils, which did not pay special attention to the formulation of this side of dogma. We again understand not the essence of the teaching, but its verbal formula. Against the errors of the Ebionites. Against pagan polytheism and semi-pagan Gnosticism. Having no intention of casting an unfavorable shadow on the respected works of our dogmatists, while giving full credit to their works on dogmatics, we, solely to clarify the matter and to prove the validity of our thought, cannot help but notice that the lack of differentiation between the unchangeable and the changeable side in dogma is reflected in unfavorable consequences on our dogmatists. Among the many inconveniences, we point out the following. The classification of dogmas in our dogmatists without a strict delimitation of the sides in the dogma gives rise to many bewilderments. Thus, some divisions are allowed, others are rejected. But, in our opinion, all divisions of dogmas can be admitted from one point of view and must be rejected from another, and therefore must be both admitted and rejected conditionally. We do not find such a convention in our dogmatists. So Rev. Filaret, allowing a division into basic and non-basic or explanatory, into those that cannot be ignored without harm to salvation, and which can be ignored (or in other words, into essential and non-essential) and taking up arms against the Catholic theologian Brenner, who does not allow such divisions, resolutely rejects any possibility of not recognizing such divisions. Meanwhile, from the point of view of dogmas as divinely revealed truths given for the salvation of a person, regardless of how they enter ordinary human consciousness and how a person uses them, of course it cannot be allowed that any truth is not basic or not essential or not necessary for salvation. St. Macarius has more conventions in the divisions of dogmas; but even here we do not find clearly formulated principles or their division. At Ave. Macarius, the division into biblical and church dogmas is certainly denied; for disclosed and not disclosed - conditionally allowed; to general or basic and particular or derivative – certainly allowed; into essential and non-essential (necessary for salvation and not necessary) is unconditionally rejected. But, in our opinion, we can conditionally admit a division into both biblical and church dogmas, if by church dogmas we mean more precisely defined in form at ecumenical councils; therefore, if you look at them from their outside. In the same way, we can conditionally admit a division into essential and non-essential - in relation to their external systematization, in relation to how they enter the consciousness of an individual, or from the point of view from which St. Macarius allows the division into general or basic and particular or derivative. In the same way, one can conditionally reject what is allowed by the example. Macarius divides them into general or basic ones and into particular or derivative ones, if you look at dogmas from the point of view of their content, once and always given to the church, not subject to any development, no historical change. See Dogma. God . Philaret Ave., ed. 1, part 1, pp. 21 – 22. Dogma. God St. Macarius vol. I. § 4. – Classification of dogmas is not an unimportant matter. It establishes a view of dogma; and a certain view of dogma has a certain influence on the entire structure of the dogmatic system. We agree that very many questions, not only of the latter kind, but also ritual and canonical ones, are quite closely related to purely dogmatic questions. But if we interpret everything that comes into contact with dogma, then dogma will be a science without end. Dogma is the soul that permeates everything, both in rituals and in church institutions and in all church life. Justice requires noting that in Western literature itself, the majority of dogmatists suffer from an unclear understanding of what dogmatic theology should be in the history of dogmas - a mixture of purely dogmatic and historical-dogmatic elements. There are, however, several works that more or less fit the norm outlined by us; This is partly Martenson’s dogmatics. Of all the histories of dogma known to us, this method is allowed only in one Catholic work: Dogmengeschichte - Klee. It is remarkable that other Catholic writers did not follow the example of this scientist. Chr. Thurs. No. 5. 1871. Suppose we refute the hypothesis of scientists of this direction regarding one particular dogma; but there are still many other dogmas to which, perhaps, such a hypothesis can be applied. Let us further assume that we refute, piece by piece, the known assumptions regarding all dogmas; But won’t people who believe such scientists tell us that we have used a not entirely honest method, long known under the name: divide et impera, that the essence of the hypothesis has not even been touched upon by us, that the entire hypothesis is based mainly on the cumulative representation of all dogmas in a certain era, on historical convergences, etc., that if we had tried to present all the dogmas in their entirety in a certain era, then, perhaps, something else would have turned out. So that your article does not seem like a theory that is not applicable to the case, we hope to present to the readers the experience of research on one of the parts of the historical presentation of dogmas. See § 112 of the statute Spirit. Academician You might be interested in: