Complete body of lectures on patrolology

Criticism: Regarding the publication of the “Lectures” of Professors N.I. and A.I. Sagarda, Deacon Andrei Glushchenko We recommend using the scientific edition of this work: Lectures on patrolology of the 1st-4th centuries Christian literature. Church literature The importance of studying ancient church literature Signs of the “father of the Church” in contrast to other church writers Teachers of the Church. Church writers History of the study of ancient church writing The dominant view of patristic science among Protestant church historians Scientific-church point of view on the subject The composition of ancient church literature, subject to special study in pathological science The task of studying ancient church literature Method of studying ancient church literature Critical study of works of ancient church literature Ask the previous generations and delve into the observations of their fathers... they will teach you and speak words from their hearts (Job 8:8, 10), - this is what one of his friends told Job, pointing to an authoritative and tangible certificate in resolving the most essential issue of human existence on earth - the question of the suffering of the righteous. The same idea about the necessity and importance of turning to the fathers, to their teaching, to their words spoken from their hearts lies at the basis of our science - its very name “Patristics” or “Patrology” indicates it. And this appeal has its deepest basis in the Orthodox understanding of the Church, the ways of preserving and disseminating Christian doctrine and moral teaching, revealing and clarifying the inner life of the Church. At its very foundation, the Church accepted the word of God with all the fullness necessary for the salvation of all mankind; She does not receive new revelations, and her task is not to invent new teachings, but to preserve and transmit Christ’s Revelation unchanged from generation to generation, gradually reveal its inexhaustible content, bring it into the consciousness and life of people, assimilating to everyone the salvation accomplished by Christ in the form that corresponds to the personal character and development of each. Fidelity to the basic principles of Her historical existence, which forms the basis of Her teaching, and adherence to the essential forms of the established order are absolutely obligatory for Her, since otherwise She would cease to be the Church of Christ and would turn out to be a purely human institution. Of course, this does not mean that the Church must represent a fossil, reproducing with literal accuracy at all times and under all conditions all the details of the structure of Church life of any specific period of antiquity: She is obliged to take into account the constantly changing forms and conditions of life of humanity and individual peoples, but always remaining unconditionally faithful to the essential content of Her teaching and the fundamental principles of Her structure. That is why in all the preparatory work for the reform of the system of Church life at the present time, despite the significant diversity in judgments, we see an invariable appeal to the past, mainly the original history of the Church in order to comprehend the spirit of the Ancient Church life, invariably preserved in It from the Divine Founder and Apostles, for a correct assessment of the existing Church reality and determination of the normal structure of Church life in accordance with the spirit and tasks of the true Church under modern conditions of life Russian people. Obviously, everyone feels the need, in the words of Vikenty Lirinsky, “to stick to antiquity” (Commonitorium - “instruction”, “indication”, 3). Where can we look for indications of this spirit of the Ancient Church? Where can one find a clear and direct reflection of Her life in all its manifestations? In the canons of the Church, which normalized the life of the Ancient Church? But Church legislation, especially the most ancient legislation, is generally fragmentary and random in nature, appearing primarily when it was necessary to identify and correct deviations. In the facts of Church history? Undoubtedly, they are instructive and provide abundant material for determining the structure and character of Church life, but they do not lead into the recesses of this life, do not provide complete material for illuminating its internal foundations. At the same time, both the Church canons and the facts of history, as shown by modern judgments on various issues of Church life, are explained rather contradictorily. This, of course, does not in any way weaken the importance of both, especially since a thorough study of them has already been used with great benefit to clarify many pressing issues, but it is advisable to pay attention to another important source, which is not yet used in sufficient completeness and systematicity. Quite rightly, its literature is recognized as a mirror of the life of a particular people in various periods of its existence. Therefore, with regard to the Ancient Church life in its various manifestations of the most complete and directly tangible reflection, it must be sought in the works that have come down to us of the first successors of the Apostles, the continuers of their work, the imitators of their zeal and virtues, the builders of the Universal Church in the first centuries of Her historical life, that is, in the works of the Ancient Church writers, called the “Fathers of the Church,” whom the Church Itself recognizes as the primary witnesses and exponents of Her teaching. In the school of these great teachers, not only theoretical knowledge is obtained. The truth for which they struggled and suffered is not a mere abstraction: it is the light that enlightens every mind, it is the life from which all life flows - it is the word of God. They loved this life-giving truth, fed their souls with it and sought to pass it on to their brothers in faith and to bring those who were strangers to it. As required by the circumstances of their time, they revealed and illuminated almost all the significant issues of Church teaching and life. From here it is revealed that attentive attention to the monuments of Ancient Church writing is essential not only for the present moment in the life of the Russian Church - for all its vital importance it is accidental and transitory - but is constantly obligatory for everyone who cares about the interests of the Church and who wants to correctly understand Her teaching and penetrate Her inner life. In any science it is necessary to turn to its sources and original carriers. A modern philosopher must know the most ancient philosophical systems and especially study the works of Plato and Aristotle if he wants to have a thorough knowledge of philosophy; Likewise, a theologian striving for a thorough theological education must be familiar with the sources of theological knowledge, among which the works of the Ancient Church writers - the “classics of the Church” - occupy an important place. The literary treasures of the Ancient Church contain continuous evidence of the existence of the Church Itself and the culture It spread, true evidence of Her teaching and its assimilation by believers, cult and structure of life, and governance, an inexhaustible source of Her protection; this determines their significant significance for many theological sciences: dogmatics, exegesis, Church history, morality, archaeology, pastoral theology and Church law. Without studying the sources from which the material is drawn, different branches of theological science are deprived of their own foundation, and, on the contrary, direct acquaintance with them helps to deepen their content and expand their scope; but it is direct study, since no anthologies and collections of extracts from Ancient Church writing can replace direct acquaintance with its works. Not to mention the inevitable possibility of misunderstanding and misapplication of ancient evidence when using collections of this kind, the main disadvantage of such acquaintance with second-hand sources is that the spirit in which these Churches and the Ancient Church writers in general lived, thought and wrote cannot be tangible. Therefore, the bearers of Church teaching and defenders of the faith must be studied in close proximity, heard by them, united with them in spirit, warmed by their vital breath. But so that this appeal to paternal writing is not an arbitrary extraction from it of fragments desirable for one reason or another, when they take a well-known passage from the father’s works, attach it to their own reasoning and limit themselves to this, so that works that do not belong to them, or teachings that they did not expound, are not attributed to the Ancient Church writers, forgetting that each individual thought of the holy father, or the totality of them, can be correctly understood only when it is considered in connection with the general composition of his teaching and with the historical conditions of its origin, is it necessary, in addition to simple reading, a serious scientific-critical study of this writing, then only its ideas will be comprehended in their organic connection. Such a study of the monuments of Ancient Church writing is the task of theological science, officially called “Patristics”. Further, questions regarding the scope, task and method of this science will be discussed in detail. But first it is necessary to dwell on the clarification of a fundamental question, which should be the basis for the very understanding of the tasks and nature of science and for which, however, we do not have a sufficiently definite and convincing answer, namely: who should be understood by the “fathers of the Church”, by what characteristics do they differ from other writers, what authority do their creations have and what is the strength and significance of the testimony of both each individual and the unanimous or almost unanimous testimony of these representatives of Christian antiquity? Patrological science, as the name itself shows, studies the works of Ancient Church literature, or patristic writing. But with such a definition of the subject of science, we immediately encounter some difficulties. The fact is that each separate literature presupposes a special language, and every special language is an expression of the spirit of a certain special nation - this is the general position. Therefore, it would seem that we can talk about special literature only if we mean the monuments of the language and writing of a certain, separate people. Indeed, before the advent of Christian writing, only national literatures existed. Even Jewish writing, despite its claim to have a universal purpose as the literature of the people of Revelation, was in essence national. And this is completely understandable, since before Christianity nothing had such an impact on the human spirit and on literature, which is one of the main forms of manifestation of this spirit, as nationality. Folk religions were also determined and conditioned by nothing other than national character, themselves being only a moment and one of the forms of manifestation of the national spirit. With the advent of Christianity, religion received an all-determining and decisive influence on the world: those who accepted Christianity, no matter who they were by origin, no matter what nation they belonged to, felt themselves first of all Christians: they extended their hands to each other across the boundaries of nationality, recognized themselves as related, because they drew knowledge of the truth from the same source, and because the foundations that now essentially determined their lives were the same. Hence it is clear that Christian literary works of antiquity, belonging to different peoples and languages, reveal more spiritual kinship with each other than with non-Christian written monuments of the corresponding nation and language. For example, the letters of Saint Cyprian and Saint Athanasius, despite the difference in the characters of both authors and the peculiarities of their activities, despite the difference in the national spirit, have much more similarities with each other than the letters of Cyprian with the letters of Seneca or another pagan Roman writer, and than the letters of Saint Athanasius with the letters of any pagan who wrote in Greek. The Christian spirit provided the highest basis for the fruitful and closer interaction of each nationality (Fr. Nietzsch, Geschichtliches und Methodologisches zur Patristik // Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie. Bd. 10. 1865, S. 50–52). Thus, in the very essence of Christianity, the basis was given for Christians to exist not only in separate states, but also to form a single Church, intended, among other things, to harmoniously unite It into a single world-harmonious organism, the basis of the relationships of members in which was love (2 Cor. 5:18) - and to preserve the unique characteristics of each nation. Hence the emergence of special Christian literature, which is an expression not just of the spirit of this or that people, but above all of the spirit of Christ’s love, was a historical necessity. If we go further and take a closer look at this Christian writing, then among its works the core of this literature will clearly stand out, the most extensive in volume and deep in content, which consists of works of a very specific direction, expressing a certain religious consciousness, namely the Christian Church. Just as the literature of a well-known nation in which spiritual life has reached a certain degree of development - it can and should be considered as a reflection of the entire life of the nation in its various aspects and at different stages of its historical development - the same should be said in relation to Church literature: the most important and essential interests by which the Church lived, the Church's moral and religious ideals and aspirations of each era found their expression in its writing. Therefore, it can be rightfully asserted that the history of Christian Church literature more or less clearly (depending on the quantity and quality of its surviving monuments) shows the manifestation of the peculiarities of the life of the Church in Her many different relationships characteristic of each period. It reflected and left traces of all directions and currents that were revealed during the historical implementation by the Church of Her vital tasks. This nature and significance of the features of Ancient Church literature will become fully understandable if we remember how highly literary activity was valued in the original Church. It was assumed as a matter of course that whoever acted as a writer on Christian issues recognized himself as being prompted to do so by the Spirit of God and accordingly spoke “from the Spirit.” Therefore, his works were quite naturally placed next to the Holy Scriptures (although they were not revered to the same degree), for he wrote guided by the same Spirit to whom the books of the Holy Scriptures owe their origin. This high standard that the Church applied to written works on matters of faith was valid for a long time: the Latin Church, until the 4th and even the 5th century, maintained the view that everything that is truly worthy of reading should be considered next to the books of Holy Scripture (compare: Adolf Harnack. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Teil. I. Leipzig, 1893, S. XXII). Writers in the Ancient Church were those in whom the Church spirit of the times, Church consciousness reached the highest completeness and clarity; Church writers were the best exponents of the main trends of Church life - they were theologians of the Church. In this way, a special literature is distinguished - Church literature - that is, the works of those Christian writers who belonged to the Church and stood on the basis of Church teaching. This literature contains an unusually rich treasure of outstanding works in various fields of Christian knowledge. The vital, youthfully impetuous Christian spirit received powerful stimulation in the great spiritual movements of the first centuries of Christian history, and revealed itself to be extremely fertile. Already some direct disciples of the Apostles followed in their footsteps and expressed their teaching ministry in letters to Christian communities. Soon, the confessors of Christ, due to fierce attacks and deeply offensive and morally illegible accusations from Jews and pagans, were forced to resort to self-defense and at the same time to struggle against both. A fairly extensive apologetic literature owes its existence to this long struggle. At the same time, heresies and great theological disputes that deeply captured the life of the Church began to emerge, which continued for several centuries, captivated outstanding Christian thinkers and gave rise to a whole series of dogmatic and polemical works about the fundamental truths of Christianity. During this struggle, the tireless pastoral care of the saints and the zeal of other enlightened men took every opportunity to proclaim the main provisions of Christian doctrine and moral teaching, especially to glorify individual virtues, to depict individual vices in all their criminality and destructiveness, to give instructions to the clergy for the expedient fulfillment of their duties, to the laity a guide to true Christian life, to hermits and monks the rules of the true Christian asceticism. The last branch of moral works among Patristic literature also bore abundant fruit. Soon they began to depict the fate of the Church in its history and present the ascetics of the Faith and Confession, as well as other saints, as models of Christian perfection worthy of imitation. But from the very beginning they turned to the explanation of the Holy Scriptures with special love. It was revered by Christians as the “Word of God”, as “the broadcasts of the Holy Spirit”, as the “Book of Books”, which many read and studied almost day and night and over which they indulged in incessant reflection. This study found expression in a vast exegetical literature. Most often and with the greatest love, the Holy Books or individual texts, sometimes even Biblical personalities, were explained; but there was also no shortage of interpretations in the proper sense of the word or continuous scientific explanations of the text. As a particularly rich in content and instructive type of Church literature, it is necessary to mention numerous letters from Church writers and figures, partly to entire Churches, partly to individuals: they contained an enormous wealth of the most beautiful Christian instructions and important comments about various Church, personal and even political relations and events of that time. Finally, religious thought, combined with heightened religious feeling, attracted some writers with a poetic gift to express them in poetic form and in hymns, which came into Church use. This rich and varied Ancient Church literature represents a vast field for research, and due to the unity of the soil from which it grew, and the unity of the Church spirit permeating it, its treatment should receive completely independent significance in a special scientific discipline. The need for a special scientific study of Ancient Church literature has its deepest basis in the Orthodox understanding of the Church, ways of preserving and disseminating Christian doctrine and moral teaching, revealing and clarifying the internal Church life. At its very foundation, the Church accepted the Word of God in all the completeness necessary for the salvation of all mankind; She does not receive new revelations, and Her task is not to invent new teachings, but to preserve and transmit Christ’s Revelation unchanged from generation to generation, gradually reveal its inexhaustible content, bring it into the consciousness and life of people, assimilating to everyone the salvation accomplished by Christ in the form that corresponds to the personal character and development of each! Loyalty to the basic principles of its historical existence, to the teachings that form its basis, and adherence to the essential forms of the established order are absolutely obligatory for Her, since otherwise She would cease to be the Church of Christ and would turn out to be a purely human institution. Of course, this does not mean that the Church should represent a fossil, reproducing with literal accuracy at all times and under all conditions all the details of the structure of Church life of any specific period of antiquity: She is obliged to take into account the constantly changing forms and conditions of life of humanity and individual peoples, but always remaining faithful to the essential content of Her Divine teaching and the fundamental principles of Her structure. Therefore, at all moments of the historical existence of the Church, especially when the course of life for some reason is knocked out of its usual rut, and questions of essential vital importance persistently require their resolution, we see an invariable appeal to the past, mainly the initial history of the Church in order to comprehend the spirit of the Ancient Church life, invariably preserved in It from the Divine Founder and Apostles, for a correct assessment of the present Church reality and the determination of a normal order, consistent with the spirit and tasks of the true Church. Church life under modern conditions. Here we find that desire to “stick to antiquity,” the need for which was noted by Vikenty Lirinsky (Commonitorium, 3). Where can we look for indications of this spirit of the Ancient Church? Where can I find a clear and direct reflection of Her life in all its manifestations, illuminating its inner foundations? Quite rightly, its literature is recognized as a mirror of the life of a particular people in various periods of its existence. Therefore, with regard to the Ancient Church life in its various manifestations, its most complete and directly tangible reflection must be sought in the written monuments that have reached us, in the works of the Ancient Church writers, especially those whom the Church Itself recognizes as the primary witnesses and exponents of Her teaching, calling “the Fathers of the Church.” They were the first successors of the Apostles, continuers of their work, imitators of their zeal, builders of the Universal Church in the first centuries of Her historical life. The truth for which they struggled and suffered was not for them a mere abstraction: it was for them a light that enlightened their minds, a life from which they drew extraordinary energy in the service of the Church. They loved this life-giving truth, fed their souls with it, sought to pass it on to their brothers in faith and lead strangers to it. As required by the circumstances of their time, they revealed and illuminated almost all the significant issues of Church teaching and life. From here it is revealed that attentive attention to the monuments of Ancient Church writing is essential and constantly obligatory for anyone who wants to correctly understand the teachings of the Church and penetrate into Her inner life. If in any science it is necessary to turn to the sources and original carriers of It, then the theologian striving for a thorough theological education must necessarily study the sources of theological knowledge, among which, after the Holy Scriptures, the works of the Ancient Church writers - the “classics of the Church” - are of primary importance. The literary treasures of the Ancient Church contain continuous evidence of the existence of the Church Itself and the culture it affirmed and spread, true evidence of Her teaching and the assimilation of it by believers, cult, structure of life and government, an inexhaustible source of Her protection. This determines their significant significance for many theological sciences (dogmatics, exegesis, Church history, morality, archeology, pastoral theology, Church law). Without studying the sources from which the material is drawn, different branches of theological science are deprived of their own foundation, and, on the contrary, direct acquaintance with them helps to deepen their content and expand their volume, but it is direct study, since no anthologies and collections of extracts from Ancient Church writing can replace direct acquaintance with its works. The bearers of Church teaching and defenders of the faith must be studied in close proximity, heard from them, and united with them in spirit. But so that this appeal to the Ancient Church writing is not an arbitrary extraction from it of passages desirable for one reason or another, so that the Ancient Church writers are not credited with works that they did not write, or teachings that they did not expound, it is necessary, in addition to a simple reading of the Ancient Church works, a serious scientific-critical study of this writing - only then its ideas will be comprehended in their organic connection. Such a study of the monuments of Ancient Church writing is the task of theological science, called “Patrology”. The science is called “Patrology” because the main, most outstanding in content and extensive in volume part of the works of Ancient Church literature are the works of those men who hold the honorary title of “fathers of the Church” (πατέρες τη ς ἐκκλησίας; patres ecclesiastici). For a correct understanding of the tasks and nature of science, it is necessary to first identify who should be understood by the “fathers of the Church”, by what characteristics they differ from other writers, what authority their creations have and what is the strength and significance of the evidence. It goes without saying that the name “father” in the expression “fathers of the Church” is used in an improper, figurative sense. To convey life, in the spiritual sense of the word, means to convey truth and virtue. He who teaches pure doctrine, who by his example encourages love and the practical implementation of goodness, already fulfills to a certain extent the duties of a parent. Therefore, even in ancient times, the name father was given to mentors and teachers of truth, and by this they wanted to express more than simple respect. According to the fair remark of the Right Reverend Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, “this expressed that just as an ordinary son lends physical life to an ordinary father, so a worthy student is loaned to a worthy teacher by birth for a life worthy of a person, the formation of the highest powers of the soul; this together expressed the image of the mutual relationship between teacher and student: the teacher called the student son - this was the voice of a sincere and loving soul; the student called the teacher father and thereby expressed his humble trust in the teacher, that power of attorney under the condition of which the student’s very education is carried out: (Historical teaching about the fathers and teachers of the Church. 2nd edition, St. Petersburg 1882, vol. I, p. III). This ancient custom of comparing the relationship between teacher and student with the relationship between father and son is reflected in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, where the name “father” is used not only to designate a parent in the flesh, but also an educator and leader in life: Elisha calls the prophet Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12); The disciples of the prophets are called “sons” (2 Kings 2:3–5). But the name “father” receives especially wide use in this meaning in the New Testament. Here this name denotes, first of all, the teacher to whom someone owes his conversion to Christianity. The Apostle Paul calls the Corinthians his beloved children: “I do not write this to shame you, but I admonish you as my beloved children. For although you have thousands of teachers in Christ, you have not many fathers; I have begotten you in Christ Jesus through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:14–15). Further (in verse 17) he calls Timothy, who was sent to the Corinthians to teach them the way of life, his beloved son. In the Epistle to the Galatians, the same Apostle writes: “my children, whom I beget again, until Christ is formed in you” (4:19; cf. 1 Tim. 1:1, 2; 2:1, 2; Titus 1:4; Philm. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13). Obviously, this attitude is based on the deep conviction that conversion to Christianity and Baptism is a new birth. This method of expression became common in subsequent times. Saint Justin calls “father” the venerable old man who in Ephesus showed him the path to Christianity (Dial, cum Triph., 3). Towards the end of the second century, Irenaeus says: “whoever is taught by someone is called the son of the teacher, and the one his father” (Adv. haer. 4:41. 2). A little later, Clement of Alexandria writes: we directly call those who instructed “fathers” (Strom. 1:1). In Clement (What Rich Man Will Be Saved, 42) the Apostle John appeals to the young man whom he converted and became a robber: “Why are you, child, running away from me, your father.” In the Epistle to Origen, Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, says this about Panten and Clement, the common parents of the writer and the addressee: “as fathers we honor those blessed who preceded us” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 4:14. 9). Pagans and Jews express their hatred of Polycarp with the following exclamation: “he is the teacher of Asia, the father of Christians (Message of the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philomelia. 12:2). Some letters to Cyprian bear the inscription: Cypriano papae, Cepriano papati (Cypr.Epp. 30; 31; 36). Dionysius of Alexandria calls his predecessor at the Alexandrian episcopal see, Herakles, “our blessed father (Eus. Hist. eccl., 7:74). Since the 4th century, especially during heated debates about the true faith, appeals to the “fathers”, “holy fathers” have been made much more often - they are pointed out as the true representatives of Church tradition in the field of doctrine. “We do not accept the faith that has already been written for us by others,” says Saint Basil the Great, “and we ourselves do not dare to teach the creations of our own mind, so as not to make the verbs of piety human, but what we have learned from the holy fathers, we proclaim to those who question us. And so, since the time of the fathers, the faith, written by the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea, has been established in our Church” (Creations in Russian translation, ed. 3, M., 1892, vol. 6, p. 280: letter 135). Gregory the Theologian decisively points out to his opponents that he firmly adheres to the teaching that he himself “listened to in God’s word, which he learned from the holy fathers (Conversation 33:15. Creations in Russian translation 1844, part III, p. 179). Cyril of Alexandria says that in the fight against Nestorianism he always followed the teaching of the holy fathers, especially the blessed and all-honorable Father Athanasius (Epistle 39 to John of Antioch). On the other hand, the semi-Pelagians of Southern Gaul found in the teaching of Blessed Augustine about grace, in the words of Prosper of Aquitaine, a contradiction with the views of the fathers and the Church's creed (Prosp. Aquit. epist. Ad Aug., interepp. Augustin. 225, 2). The councils with particular affection referred to the authority of the fathers. The First Ecumenical Council defined the relationship of God the Son to the Father with the term ὁμοούσιος, based on the testimony of the fathers (Athanasius the Great, Epistle to Bishop Africanus). The Second Council directly required the heretics to openly declare whether or not they wished to adhere to the judgment of the fathers who flourished before the rise of modern heresies (Socrates and Sozomen under the year 381). The Council of 430, which was in Alexandria, in its Epistle to Nestorius, in its own words, follows the confession of the holy fathers and thus wants to follow, as it were, the royal path. At the first meeting of the Third Ecumenical Council (431), testimonies were read from the writings of the most holy and most God-fearing fathers and bishops and martyrs, in order, on the basis of their consent and decision, to correctly and solemnly confirm the confessions of the ancient teaching (Vincentius of Lyrinsky, Commonitorium, 29). Members of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon (451), insisting on reading the Epistle of Leo the Great to Flavian of Constantinople, exclaimed: this is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles; they decided on the question of true faith, “following the holy fathers,” and condemned those who perverted the teachings of the fathers. The Fathers of the Fifth Council “confessed that they hold and preach the faith, which was originally given by the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ to the holy Apostles, and preached by them throughout the world, which the holy fathers confessed, explained and delivered to the holy Churches; we follow them in everything and accept them.” The Sixth Ecumenical Council professes the Right Faith, unswervingly following the right path of the Holy Fathers and defining in accordance with them, and makes it a rule that the Holy Scriptures should be interpreted no differently than the luminaries and teachers of the Church explained it in their writings. The Seventh Ecumenical Council bases its definition on the teaching of the holy and Divine Fathers and the tradition of the Universal Church, which has its source in the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church. Thus, πατέρες is a more or less enclosed whole, and the “fathers” are recognized as the most reliable representatives of Church tradition in doctrine, witnesses and judges of the true faith. They form a definite and firmly limited group of teachers of the faith preceding one or another council, and the name πατέρες indicates not so much antiquity as the ecclesiastical significance of its bearers. In speeches about the fathers, we always have in mind those predecessors who must testify and represent the faith of the Church, and be the legitimate bearers of the Church’s teaching. They can be taken from the very recent past: for example, at the first meeting of the Ephesian Ecumenical Council (June 22, 431), the testimonies of Theophilus of Alexandria († 412) and Atticus of Constantinople († 425) were read in the collection of “fatherly testimonies”; Saint Leo, Bishop of Rome, appended to his Epistle to Flavian of Constantinople (dated June 13, 449) there are quotations from the writings of Blessed Augustine († 430) and Cyril of Alexandria († 444) - thus, the recently deceased bishops are called “fathers”. From the use of the title "father" in the first centuries it cannot be definitely inferred that this title applied exclusively to bishops; but there is no doubt that references are made almost exclusively to the official bearers of Church magisterium, that is, bishops; and it is quite natural that this honorary name primarily and predominantly designated bishops: as the head of a private Church, the bishop, called and obliged to revive to a new life, to be a teacher and leader in the Christian life of other members of the Church, is placed in parallel with the head of the family. Blessed Augustine, in a dispute with the Pelagian Julian, refers, as a witness to the Church teaching on original sin, to Blessed Jerome, who was not a bishop (August. ContraIulianum. 1:34; cfr. 2:33. 36). But Augustine, apparently, realizes that by doing this he is violating the established and, to a certain extent, certain framework established by his time. Anticipating the expected objection of Julian, he emphasizes with particular insistence that, although Jerome was not a bishop, however, in view of his extraordinary learning and holiness of life, he must be recognized as a reliable interpreter of the faith of the Church. This reference by St. Augustine to Jerome deserves special attention. It shows, on the one hand, how strong was the general conviction at that time that only bishops could be witnesses of the faith; on the other hand, it certifies that more enlightened minds did not consider this limitation immutable and allowed the possibility of including non-bishops among the “fathers” of the Church, if there were sufficient grounds for this in the holiness of their lives and in the Church direction of their teaching and literary activities. This is confirmed by Vikenty Lirinsky; speaking of the ancestors who, unshakably remaining, whenever and wherever, in the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, remained teachers who deserved approval and all together unanimously maintained, transmitted in writing, communicated with a living voice openly, often, firmly any teaching, he means not only bishops, but in general the Church writers of the previous time (Commonitorium, 3). In general, in ancient times there was no formal and mandatory definition of who should be considered the “fathers” of the Church. If the references meant almost exclusively bishops, then this is explained by the fact that the vast majority of enlightened men of antiquity were also hierarchs of the Church: the absence of special restrictive restrictions regarding candidates for episcopacy gave the Church the opportunity to fully use what powers, investing them with the powers of the highest hierarchical service. Thus, there is no doubt that at precisely the time when the authority of the “fathers” stands unshakably in the general consciousness, from the bishops of the previous time the name fathers passes to other Church writers who were not bishops. The transition for this was given in the concept and authoritative witness of the faith of the Church. The task of being judges in matters of faith, which was primarily and primarily performed by bishops, was also acquired by other Church writers during the development of religious disputes among theologians and at councils: constantly turning to the evidence of antiquity, they saw that the majority - and, moreover, the most significant Church writers - also occupied episcopal sees; but, on the other hand, if in subsequent times it was possible to refer only to those bishops of antiquity who set forth the teaching of the faith in written works, then it was no less obvious that such Church writers of the previous time, who for some reason did not achieve episcopal dignity, could give completely reliable testimony about the faith of the Church of their time; their authority increased in proportion to their antiquity. The more often in disputes about faith they appealed to the ancient or original religious consciousness of the Church, the sooner this change should have occurred in the scope of the concept of “fathers,” to which they resorted more and more often: they thought about the witnesses of the ancient Church, but found them not only among bishops, but also among those Church writers of antiquity who did not have episcopal rank. Therefore, the title “Father of the Church” was adopted without any limitation by Saint Ephraim the Syrian, although he was only a deacon, and by Presbyter John of Damascus. This expands the scope of the concept of πατέρες, but at the same time, it does not lose its definition (For more details, see: O. Bardenhewer. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur. Bd. I, Freiburg im Br., 1902, S. 34–39; and in J. Fesslera, Institutiones patroligiae. Ed. B. Jungmann. T. I. Oeniponte, 1890, p. 15 sq.). The Church does not give all Church writers and not even all saints the honorary title of “father of the Church.” Neither genius, nor education, nor eloquence are sufficient to confirm this outstanding significance for a writer: Tertullian, despite the literary and dogmatic-historical significance of his works, Origen, who took the blows of persecution, shining with that special radiance that was inherent in his sublime and insightful spirit, Lactantius with his elegant Ciceronian language, Eusebius of Caesarea , who preserved for the Christian world important documents from its original history, the “father of Church history,” Blessed Jerome, Blessed Augustine and others, are not recognized as fathers of the Church. Posterity carefully preserves their works; but Tertullian’s passion for Montanism, incorrectness and inaccuracy in the teachings of Origen and Lactantius, the suspicious dogmatic views of Eusebius of Caesarea, the cruelty of Jerome’s character, and incorrectness in Augustine’s teaching about the relationship between grace and the free will of man, did not allow the Church to add their names to the list of fathers. On the other hand, rather short works, even fragments, are sometimes sufficient for a famous Church writer to acquire this title. Since in the initial history of the Christian Church we do not see traces of deliberate research regarding the criterion by which one or another Church writer can be recognized as an authoritative witness in the expression of the Church’s religious consciousness, it is obvious that believers in this matter were guided, as it were, by an inner voice, which led to a unanimous recognition of the authority of the Church figure and writer as the father of the Church. Only in later times did this question become the subject of special research. Presbyter Vincent of Lirinsky dealt with it especially persistently and in detail, setting out his reasoning in the “Commonitorium,” compiled by him around 434. He constantly repeats the exhortation to hold fast to the teachings of the holy “fathers” (for example, 3). Vincent says that the determining norm of faith and its written presentation can only be considered the consonant testimony of those fathers who, living, teaching and abiding in the faith and in Catholic communion holy, wisely, constantly, were honored either to rest with faith in Christ, or to die blessedly for Christ (28). These words clearly indicate the basic principles for determining whether one or another Church writer belongs to the Fathers of the Church. Patrological science in the Roman Catholic West, revealing and developing these principles, indicated four signs, the presence of which in a Church writer is necessary for him to receive the honorary title of “Father of the Church,” namely: c) competens antiquitas, and In their main features, these signs for determining the Father of the Church are also accepted by Orthodox patrolologists. a) The Father of the Church, like any teacher in general, must be distinguished by the education necessary for the conditions of his life and work and in the Church of his time enjoy the authority of a teacher in matters of faith, have merit before the Church in the field of teaching, being a constant exponent of Orthodox teaching. He who did not have a clear knowledge of the revealed teaching of Christ, could not give an answer to everyone who asked questions about the faith, who, further, deviated from the teaching of the Church and defended error against the truth, and did not correct his mistakes, he cannot be a reliable witness of Church teaching. On this basis, the Church demanded strict Orthodoxy and refused the title of Father of the Church to all those Church writers who sinned against Church teaching or, at least, raised fundamental doubts about their constancy in Orthodoxy, despite their learning and services to the Church and Theology: such, for example: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Jerome, Augustine. It goes without saying that the requirement of Christian education is very relative in order to be able to establish any definite norms. Likewise, fidelity to Church teaching cannot be interpreted in the sense of impeccable accuracy. On some points of Church teaching, a definite and binding formulation for all has not yet been given. The Fathers of the Church could have made erroneous judgments; for example, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, on the basis of some legend, shows a clear inclination towards chiliastic teaching. However, if there is no doubt that the Church writer who made mistakes always wanted to be faithful to Orthodoxy, then the Church recognizes him as a father. b) The sign of the holiness of life naturally follows from the fact that between true Church learning and the holiness of life there is the closest internal connection: the assimilation of the Christian Revealed teaching does not consist in acquiring only a certain amount of knowledge, or in the formation of only a theoretical worldview, but embraces the entire personality of a person and must be expressed in appropriate behavior. Therefore, only one who, not only through his works, but also through his own example, contributes to the emergence and development of spiritual life can be revered as a spiritual father. The Father of the Church not only shows the path of truth, but also walks along it ahead of his spiritual children. Hence it is clear why in Church usage the Fathers of the Church are called “holy fathers.” c) Regarding the third feature - the antiquity of the Church writer or his belonging to the first centuries of the Church of Christ among patrolologists, there is significant disagreement precisely in determining the period until which Church writers who satisfy other requirements can receive the title of “Father of the Church”. Some Roman Catholic patrollers consider Bernard of Clairvaux († 1153) “ultimus inter patres,” although others (for example, J. Fessier - W. Jungmann) would like to include Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas and end the period of the fathers with the 13th century. However, some among them (for example, Mohler) do not consider it possible to allow an exact definition of the period of the Fathers, since as long as the Church exists, there must and will be men who, in terms of their scientific authority and merits for the Church, can be placed next to the Fathers of the Church. Orthodox patrolologists do not share the desire to determine the period of existence of the “Church Fathers.” His Grace Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, writes: “if any (limit) can be appointed, then only the one that will end the existence of the militant Church of Christ; There is no other limit and cannot be. The Holy Spirit always dwells in the Church, always enlightens the minds and hearts of believers, always acts in the chosen men, depending on the needs of the time... Just as the Church of Christ will exist until the end of the world, so until the end of the world the chosen instruments of the Spirit of God will appear in it for the needs of the Church... Thus, concludes the named author, in all centuries there can be men with the qualities necessary for the fathers of the Church" (Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov. Historical teaching about the fathers and teachers of the Church. St. Petersburg, 1882. T. I, pp. And, indeed, in the Orthodox Church the title of holy father is attached to illustrious men, regardless of the time of their life (the venerable and God-bearing fathers Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk, most recently Theodosius of Chernigov, Seraphim of Sarov, Joasaph of Belgorod. Therefore, from our point of view, if it is possible to raise the question of the patristic period, then only for the immediate purposes of Patrological science in accordance with its specific task and in any case, not based on the concept of “father of the Church.” d) The most significant sign of a “father of the Church” is his recognition of this dignity by the Church itself. At the Lateran Council of 649, at the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils, authoritative witnesses of the faith are called “recognized fathers of the Church”, οἱ ἔγκριτοι τη ς ἐκκλησίας πατέρες; probabiles ecclesiae patres. This recognition is a right that inherently belongs to the Church Itself, since only the Church can determine which of the Church writers expresses Her teachings relatively accurately and implements in their lives, to the extent possible for a person, the moral ideal of Christianity. Recognition is expressed in various forms: some of the holy fathers are indicated by the Ecumenical Councils as witnesses of the true Apostolic Faith, basing their creeds on their writings, the works of others were appointed for reading in Divine service meetings, some are indicated as faithful witnesses of Church teaching, other writers are revered by the Church as fathers; The canonization of saints also belongs to the Church. Since the holiness of life, recognized by the Church, is one of the essential signs of the Father of the Church, the liturgical celebration of the Church writer serves as the surest way to determine his belonging to this glorious host. Thus, the “fathers of the Church” are distinguished by the Church itself from a number of other Church writers, as exponents of the correct understanding of the teaching of Christ, as persons who themselves, with sufficient completeness and clarity for a Christian of a certain time, place and position, assimilated and embodied in their lives the teaching of Christ and possessed the necessary properties for a relatively accurate expression of it in their written works; they actively participated and continue to participate in the structure of the Church and the establishment and disclosure of Her teachings - they are, to a certain extent, the culprits of the specific organization that the Church received, the formulation of Her teachings in which it has come down to our time - therefore they are rightly called the fathers of the Church. They were teachers not only for their time, but through their written works they became such for all subsequent times. In them they expressed their thoughts and feelings, their faith, and completely imprinted their spiritual life: through them the Fathers of the Church speak to later Christian generations of all times, teaching Christian truths, inspiring them to implement them in life, reviving their spiritual children about Christ. Each of us has received a share of their influence in faith and life, therefore they are “our” fathers. Among the Fathers of the Church, the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes another special group of such Church writers, to whom it gives the even more honorable title of doctoresecclesiae par excellence (per eminentiam); among them, to the four signs of the Father of the Church, a fifth is added - eruditio eminens - outstanding scholarship and merits for Church science, which they showed in their works and in the struggle for Church teaching. This highest honorary title of doctor ecclesiae was originally given to four of the most famous Western Church writers: Gregory the Great, Augustine, Ambrose and Jerome (Boniface VIII's declaration of 1298, in which Gregory is singled out as Pope. Augustine and Ambrose as venerandi antistites, Jerome as sacerdotii praeditus titulo, yet together as eximios confessores; later they began to be seen as representatives of the highest hierarchical degrees: bishop (Augustine), archbishop (Ambrose), cardinal (Jerome) and Pope (Gregory). Then four Eastern fathers were added to the four Western ones: Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom. Over time, this number of doctor ecclesiae increased with the addition of Hilary of Poitiers, Peter Chrysologos, Leo the Great, Isidore of Seville, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria (in 1883), John of Damascus (in 1890). Moreover, in the Roman Catholic Church the title of doctor ecclesiae is applied to those Western representatives of Ecclesiastical science who possess all the attributes of a Church father, with the exception of competens antiquitas, that is, to such eminent Ecclesiastical writers and scholars who lived and taught after the period of the fathers. Such are, for example, Bede, Peter Damiani, Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Alphonse of Liguria. In this dignity they must be proclaimed by an official act on the part of the Church (approbatio ecclesiae), or clearly named by this name in papal bulls; With such recognition or proclamation, the Church notes the outstanding services of the writer for Church science, declares him an official witness of the teachings of the Church and gives his writings special dignity. In the Orthodox Church and among Orthodox patrolologists, the title of a teacher of the Church does not have a stable and strictly defined meaning. Sometimes it is attached as a particularly honorable title (“great Ecumenical Teacher”) to the most famous of the Church Fathers (Basily the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom); for the most part it is used in relation to the most outstanding of the Church writers, who are not awarded by the Church the honorary title of Fathers of the Church, but are known for their high qualities, exceptional education, ascetic life and are respected in the Church, although not among the saints (for example, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret of Cyrus), and in their significance are close to the fathers, standing in close connection with them. However, no definite instructions in this regard have been developed, why in our country the Fathers of the Church are contrasted simply with Church writers, that is, such writers who do not have some patristic properties - did not imprint in their lives and writings the complete purity and integrity of the devoted faith of the Church, but until the end of their lives remained in spiritual communion with the Church and the like, such as, for example, the already mentioned Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret of Cyrus and others. Some of them were singled out by the Church itself for some reason from a number of fathers (Eusebius of Caesarea at the VII Ecumenical Council), the errors of others were clarified with the precise formulation of Church teaching (for example, the opinions of Origen), about others the Church did not express its judgment, or did not recognize them as saints and glorified. There is much less clarity and distinctness in determining what authority belongs to the Fathers of the Church, what significance their creations and the teaching set forth in them have. Christian antiquity provides a continuous series of evidence of the high respect in which men known by the name of the Fathers of the Church were held; This is clearly indicated by the very name of them as fathers, holy fathers, God-bearing, God-speaking, divine. Ancient hymns call them “multi-bright stars, Church helms, unshakable pillars, organs of grace and harps of the Spirit.” Councils and individual Church writers speak about the Fathers of the Church in a language that reveals in them the firm conviction that the Fathers of the Church are the most reliable leaders in religious knowledge and life. The “Message” of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, decisively assimilating the infallibility of the Universal Church alone because a person who speaks on his own can sin, at the same time represents the Fathers of the Church as instruments of the Holy Spirit: “the Spirit teaches the Holy Church through the holy fathers and teachers of the Catholic Church. For just as all Scripture is admittedly the word of the Holy Spirit, not because He directly spoke it, but spoke in it through the Apostles and Prophets, so the Church learns from the life-giving Spirit only through the mediation of the Holy Fathers and Teachers: why we are not only convinced, but also undoubtedly confess as a solid truth, that the Catholic Church cannot sin or be mistaken and utter lies instead of the truth, for the Holy Spirit, always acting through the faithful fathers and teachers of the Church, protects Her from all error” (12th part). The respectful attitude towards fathers has invariably been preserved in the Orthodox Church to this day. This special respect for them, as authoritative witnesses of Church teaching, is based on those very properties of them, due to which the Church honored them with the high title of Fathers of the Church, namely: firstly, on the high degree of their Christian education. Most of the Church Fathers had all the necessary means for a comprehensive education and were outstanding scholars among the Christians of their time, revered as wonderful teachers and the most authoritative defenders of faithful Church teaching. One can say about many of them in the words of Blessed Jerome: “you don’t know what to marvel more in them, whether the deep comprehension of the word of God, or secular learning.” Firmness of conviction, outstanding gift of eloquence and excellent presentation of doctrine aroused respect for them even in the circles of educated people who did not belong to the Church. This quality is a reliable guarantee that Church teaching was correctly understood by the fathers and presented by them with the accuracy possible under contemporary conditions. Secondly, on the holiness of the life of the Church Fathers, which is a necessary complement to scientific education. In the matter of religious knowledge, this is a quality that can replace the most talented mentors. “Those who are pure in heart will see God” (Matthew 5:8). The mysteries of spiritual life are better understood and can be expressed more clearly and correctly for others by those who have known them through their own experience than by those who talk about them theoretically. The one who conforms his life to the known truth is more devoted to the truth. The saint reveres the teachings of Christ as a heavenly blessing, a divine gift, which is dearer to him than anything else, even his own life - for the truth he is ready to endure the most severe torment. Therefore, the holiness of life determines a deeper and clearer comprehension of Christian teaching, the purity of the activities of the fathers in general and literary activity in particular; love for the truth of Christ and conscientiousness in its written presentation. Closely related to this quality is the conviction of the ancients in the supernatural grace-filled gifts of the holy fathers, the expression of which is the evidence of antiquity that some of the fathers were awarded special grace-filled admonitions and instructions: Gregory the Wonderworker receives the Creed from the Apostles themselves, the Monk Anthony receives a miraculous resolution to his perplexities; Ephraim the Syrian was given the title of “prophet of Syria” by his contemporaries; Proclus saw the Apostle Paul under John Chrysostom while he was composing interpretations of Paul’s Epistles; Deacon Paulinus sees fire emanating from the lips of Saint Ambrose during his explanation of the 143rd Psalm. Church songwriters called the fathers in the canons “God-speaking, God-wise harps of the Holy Spirit, and even God-inspired.” The same confidence is expressed in the quoted words from the Message of the Patriarchs. Such judgments, based on the deep faith that, according to the promise of the Savior, the Holy Spirit unceasingly guides the Church and guides the believers into all truth, clearly shows the general impression that they received from the fathers, namely, that they had the gift of understanding better than others the spirit of the Gospel teaching, as God-enlightened teachers of faith and piety. Thirdly, on the recognition of their writings by the Church. The Church points to the writings of the fathers as those that can and should be believed and followed. This instruction is of utmost importance in view of the fact that the task of the Church is to preserve the purity of revealed teaching and to ensure that believers follow reliable teachers and leaders. When the Church establishes the fathers as official and reliable witnesses and teachers, Her authority in some way passes to them; therefore, their creations receive greater significance for believers than works not recognized and not recommended by the Church. This basis is the most obvious and significant, and it is precisely from this that it is necessary to start when judging the authority of the fathers. But to what extent should the authority of the fathers be recognized as binding on Christians? To what objects of knowledge does it extend? Shouldn't any gradations be established in relation to it? Christian antiquity did not give a definite answer to these questions, but it did not oblige believers to unconditional obedience to what was written by one or another father. Next to the requirement to follow in the footsteps of the fathers and to recognize their sayings as more undoubted than one’s own opinion (St. Basil the Great, Ep. 48 (52)), we encounter the judgments of the ancients, which testify to a certain freedom in relation to paternal writing. Cyril of Jerusalem says to his listeners: “Do not believe me when I tell you simply, unless you receive evidence for my words from the Divine Scriptures” (Catech., 4). Basil the Great gives the following instruction: “one must believe in the scriptures what the writers say, and accept what is in agreement with the scriptures, and reject what does not agree and in every possible way turn away those who adhere to such teachings” (Ascetic Word on Faith). Blessed Augustine writes to Fortunatus: “we can, without violating respect (for the fathers), disapprove and reject something in their writings, if, perhaps, we find that they thought inconsistent with the truth”; and in the book on Baptism, he also says: “The epistles of bishops, if there is any deviation from the truth in them, it is permissible to denounce with a word more wise, with greater importance, other bishops, councils” ... Patriarch Photius in his Epistle to the Archbishop of Aquileia says: “You never know there were difficult situations that aroused many fathers, partly not to express themselves precisely, partly to speak in relation to circumstances, and otherwise when attacking infidels, and otherwise due to human ignorance, to which they also fell."... And in another place: “if others spoke inaccurately, or for a reason known to us even deviated from the right path, but there was no research about them and no one called them to the knowledge of the truth, we rank them among the fathers, as if they had not said this, for the celebrity of their lives and the glory of virtue and for the integrity of faith in other respects, but we do not follow their words where they sinned.” And indeed, the fact of erroneous opinions in the writings of the fathers of different eras is beyond doubt, which undoubtedly excludes the unconditional obligation for believers to follow all, without exception, the opinions of individuals. The writings of the fathers are human works and differ significantly from the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which are inspired by God, compiled under the special influence of the Holy Spirit, and therefore should be considered and revered as Holy and Divine Scripture. With very rare exceptions, no one mixed the works of the Church Fathers with the inspired writings of the prophets and apostles, and such mixing should not be allowed without the danger of getting entangled in hopeless contradictions. From here, with constant submission to the always living, always infallible authority of the Church, which is the faithful custodian of Divine promises and universal and continuous tradition, a certain freedom follows for us in the study of the fatherly works and the teaching contained in them; from here, without diminishing the importance of the fathers, we have the opportunity and the right to make the necessary differences in the assessment of their teaching. The main principles of this assessment are as follows. The Fathers of the Church can be considered either separately, or all together; in both cases, it is necessary to take into account particular, but very important considerations. Sometimes we see that an individual Father of the Church gives timid, little confident answers to questions posed by his inquisitive and insightful mind. Such decisions, of course, cannot be equated with clear and firm judgments that follow from the entire teaching of the same father. But even in this case, when the father’s language does not represent either uncertainty or the variations possible with it, it is necessary to examine the question to which his statement extends, the motives on which this statement is based. If a father expresses what he teaches as the word of the Savior, as a revealed teaching that has reached him through continuous tradition, if he says: “we believe”, “confess”, “we are taught”, “The apostles betrayed”, “The Church observes”, if, finally, we have no reasonable evidence to doubt the veracity of this statement, then we must look at him as a witness, and his testimony, even considered separately, is of high value; The strength of this testimony is greater the closer this father stands to the source of the Apostolic tradition, the more definitely he indicates and defends in some position the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, or the common voice of all believers or all Churches, sometimes in contrast to the innovations of heretics, therefore, on the basis of a special study of the issue. If it turns out that the father is formulating his own opinion, setting out how he himself understands this or that dogma, in a word, revealing his personal Theology, then the views of this father are valid insofar as his argumentation is convincing. He is an apologist, a theologian, a thinker, but not a witness. In this regard, great authority undoubtedly belongs to those fathers who at one time stood out from a number of others for their holiness and education, were acquainted or corresponded with many Orthodox bishops, traveled to different countries of the Christian world, collected information about teaching and practice in different Churches and, therefore, could know the teaching that was invariably observed in the Universal Church as a true Apostolic tradition, and finally, were leaders in defending Orthodox teaching against heretics appeared, which is why they enjoyed respect and fame among their contemporaries. But in this case, how can one look at the recognition of the father by the Church itself? Recognition of the father by the Church states the generally Orthodox character of his works, but does not communicate to each individual position in his teaching the meaning of the actual teaching of the Church. The exception is those individual works that were recognized at the Ecumenical Councils as an accurate expression of Orthodox teaching on one point or another; such are, for example: the anathematisms of Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius, his Second Epistle to Nestorius, his Epistle to John of Antioch, the Epistle of Pope Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople. The concordant testimony of several fathers gives greater guarantee for the truth of what they testify to, and precisely the greater, the greater their number and authority. But here, too, those points of view that matter in relation to each individual father are fully applicable. Thus, since the Fathers of the Church individually do not assimilate the Inspiration of the Prophets and Apostles, then when judging their authority, a certain amount of subjectivity, which can be regulated by such considerations, inevitably receives a completely legitimate place. The judgments of individual Church Fathers are essentially theological opinions, but the opinions of those that mean more to every Orthodox Christian than ordinary theologians; this is theologumena. The Orthodox theologian places them highly, without, however, exaggerating their significance. Everyone has the right to hold the theologumenon (as his own private opinion), if this theologumenon is expressed even by the only father of the Church - it goes without saying, unless it is proven that a competent Church judgment has not declared it as a false view (but, if this is proven, then ipsofacto this view ceases to have the significance of theologumenon). But, on the other hand, no one can demand that another recognize as his private theological opinion such a theologumenon, which, although set forth by several Fathers of the Church, does not rivet with its sublime theological beauty and does not conquer with its superior power accessible to reason. In this case, one thing is clear: if someone himself does not recognize the mentioned theologumenon, then, on the other hand, he also does not have the right to condemn those theologians who accept it; and if anyone were forced to dispute it, then in this case he should be reverent towards it and speak with respect befitting the authority of the Fathers of the Church. Whether one Father of the Church, or several, accept this theologumenon, this is a question that cannot be of significant importance; Every father of the Church has the moral right to say with the Apostle Paul: I think that I also have the Spirit of God... (1 Cor. 7:40), and if a whole host of such bearers of a high religious spirit accept this theologumenon, then the subjective conviction is strengthened that we stand on solid ground, that this is probable - in the highest degree probable, that it is very close to certainty. But, without a doubt, even a very widespread theologumenon is not yet a dogma (Thesen überdas Filioque. Von einem russischen Theologen [= Prof. B.B. Bolotov] // Revue international de théologie. 1898. No. 4, p. 681–684). By examining the teachings of the entire body of fathers, we can discover differences of opinion between them on the same issue: sometimes certain statements of the majority are opposed by the judgments of a minority, even if it is insignificant. What should be the attitude towards such a phenomenon in paternal writing? First of all, it is necessary to make sure whether there really are real and as deep disagreements as they seem at first glance. When a careful study leads to the conviction that it is impossible to reach an agreement of opinions, then we must conclude that on this issue paternal writing does not provide an indisputable teaching, and without prejudice, look for the reasons for such disagreement, which can have a sufficient explanation in the circumstances of the life of the writers and the state of Church affairs of that time, in the passion for polemics for the sake of clarifying the truth and in possible exaggerations, mutual misunderstanding, and so on. Finally, on many and even the most significant issues, the Church Fathers demonstrate unanimous agreement; their voices, heard from the most distant places, form a consonant chorus, in which even a distrustful and suspicious ear will not detect even slight dissonance. They certify that what they proclaim they received from their predecessors as the permanent teaching of the Church. Such testimony, since it was established not by an individual who is capable of making mistakes, but by an institution that is unconditionally authoritative for all believers, that is, by the Church itself, must stand beyond all suspicion and doubt. In this case, the Fathers of the Church are obviously living organs of churchwide religious consciousness and life, and their consistent teaching has the deepest foundation in the agreement of the teaching Church, in Which, according to the promise of Christ, the Holy Spirit will abide until the end of days; why the teaching witnessed by the fathers should be considered as a general and constant Church teaching, as Church dogma, according to the principle: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est, hoc est vere proprieque catholicum. Since ancient times, this principle has had constant significance in the Church, both among individual fathers and at Ecumenical Councils. Already the most ancient fathers and Church writers referred to this principle in their works: Saint Irenaeus against the Gnostics, Saint Athanasius against the Arians, Basil the Great, Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria. The scientific justification for this principle is given in the works of Saint Irenaeus, Tertullian, and especially in the Commonitorium of Vincent of Lyrins, to whom the given formulation of the principle in question belongs (Commonitorium, 2). He also gives the most detailed explanations regarding the consensus patrum: “what only all of them (the fathers) or the majority of them unanimously accepted, supported, conveyed openly, often, unshakably, as if by prior “agreement among the teachers, then is considered undoubted, faithful and indisputable.” The Ecumenical Councils sanctified this principle and placed it at the basis of their dogmatic definitions. This principle is also justified from the other side: truth unites those who honestly and conscientiously strive for it. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria clearly set out such a criterion for the truth of the testimony of the fathers: “This is the true teaching and this is the sign of true teachers: how, the fathers betrayed, to confess the same thing in agreement among themselves and not enter into disputes either with each other or with their fathers... The holy and real preachers of the truth agree with one another and do not differ from each other. Although they existed at different times, they all mutually strive for the same thing, being prophets of one God and preaching one Word in agreement” (De decretis Nicaenae Synodi: PG 25:429). At the same time, it is not only not required, but it is even impossible to demand that all the fathers, without any exception, express a consistent judgment on a certain point of Church teaching - it could be that not everyone had a reason to speak out on this issue. It is enough that a significant number of eminent fathers from different countries and different times testify in accordance, firmly and clearly, as the teaching of the Church, and that the rest do not present contrary judgments. An accurate and detailed clarification of the meaning of the universal agreement of the fathers as a criterion of true dogma belongs to the field of dogmatic theology; for us, it is necessary to note here the essential feature that the fathers of the Church and in their entirety are not the creators of the Church’s teaching, but witnesses of it: they, in the words of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, confessed, explained and betrayed the faith that was originally given by our great God and Savior Jesus Christ to the holy Apostles and preached by them throughout the world.” In the words of St. Augustine, they “held what they found in the Church, what they learned, what they taught, what they received from their fathers, they passed on to their sons” (Contra Iulianum 2:34); why their agreement testifies to the actual catholicity of the teaching, that is, universality and historical continuity. But this agreement of the fathers, in order to be binding for the consciousness of Christians, must concern such points of teaching that, according to the recognition of the fathers themselves, have the character of revealed truths. Obviously, if the subject of such consonant testimony is completely alien to Christian dogma, if it is precise and exclusively scientific, then it (the testimony) cannot claim exclusive rights to our mind. Since the authority and infallibility of the Church extends only to revealed truths, that is, the totality of dogma and moral teaching - since only in relation to these truths did she receive the Divine mission to contain them unchanged and without distortion for all times - then the authority of the fathers is limited to these truths (compare: Vincent of Lyrinsky. Commonitorum, 28). Therefore, even in the Theological Sciences, the authority of St. fathers cannot be extended indifferently to all aspects of them, but we must certainly pay attention to how much the development of one or another science is determined by the natural abilities of man and is in connection with the general course of development of mankind. Vincent of Lirinsky also said: “it should be noted that we are obliged with the greatest diligence to examine the consonant judgments of the ancient holy fathers and follow them not regarding all any unimportant questions of the Divine law, but mainly only regarding the rule of faith” (Commonitorium, 28), since, in his opinion, “it is necessary to direct the understanding of Heavenly Scripture according to one rule of Church understanding in those only mainly questions on which the foundations of everything are based Ecumenical dogmatic teaching" (29). In all other matters, the scientific views of the fathers are subject to ordinary scientific evaluation, and all their opinions, arguments and explanations have significance according to their intrinsic scientific merit. Based on the above, the general conclusion about the authority of the Fathers of the Church can be expressed in the following words of Archimandrite Porfiry, who published a special discussion: “On the authority of the Holy Fathers of the Church and the importance of their writings” (Addition to the works of the Holy Fathers. vol. 22. 1863. pp. 1–59): “The Holy Fathers are the most reliable leaders in the matter of religious knowledge; their writings contain the Apostolic tradition, therefore all disputes about faith, about the rules of piety and church decorum must necessarily be resolved in the light of the patristic writings; but only their unanimous and consistent teaching serves as an undoubted proof of truth; only this teaching should be accepted by everyone as an undoubted rule, and not every private thought of theirs and not every assumption and research of theirs. The Church at all times has had and has the need to indicate for Her children such writings that can serve as protection against unbelief, delusions and moral failures; and at all times she carefully distinguished those shepherds whom God especially rewarded with the gifts of His grace, prepared for the fight against heretics and bestowed with the gifts of wisdom and knowledge; she received their writings with special respect and offered them as a guide for future times. She does not attribute complete infallibility to the holy fathers, but points to their high natural and grace-filled gifts, to the closeness of many of them and in time to the holy Apostles, to their fiery love for the word of God, to the obvious and special care of Providence for them; and, as it were, says this to everyone who sincerely desires to hear Her teaching: “For you, the guidance of Holy Scripture alone is not enough; Many dogmas and other truths contained in Scripture cannot be correctly understood and explained without third-party aids. But you will not find more reliable aids after the Holy Scriptures anywhere except the paternal writings. And these God-wise teachers of the Church are not alien to sinful opinions; but one should only delve into the spirit of their creations and not be blindly attached to the letter of their writings, then they will truly be shining stars on the path of studying the Revealed Religion. If, with all their love for the revealed truth, they were not always saved from error in matters not related to faith, then those of you, in whose hearts the fire of love for the Lord does not burn as brightly as it burned and does not cease to burn in the hearts of the holy fathers and teachers who have already moved to Heaven, can nevertheless trust their considerations" (p. 46-47). The stated considerations regarding the authority of the Fathers of the Church eliminate the extreme views of both those who are ready to assimilate every patristic word with absolute authority and unconditional infallibility and bindingness for believers, and those who consider them as simple historical witnesses. At the same time, on the basis of these considerations, sufficient freedom opens up for the scientific study of Patristic literature. The beginnings of the historical narrative about the Church Fathers and Ancient Church writers go back to Eusebius. In his "Ecclesiastical History" and in his "Chronicle" he preserved valuable information about the life, work and literary works of Christian writers, often adding critical remarks and very important extracts from surviving and lost works. True, this was not the history of Ancient Christian writing, but Eusebius laid the foundation for it, on which subsequent historians continued to work. The first who attacked the idea of ​​an independent history of Christian literature and tried to implement it was Blessed Jerome. At the request of his high-ranking patron, the praetorian prefect Dexter, in 392 he compiled a small work in Bethlehem entitled “De viris illustribus” or “De scriptoribus ecclestiasticis”. In the preface, Jerome points out that in his work he pursued a twofold goal: he wanted to erect the same monument to Christian teachers and writers as Suetonius and other pagan writers created for the famous men of pagan antiquity, and at the same time to present a clear refutation of the reproaches of Celsus, Porphyry, Julian and their adherents that Christians have neither philosophers, orators, nor scientists (ecclesiam nullos philosophos eloquentes, nullos habuisse doctores): desinant, says Jerome, fidem nostram rusticae tantum simplicitatis arquere suamque potius imperitiam recognoscant (For this purpose, he decided to give brief information about the “Church Writers” or “about all those who, from the suffering of Christ until the 14th year of the Emperor Theodosius, left something written about sacred books"). Jerome borrowed the very title of the work “De viris illustribus” from Roman literature, from Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 75–160 AD), which Dexter pointed out to him as a model. The work is divided into 135 chapters; it provides brief information about the lives and literary works of 135 writers, starting with the Apostle Peter. At the end, Jerome gives a list of his own works written before 392. In addition to Church writers, in the proper sense of the word, heretical and non-Christian writers also found a place in the work: Bardesanus, Novatian, Donatus Photinus, Eunomius, three Jews: Philo, Josephus and Justus of Tiberias and the pagan Seneca for the sake of his apocryphal correspondence with the Apostle Paul. The chapters on biblical writers borrow heavily from the New Testament. In information about Greek writers of the first three centuries, the author is completely dependent on Eusebius’s “Church History” and “Chronicle”; At the same time, due to haste in transferring the source, gross errors were made: various writers of the same name were identified, different works were combined into one, and the same work was divided into two, writers were adopted by other people's works and content alien to them was attributed to the works, in some cases, from the words of Eusebius, a conclusion was drawn about non-existent works and works attested by Eusebius were omitted (S. A. Bernoulli. Der Schriftstellerkatalog des Hieronymus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der altchrist. Freiburgin Br. Und Leipzig, 1895. S. 80–163). Therefore, it is necessary to admit that in this section Jerome introduced significant confusion into the history of Ancient Christian literature. The information he provides about Greek writers of the 4th century and about Latin writers, where he shows direct acquaintance with the primary sources, is more valuable; however, even here fair doubts are raised about the reliability of the data presented in the work. But if its scientific merit is insignificant and its literary qualities are low, then Jerome’s work, even after careful criticism of it, has not lost its significance as a literary and historical source even today. Jerome’s undeniable merit is that he took a completely new path and paved it for others. Jerome's work was translated into Greek with some additions; The time of this translation has not been precisely established in science - the 7th century is considered more likely. Jerome's work remained for more than a thousand years the model and basis of similar works that appeared under the same or similar titles. Jerome's successors joined him, added subsequent writers and introduced some ancient ones missed by Jerome; in the form and nature of the presentation of information, they all imitated Jerome’s De viris illustribus. A very valuable continuation and addition to the work of Jerome was composed in 467–480. Presbyter Gennady of Marseilles, who gave information about 90 writers of the 5th century in his work De viris illustribus. In most manuscripts this work is placed as the second part of Jerome’s work, and this connection fully corresponds to the author’s intentions. As a source for the history of Ancient Church literature, Gennady's work is highly valued: he was a historian of extensive knowledge with critical abilities and was guided almost exclusively by historical and literary interests. His information in the bibliography is more reliable than in the biography, because he speaks about the works of writers mostly on the basis of his own reading, and in reports about the lives of the authors he refers to oral and written tradition. A further successor of this type of writing was Archbishop Isidore of Seville († 636); his work “On Famous Men” has been preserved in two editions: a short edition of 33 chapters and a lengthy edition of 12 chapters; The question of the authenticity of the latest edition has not yet been finally resolved. Isidore's work has value only in reports about Spanish writers. Isidore's student Ildefons, Archbishop of Toledo († 667) wrote a small addition to the work of his teacher, providing information mainly about the archbishops of Toledo and in general about the natives of Spain. At the same time, the invaluable work of the learned Patriarch of Constantinople Photius († 891) appeared in the East: ἀνεγνωσμένων ἡμι ν βιβλίων κτλ., known as μυριοβίβλον ἢ βιβλιοθήκη (commonly cited: Photii Bibliotheca); it contains critical comments about 280 writers - pagan and Christian historians, theologians, grammarians, naturalists, and provides extracts from their works. But in general, it should be noted that in the Middle Ages, for independent literary and historical research, there was a lack of sources and aids, and partly of historical interest and understanding. Patristic works were copied, stored in monastic and Church libraries, extracts were made from them and the sayings of the fathers were combined into exegetical catenas or collections of dogmatic-exegetical maxims. But the knowledge of patristic material, especially the Greek fathers, remained limited, the processing uncritical and unscientific. In the West, after a long break, the successors of Jerome’s work (the so-called Nomenclatores veteres) again appeared, and among them, first of all, the Benedictine monk Sigebert (1112) and who wrote “De viris illustribus”, in imitation of Jerome and Gennadius (imitatus Hieronymum et Gennadium - p. 171); he presents information about the Church writers of antiquity, and then biographical and bibliographical remarks about the Latin theologians of the early Middle Ages. A more or less similar compendium was written by the presbyter Honorius Augustodunsky († c. 1150), whose work "De luminaribus ecclesiae sive de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis" begins the narrative with the Apostles and ends with Anselm of Canterbury and other contemporaries. An unknown 12th-century Benedictine monk, the so-called Anonymus Mellicensis (named after the Benedictine monastery of Melk in Lower Austria, where the manuscript was found), around 1135 g. wrote “De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis.” Another anonymous author, who was previously incorrectly identified with the scholastic Henry of Ghent († 1293), wrote the book “De viris illustribus.” Finally, the learned abbot John of Heidenberg, called Tritenheim († 1516), with a very careful but uncritical use of ancient sources, compiled in 1494. extensive in volume and rich in content, the work Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis seu catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, in which he presented information about 963 Christian writers of antiquity and the Middle Ages, starting with Clement of Rome and ending with the author himself (until 1492), and along with theologians, also talks about philosophers, poets, rhetoricians and mathematicians. meaning in the part that presents data about writers of later times. The actual scientific study of patristic writing became possible only from the 16th century; however, preparation for this was given “a little earlier - in the reformation movement within the Roman Catholic Church and especially in humanism. Already in the last centuries of the medieval period, a strong need was felt to return from traditional Church and scholastic Theology to the pure sources of Christian knowledge in the Holy Scriptures and in the works of the Church Fathers. Thus, Gerson, in contrast to the prevailing custom of reading only what is new, points to the study of ancient theologians, to Gregory, Augustine, Dionysius, Vitae Patrum. But especially the deeper learning of Church writers was favored by the great cultural successes of the 15th century, the classical studies of humanists, the awakening of general historical and critical interest, the zeal for collecting ancient manuscripts, the knowledge of the Greek language that had spread in the West, and, above all, the invention of printing. The revival of interest in ancient literature and art caused the study of philology and history, and at the same time ancient Christian literature. Patristic works were found, first published in Latin (Lactantius, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Leo, Orosius and others), and soon Greek (Eusebius, Athanasius, Origen, John Chrysostom and others) first in the Latin translation, and then in the original. Learned humanists and theologians, like Erasmus, Icolampadius, educated booksellers, like Robert and Henry Stephens, gained fame in this area. The oldest editions, which appeared in the first decades after the invention of printing (editiones principes antiquissimae), are mostly careful reprints of individual manuscripts and are especially important because in some cases they provide the text of manuscripts that later disappeared. The works of learned philologists and typographers Robert and Heinrich Stefan represent the next stage in the development of publishing; Their editions are distinguished by the correctness of the text, the beauty of the font and the good quality of the paper. Even if they cannot compare with them, the works of the Frobenians - John and Jerome (in Basel), which, in addition to other scientists, were very actively helped by Erasmus of Rotterdam, stand close to them in merit. Thus, the publication of texts of Ancient Church writing developed quite quickly, which was facilitated by the discovery of new manuscripts, and they began to be engaged in it in Rome, Venice, London, Cambridge, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Brussels, Basel. However, serious processing of Patristic literature began only since the Reformation, when the sources of Christian antiquity discovered by humanists were first used for the purposes of religious struggle. As for the Roman Catholic theologians, they recognized themselves as forced to seek means of defense against attacks from Protestants in the Christianity of the ancient Church and precisely in the works of the Holy Fathers, as representatives of original and pure Christianity. However, it was not just a polemical-apologetic need that prompted them to pay attention to patristic antiquity - a positive dogmatic interest was added to this. The scholastics created something from patristic material that forced some Roman Catholic theologians, frightened by the Reformation, to strive to refresh dogmatics; means for this were sought mainly in the works of St. fathers. Thus, next to theologia Scholastica, which they did not want to destroy, theologia positiva arose - a special type of dogma, which later received the name theologia patristica; it set itself the task of extracting dogmatic provisions directly from the dictis of Ancient Church writers and conciliar definitions. But since Protestantism sought to rely on Christian antiquity and at the same time rejected some of its monuments as inauthentic, this, in connection with the Reformation’s assertion of the gradual and yet ongoing perversion of original Christianity in Roman Catholicism, gave new food to the developing interest in Ancient Christian writing and an impetus to the emergence of historical criticism, which was tasked with clearing historical reality from the legendary layers, restore, if possible, the true image of the Church figures of antiquity and determine the true scope of their literary heritage. To carry out this great work, the Roman Catholic Church had enormous means. The libraries of monasteries and chapters, with their manuscript treasures, provided inexhaustible material, and the orders had outstanding scientific forces; They also had rich funds at their disposal to publish works. Ahead of the others stood the Gallican Church and especially the Benedictine congregation of St. Maurus, founded in 1618. Its learned members powerfully and for a long time supported interest in the study of Ancient Christian writing with their classical editions of the Church Fathers, which, in their richness and diversity, philological-critical merits and even external beauty, surpassed everything that had happened before. Their editions are distinguished by the possibly correct text, corrected according to all the then available rules of scientific textual criticism; in addition, they have a good Latin translation for the Greek Fathers. Further, scholarly dissertations, critical studies on authenticity and inauthenticity, explanatory notes and marginal notes, descriptions of the manuscripts used in the publication, several indexes. Of these devotees of science, the following names must be mentioned: Jean Lucasd'Achery (Dacherius, † 1685: Spicilegium, sive collectio veterum aliquot, scriptorum etc.) Jacquesdu Frische († 1693: Ambrose), Thiery Ruinart († 1709: Actamartyrum sincera), Réné Massuet († 1716: Irenaeus), Jean Martinay († 1717: Jerome), Ant. Aug. Touttee († 1719: Cyril of Jerusalem), Pierre Coustant († 1721: Hilary of Pictavia), Denysle Nourry († 1724: Ambrose), Denysde Sainte-Marthe (Sammarthanus, 1 1725: Gregory the Great), Julien Garnier († 1725: Basil the Great ), Charlesdela Rue († 1739: Origen), Bernardde Montfaucon († 1741: Athanasius, John Chrysostom), Prudence Maran († 1762: Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyprian, Justin), Charles Clemencet († 1778: Gregory the Theologian). Other orders competed more or less successfully with the Maurins, especially the Jesuits; the best known of them are: Frontonle Duc (Ducaeus † 1624: John Chrysostom, John of Damascus), James Gretser († 1625), Jacques Sirmond († 1651: numerous separate editions), Belgian Jean Boiland († 1665: Acta Sanctorum), Jean Garnier († 1681: Theodoret Cyrus), Dominican François Combefis († 1679: Maximus the Confessor); private scientists Jean Bapt. Cotelier († 1686: Patres Apostolici; Ecclesiae grecae monumenta), Étienne Baluze († 1718) and others. As individual patristic works were published in print, little by little they began to combine the accumulated and scattered material into collections in which the literary heritage of the Ancient Ages was arranged either according to the time of origin and the language in which the works were written, or according to different Theological disciplines. These collections go by various names: Bibliotheca, Monumenta, Spicilegia Patrum, Analecta vetera, Collectana veterum monumentorum and the like. Collections began to appear quite early and partly pursued scientific goals, partly intended to satisfy practical needs. The oldest of them met the scientific requirements for textual-critical publications much less than the oldest individual publications. The first publisher of a large collection of patristic works was delaBigne († 1589). His Bibliotheca SS. Patrum (Paris, 1575–1579) embraced in nine volumes (infolio) the works of more than 200 theological writers of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The collection contained mainly documents that had not yet appeared in separate publications or were inaccessible; The Greek writers are given here in the Latin translation. The enterprise was met with great sympathy, brought to life significantly increased and expanded processing and, finally, after a century, grew into the Maxima Bibliotheca veterum Patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum (Lyon, 1677), in 27 volumes (infolio). This Maxima Bibliotheca is the Oratorian Andr. Gallandi († 1779) again, almost a hundred years later, contrasted it with a new edition: Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum in 14 volumes (in folio). The difference between the two editions is as follows: Maxima Bibliotheca covers writers up to the 16th century, while Bibliotheca Gallandi covers writers only up to the 12th century; the former pays primary attention to the most significant fathers of the Church, the latter selects mainly less significant writers with works of a smaller volume; the first gives the Greek writers in a Latin translation, the second adds the original Greek text. Gallandi gives the works of 380 authors, including some inedita, but for the most part reprints previous editions, usually adding new Introductions, notes and amendments to the text. There was no shortage of research and comprehensive courses on the history of Ancient Church literature. True, the book of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine († 1621) Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (Roma, 1613) - from biblical writers to 1500, supplemented by the Jesuit Phil. Labbé (Paris, 1660), is only a continuation of the works of the ancient nomenclators; But for that, the enormous work of the Sorbonne professor L.E. seems completely new in concept. Dupina († 1719): Nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1686–1711; in 47 volumes). Dupina's work is the first attempt in the history of literature in which the rules of sound historical criticism were not only established, but also carried out. This work caused lively opposition in strictly Church circles (Rich. Simoni Bossuet) and it was banned. In contrast to Dupin, the Benedictine Réné Ceillier compiled a detailed work, Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques (in 23 volumes, Paris, 1721–1763). At the same time, Le Nourry published his work Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam veterum Patrum. The famous work of the Jansenist Louis de Tillemont: Mémoires de lhistoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles (16 volumes; Paris, 1693–1712), due to the richness and thoroughness of its excursions, has not lost its significance to this day. Finally, two works of the German Benedictines should be mentioned: Daniel Schrama († 1797) Analysis operum SS. Patrum etscriptorum ecclesiasticorum (18 volumes, 1780–1796), and Gottfried Lumpera († 1800) Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis atque doctrina SS. Patrum aliorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum (13 volumes, 1783–1899). Protestants, despite the negative attitude towards the authority of the fatherly works, especially in the setting that was given to him in the Roman Catholic Church, for their part were not inclined to cede this field to opponents and with no less zeal, even before the Roman Catholics, intensively engaged in the historical-critical study of patristic writing; they looked there not only for weapons for the struggle, but also for stones for the new building they were erecting, trying to prove the antiquity and continuous tradition of their teaching in the Church after the Apostolic Church (Luther, Melanchthon, Icolampadius). Thus, Protestants were also attracted to the study of Patristic literature not only by the need to defend themselves against the Roman Catholics and to refute them, but also by a positive dogmatic interest, which gradually developed alongside the polemical one. This is how a discipline arose on Protestant soil, which was first called theologia historica, and then, especially from the end of the 17th century, theologia patristica, which meant the combination of patristic proofs for individual dogmas, located in the sequence that was accepted in dogmatic systems. This concept of “Patristics,” which was first established by Lutheran theologians and then adopted by Roman Catholics, remained dominant until the middle of the 18th century, and Roman Catholic theologians added to the dogmatic sayings of the Church Fathers, who constituted Patristics, sayings relating to moral teaching and Church discipline. And the Protestants, for all these reasons, began the historical-critical study of patristic writing. And on Protestant soil there appear works similar to the Roman Catholic ones mentioned above, but far inferior to them in richness and variety of content; of these can be called: Joh. Gerhard. Patrologia sive de primitivae ecclesiae Christianae doctorum vita lucubrationibus opusculum posthumum (Jena, 1653); Joh. Gottfr. Olearius, Abacus patrologicus (1673); Joh. Hülsemann, Patrologia (Leipzig, 1670). Joh. Fabricius, Bibliotheca graeca (1790–1809 in 12 volumes) and Bibliotheca latina (1754 in 6 volumes); Joh. Georg Walch, Bibliotheca patristica (Jena 1770). Card. Schönemann, Bibliotheca historico-litteraria patrum latinorum (1792–94, in 2 volumes). The Anglican, Dutch and French Reformers gained fame not so much for their studies of the entire history of Ancient Church literature, but rather for their philological and critical processing of the works of individual writers. The exceptions are Will.Cave († 1713) with his scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Historia litteraria (2 vols., London, 1688–98) and Cas. Oudin († 1717): Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis illorumque scriptis (3 volumes, Lipsiae, 1722). Of the scholars who wrote monographs, the following are remarkable: Archbishop James Ussher († 1656), Primate of Ireland, known for his valuable research on the Apostolic Men, the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apostolic Symbol; Joh. Grabe († 1711): Spicilegium ss. patrum, ut et haereticorum, saeculi post Christum natum Ι, II, et III, as well as studies on Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin, Theophilus, Irenaeus); John Pearson, Bishop of Chester († 1686) - chronological studies. Between the Netherlands: Jean Le Clerc (Clericus † 1736), who owns the lives of some Church Fathers and heretics. Between the French: Jean Daillé (Daillaeus, † 1670): De scriptis quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et s. Ignati Antiochenii nominibus circumferuntur. It is necessary to make a reservation that although at this time new horizons were opened for the history of Ancient Church literature, new goals were outlined and new laws of historical research were established, however, the knowledge and assessment of new tasks could only slowly pave the way for itself. Even until the second half of the 18th century, it remained the custom of historians of Church literature, under the guise of “the doctrine of the fathers,” to present the history of Christian theological literature even up to the time of the author himself, and since the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were often included in the review, the Fathers of the Church in the usual sense of the word had to be content with a very modest place. The titles and contents of the works that appeared during this time, devoted to the study of Ancient Church writing, show that in addition to the historical and dogmatic interest that the patristic works aroused in theological circles, in parallel and in close connection with it, a purely historical interest developed, which served as the basis for a science that already in the 17th century received the name “Patrology”. Its task was to give accurate information about the life and writings of Church writers and especially those to whom the Church referred in confirmation of Her dogmatic teaching; but the very fact that in this kind of works attention was paid to those Church writers who did not have any particular influence on the disclosure of dogmas indicates that this science was based on motives of a purely theological and historical nature. Thus, already in the 17th century, not only in essence, but also in name, dogmatic-historical information differed from biographical-literary-historical information, and Patrology, as a historical discipline, clearly differed from Patristics, as a systematic discipline. But both the name of “Patrology” and the content of this science were again established by Lutheran followers. Although not all works of this kind bore the name patrologia, there is no doubt that Patrology at that time was something completely different from Patristics: the latter contained precisely the material that currently constitutes the content of the history of dogmas, and Patrology, on the contrary, had essentially biographical and bibliographic content. This was the case almost until the end of the 18th century in relation to both the content of the sciences and their name. Since that time, things have changed both among Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians. In Protestant theological literature, Patristics in the sense as it was previously defined ceases to exist and all historical and dogmatic material is transferred to a new discipline, which soon developed into an independent branch of historical Theology - the history of dogmas, which, according to its original idea, should explore and clearly present the historical course of the disclosure and formulation of the teaching of faith from the days of the Apostles. Regarding the separate and independent existence of Patristics, scientists have come to a completely unanimous decision that Patristic Theology in the former meaning of this name, after it has resolved itself into the history of dogmas, in which, on the other hand, it is buried, should be revered as caput mortuum, the resurrection and restoration of which as an independent science would be nothing more than a return to the childhood age of Theology (Friedr. Ninzsch, Geschichtliches und Methodologisches zur Patristik // Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, Bd. X. 1865, S. 45). As for the biographical and bibliographical material that made up the content of Patrology, it enjoyed the attention of Protestant theologians for some time in the 19th century, but without the same precision in the name of the science: it even seems to have been more often called Patristics than Patrology. But then Patrology, as an independent discipline, disappeared from Protestant-theological literature, and the question of whether it should completely disappear or come to life in a new form is now resolved by the theological-historical direction prevailing in Protestantism in the sense that in the place of Patrology is put the history of Ancient Christian literature, the task of which is to study and study all the writings of Christian antiquity, without distinction of theological direction and attitude to Church teaching. evaluate from a purely historical and literary point of view, therefore decisively eliminating the question of the theological and ecclesiastical significance of both individual works and their entirety. And Patristics (in the previous meaning of this term) is even considered completely impossible in view of the fact that the disagreements among the fathers both in the dogmatic and ethical areas are supposedly much more numerous than the points of agreement, so that it is hardly possible to achieve a harmoniously integral “Theology of the Fathers” (theologia patrum), or, if this is feasible, then only through the use of violent harmonistic arbitrariness and disregard for the rules sound scientific research and presentation (O. Zökler. Geschichte der theologischen Litterator. Nördlingen, 1889, S. 4). The situation was different in Roman Catholic theology. Here, in the second half of the 18th century, a discipline was developed that combined the components of the former Patristics and Patrology, adding a third element - guidance for the correct use of fatherly works and instructions on the purpose of studying them. Having combined all this, they called the science Patrology, and in this broad sense the name was retained in the 19th century. It was only in the second half of this century that some Roman Catholic patrolologists began to introduce a dual title for courses - Patrology and Patristics (for example, Nirschl, Lehrbuchder Patrologieund Patristik; Rézbányau, Compendium Patrologiae et Patristicae), thereby noting the dual task pursued by the authors. On the other hand, the vicissitudes in the fate of Patristic science on Protestant soil did not remain without influence on its formulation in Roman Catholic theology. And on the part of Roman Catholic theologians, in very recent times, a completely negative attitude towards “Patristics” has been revealed, and it has been rather sharply stated that in order to save the word “Patristics” there is no reason to rebaptize Patrology into Patristics; and against the experiments of combining Patrology and Patristics they say that it is least permissible to justify if Patristics is received in the house of Patristics like a poor sister, and the department of Patristics, which presents information about the teachings of the fathers, is called Patristics. Patrology must rebel against such a sister, because she, for her part, cannot refuse to judge the teaching contained in the writings of the fathers. This Patristic, says O. Bardenhewer, must undoubtedly have a contested right to exist, because it lives at the expense of others (O. Bardenhewer. Gesch. der altkirchl. Litterat. Bd. l. Freiburg im Br., 1902. S. 21). On the other hand, some Roman Catholic authors go further and reveal a desire to replace the name Patrology with the Protestant “altchristliche Literaturgeschichte”, although the name does not change the essence of the matter, since Ancient Church literature is usually considered. In the field of publishing in the 19th century, the works of Cardinal and Prefect of the Vatican Library Angelo Mai († 1854) are of outstanding importance: Scriptorum veterum nova Collectio (10 volumes, Roma, 1825–1838); Spicilegium Romanum (10 volumes, Roma, 1839–1844); Nova Patrum Bibliotheca (9 volumes, Roma, 1852–1888); Volumes 8 and 9 were published after May's death in 1871 and 1888. Mai's publications remain important to this day, since many monuments were published by him alone. Somewhat later, Cardinal Jean Bapt developed his publishing activities. Pitra († 1889), publishing Spicilegium Solesmense (T. 1–4, Paris, 1852–1858) and Analecta sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi parata (T. 1–4, 1876–84). But the greatest and most complete of all collections of works of Ancient Church literature, which in the main and essentially exhausts previous publications, is the “Patrology” of the French Abbot LP. Migne († 1875): Patrologiae cursus completus seu Bibliotheca universalis omnium SS. Patrum, Doctorum Scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum. This monumental publication contains all the works of Latin Church writers from Tertullian to Innocent III and Greek (with Latin translation) that were known at the time of its printing - from the Apostolic Men to Bessarion of Nicaea. The Patrologia latina, or Latin Series, contains 221 volumes (of which the last four contain indices) and is divided into two parts: from Tertullian to Gregory the Great 79 volumes, and from Gregory the Great to Innocent III the rest (published 1844-1855). The Patrologia graeca, or Greek series, in 162 volumes, is also divided into two parts: from Barnabas to Photius - 104 volumes, and from Photius to Bessarion of Nicea - the rest. Min was not a scholarly publisher and did not pursue scientific goals: he did not set out to publish unpublished authors and does not establish a critical text - he reprints only ancient authoritative editions, usually basing it on the best Benedictine edition, more complete and authoritative compared to others, and adding, where necessary, works missing from later editions. Thus, Min repeated the shortcomings of previous editions, only increasing the errors. In addition, this publication does not represent a completely complete collection of Church writers. Its advantage lies in the convenience of the format, making it more suitable for use than previous volumes. But if it is necessary to establish the exact text, one should always turn to the oldest publications. Since the end of the 18th century, many textbooks and manuals have appeared, which gave a concise and more or less substantiated presentation of the results obtained in the field of Patristic writing. Among the Catholics one can call the leadership of Joh. Adolf Möhlera. Patrologie oder christliche Litterärgeschichte (St. Petersburg 1840), embracing the first three centuries; M. permanedera. Bibliotheca patristica (1841–1844) in two volumes; J. Fessler. Institutiones Patrologiae (1850–1851) in two volumes (new edition 1890–1896); J. Alzog. Grundriss der Patrologie oder der älteren christlichen Literärgeschichte (Freiburg, 1866; 4th ed. 1888); J. Nirschl. Lehrbuchder Patrologieund Patristik (Mainz, 1881–1885) in three volumes. Among the Protestant leaderships of former times must be named M. I. Pestalozzi. Grundlinien der Geschichte der Kirchlichen Litteratur der ersten sechs Jahrhunderten zum Gebrauch bei Vorlesungen gezogen. (Göttingen, 1811). The last decades of the past century and the first years of the new one in Western Theological sciences are marked by the manifestation of outstanding interest in Ancient Christian writing, the result of which are numerous and very valuable works on the publication and study of the text and the study of its content, and this lively interest with its important consequences for Theological and Church-historical science does not weaken at the present time: work on the study of various aspects of Ancient Christian literature is expanding and deepening. The range of researchers and scientific works in this area is gradually increasing; some old, confusing and dark questions, based on the data obtained by science, are resolved or are approaching their resolution; some receive a new formulation, new questions arise, and so on. There is no reason to believe that this scientific movement will abate in the near future. To determine the significance of the Church-historical scientific revival we are experiencing, it is enough to briefly characterize its outstanding manifestations. The vital nerve of all these works in the field of Ancient Christian literature consists of numerous finds of hitherto known only by name or completely unknown very important ancient monuments. These finds significantly expand our knowledge of ancient writing; They not only bring new material for research, but in their light, old, long-known and, due to a lack of documents, not comprehensively examined, is better known and sometimes corrected. Although science has been working tirelessly for almost four centuries to study handwritten material stored in various libraries of the East and West, and is trying through printing to make publicly available everything that has survived from Ancient Christian writing, this work has not yet reached its end: the eye of scientists has not yet penetrated everywhere, and recent decades have brought a significant number of very valuable Ancient Christian monuments, the discovery of which has surpassed even the wildest hopes and has significantly expanded the horizons Church historical science. A simple listing of these findings is enough to understand the full force of the scientific movement that was caused in interested circles by their publication. During this time, the following were discovered: “The Teaching of the 12 Apostles”, the full text of both Epistles of Clement of Rome, in the Greek original and the Syriac translation, the Latin and Ethiopic translations of the first of them, as well as the Latin text of the “Didascalia”, fragments of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of Peter, sayings of Jesus, conversations of Jesus with His disciples, excerpts of some other apocalypses and apocrypha, The Acts of Peter, John, Paul, some very important documents of Gnostic literature, several ancient "Acts of Martyrs", fragments of Papias and Igisippus, the apology of Aristides, fragments of the work of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, on baptism. “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon” of Saint Irenaeus, Armenian translation of the IV and V books of his anti-Gnostic work: “The exposure and refutation of false knowledge.” Philosophumena and interpretation of Hippolytus of Rome on the prophet Daniel, passages by Clement of Alexandria, so called. Tractatus Origenis, excerpts from the works of Peter of Alexandria and other Alexandrians, Διατεσσάρων of Tatian, entire works of Methodius of Olympus. These finds from the time of persecution and the most ancient period of the Christian Church are joined by other more or less important ones from subsequent centuries: treatises of Priscillian, extracts from the Church history of Philip of Sides, writings and fragments of Eusebius of Caesarea (in Palestine), Athanasius, Ephraim, Eusebius of Caesarea (in Cappadocia), Proclus of Cyzicus, Theophilus of Alexandria, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Theodore Mopsuestian, Hilary of Pictavia, Jerome, Augustine, Eulogius of Alexandria and in general numerous monuments from the history of Byzantine and Eastern literature. Particular diligence was applied to the study of papyri, which were brought to light in large quantities by recent excavations in Egypt: a lot of valuable data for Ancient Christian literature was found in them. In close connection with the publication of these discoveries, collections of unpublished materials and numerous scientific studies of varying scientific merit appeared, both in individual works and especially in more or less extensive articles published in periodicals. Since the listed finds are in many cases due to the study of Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and Slavic translations lost in the original Greek texts, a very wide field for scientific research in the future is outlined in this area. But we should not detract from that side of fruitful modern scientific works in relation to Ancient Christian literature, which has as its subject the most accurate determination of the original text of the monuments of this literature and their wider dissemination through thorough scientific and short public editions, as well as translations intended for the popularization of Patristic literature and the dissemination and deepening of the high thoughts of Ancient Christian writers in the wide public circles of individual countries. Without stopping at the careful publication, research and translation of individual monuments and documents of Ancient Christian literature, modern science in the West strives to present the achieved results of individual scientific research in a holistic form that would clearly show the state of scientific knowledge in this area and would outline questions and paths for new scientific research. Modern times are amazingly rich in such works, which cover a more or less significant part of Ancient Christian literature. The literature of the first three centuries is especially thoroughly developed. In parallel with these general presentations, which embrace the entire patristic time or individual periods of it, a whole series of extensive studies appear that delve into research into individual branches of Ancient Christian literature, individual groups of works, or literary connections between the ancient classics and Christian theologians; Recently, the Church Fathers have been given a significant place in the history of philosophy. In short, the study of Ancient Christian literature is currently attracting the exclusive attention of many and very respectable scientists. There are so many newly appearing works scattered in various collections and periodicals that it seems extremely difficult to navigate the mass of them; why is it now considered essential to have for guidance a complete bibliography of publications of Ancient Christian literature and works devoted to its study, from the 15th century to the present day. The writings of the Church Fathers constitute the most outstanding in content and extensive in volume part of the Ancient Christian literary monuments; Accordingly, a significant number of works are devoted to this patristic work in modern literature. In connection with this movement, new editions of collected works of Greek and Latin Church writers have been undertaken, which set themselves the task of providing a text restored according to the most rigorous scientific method. Based on a careful assessment of the entire manuscript tradition, the textual review is based on those manuscripts that, according to all scientific data, contain the original text or the closest to it. The notes give more significant deviations in the manuscripts than present a clear picture of the changes that the text has experienced over time. In the first place here should be placed the “Corpusscriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum”, the so-called “Vienna Corpus”, published by the Vienna Academy of Sciences, which should embrace Latin writers up to the 7th century. The first volume of this publication was published in 1866, and until 1881 things moved very slowly: only four volumes were published. But then it became more successful and to date over 50 volumes have been published. For their publication, Viennese scientists collect information from all libraries; all the data obtained finds practical application in their works. In the very use of the manuscript in this edition, the most correct method is used: it is recognized as insufficient to copy out variants from manuscripts, but the connection of the manuscripts by surname is established, and thus the history of the monuments themselves is outlined in the publication. Although the textual-critical edition of individual types is different (mainly depending on the insurmountable difficulties, given the current state of documentary evidence), and although the entire publication suffers from shortcomings that are closely related to certain shortcomings (one-sided predominance of philological interest and hence the use of exclusively philological criticism with the elimination of theological criticism, the absence of a definite plan, etc.), nevertheless the Corpus represents a very significant step forward compared to previous editions of Latin Church writers. The outstanding interest in Protestant scholarship in the first three centuries of Christianity prompted Protestant scholars to begin the scholarly publication of Greek writers of this period. This publication was undertaken by the Berlin Academy of Sciences under the general title “Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte” in such a way that it included all the monuments of ancient Christian literature up to and including Eusebius, even those preserved only in translations. Its first volume appeared in 1897 (part of the works of Hippolytus of Rome). This publication is headed by Professor A. Harnack; It is conducted, unlike the “Vienna Corps”, mainly by theologians. What scientific forces are involved in it, and in its implementation all the means of modern scientific philology are used. Therefore, the publication should be considered exemplary. Nothing similar has yet been done for Greek Church writers of the 4th and subsequent centuries, and there is no hope for a solid scientific publication in the near future. Church writers in Eastern languages ​​found themselves in a better position. Since 1903, Patrologia Orientalis began to be published in Paris, edited by R. Graffina and F. Nau. Together with the original texts, a translation into Latin or into one of the new languages ​​(French, German, English, Italian) is given here. Apparently, another publication, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium, edited by the orientalists J. B. Chabot, J. Guidi, H. Hyvemat, B. CarradeVaux (also in Paris), which began to appear simultaneously with the Patrology, was more thoroughly conceived and organized. The publication is divided into departments according to the languages ​​of the printed works (Scriptores Arabici, Aethiopici, Coptici, Syri). In contrast to “Patrology,” here an extensive program has been worked out in advance. The entire publication is designed for 200 volumes; so far, about 20 volumes have been published (to date - more than two hundred). The original texts are given with translation almost exclusively into Latin. Along with these collections of works by Ancient Christian writers, the need arose for monographic processing of them. The beginning of such an enterprise was laid in 1882 by O. de Gebhardt and A. Harnack with their publication “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur” and until 1897 they published 15 volumes, in which there are many new, or until then poorly published texts, as well as individual studies. Since 1897, a new series has been started, which is connected with the aforementioned publication of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and since 1907 - a third series. An excellent and scientifically important parallel to this publication is the English edition of patristic texts: Texts and Studies, undertaken in 1891 by Armitage Robinson'om. At the same time, in connection with these scientific publications and on the basis of the data they obtained regarding the text, a significant number of publications appeared, pursuing purely practical goals - to give wider distribution to the correct original text of works of Ancient Christian writing in circles interested in this branch of theological knowledge. In them, the textual-critical apparatus is either completely eliminated or significantly reduced. Between these publications, Gust is currently recognized as the best. Krügera. Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften. Freiburg (since 1891; the first series contains 12 volumes); the second series began in 1901. Literary historical research is given a significant place in numerous modern publications. Among the numerous new scientific workers in the field of Ancient Christian writing, the first place is undoubtedly occupied by Professor Adolf Harnack - the leader of a large number of junior scientists working successfully in his chosen field, a tireless researcher of Ancient Christian writing, combining with enormous erudition an amazing ability to outline new problems and present known data in new combinations. In addition to his active participation in the publication of the aforementioned “Texte und Untersuchungen,” he owns the major work Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteraturbis Eusebius, the first volume of which he edited together with E. Preuschen’om (Leipzig, 1893); in this work, the tradition and composition of Ancient Christian literature are presented in such completeness, which until that time not only had not been achieved, but was not even a goal. The second volume: Die Chronologie (1st part in 1897, second in 1904) aims to resolve confusing issues regarding the chronology of Ancient Christian writing. Next to it it is necessary to name the names of the Bishop of Durham Jos. Lightfoot, Fr. X. Funk, A. Hilgenfeld, Th. Zahna, which one constantly encounters when studying Ancient Christian literature. Adolf Harnack's History of Ancient Christian Literature is accompanied by a guide by Gust. Krügera, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur in den etsten drei Jahrhunderten (Freiburg 1895, mit Nachträgen 1897). Recently, several courses have appeared among Roman Catholic manuals that strive to keep up with modern scientific requirements. Among such courses, the works of Ot are outstanding. Bardenhewera and Alb. Ehrharda. The first belongs to: Patrologie, Freiburg, 1894; 3 Auft. 1910), started publication, designed for six volumes: Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur (2 volumes were published: 1st from the end of the Apostolic period to the end of the 2nd century and 2nd - from the end of the 2nd century to the beginning of the 4th century); These guides are distinguished by careful research of sources, careful attention to the latest research, and rich indexes of the literature. Alb. Ehrhard gave a critical review of recent research on Patristic literature: Die altchristliche Litteratur und ihre Erforschung seit 1880. Freiburgi. B., 1894 (Strassburger Theol. Studien. Bd. 1, Heft 4–5)) and with the same title a more detailed review for the period from 1884–1900 (Freiburg and. V., 1900). Heinrich Kihn, Patrologie. Bd. 1–2, Paderborn, 1904–1908. Thus, for science, which deals, according to its name, with that particular part of Ancient Christian literature that is called Patristic, apparently the broadest prospects and well-founded hopes for further successful development open up. However, despite the fact that the literary heritage of the ancient Fathers of the Church and Church writers is more and more brought to the forefront of theological scientific work, at present it is necessary to especially emphasize the fact that among Western Protestant scientists, who now predominantly own the field of scientific research in the field of Ancient Christian literature, as already noted, a directly negative attitude towards Patrological science has been revealed: it is either clearly neglected or even completely denied the right to exist. The basis for this attitude at first was numerous and very serious shortcomings in previous patristic courses, shortcomings in the understanding and application of the historical method, neglect of the literary side of the works under consideration, and so on. They pointed out the absence in Patrological Science not only of its own and clearly expressed principle, but even of a firmly established concept; found that the combination of comments on the life, writings and teachings of the Church Fathers, which constitute its content, although it can be justified from a didactic and practical point of view, cannot be recognized as a full member of academic science, as an independent discipline. “Whoever, in front of a number of volumes of the Fathers of the Church,” says, for example, Franz Overbeck, “asks himself what kind of literature this is and how it arose, will in any case in vain turn for an answer to the currently commonly used textbooks on Patristics” (Über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur // Historichen Zeitschrift. N. F. Bd. 12. 1882. S. 417). Therefore, almost half a century ago, the task was set to eliminate the ambiguity that envelops this branch of academic teaching and depends solely on insufficient penetration into the historical origin of this discipline and its name, and they decided the question whether from the ruins of the old collapsed Patristics and the rich available old and new pathological material, a new scientific building could be restored, standing on its own foundation, or whether all of it should be used as material for a special building, which is already an integral part of other Theological disciplines (Fr. Nitzsch, Geschichtliches und Methodologisches zur Patristik // Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, Bd.X. 1865. S. 39). In the West at that time this issue was resolved in a sense favorable to Patristic science, although at the same time persistent demands were made for fundamental reforms in its formulation, significantly changing its very character. In Russia, our attitude towards Patristic science at that time was not at all favorable for its development: three Theological Academies, in their projects for the reform of Theological Academies, presented to the Holy Synod in the 60s of the 19th century, spoke out against the independent, separate existence of Patristics. The draft conference of the St. Petersburg Academy says: “From the range of theological sciences hitherto taught in the Academies, the conference finds it possible, without prejudice to the completeness of theological education, to completely exclude Patrology... Patrology, with the proper development of readings on Church history and with the duty of dogmatic Theology to set out a detailed history of dogmas in the fight against heresies and rationalism, turns out to be completely unnecessary” (Christian Reading. 1867. 11:274–275). Almost the same thing is said in the draft of the Moscow Academy: “In the existing composition of educational subjects... it seems unnecessary to teach Patrology... as a science, the entire content of which is partly included in Church history, partly in the historical department of dogmatic Theology and Church eloquence” (ibidem, p. 308). The project of the Kazan Academy, instead of homiletics and Patristics, proposed the formation of a special science called the history of Church literature. The task of this science in the project is defined as follows: the history of Church literature, replacing homiletics and embracing Patristics, in addition to famous Church preachers, writers on Church history, compilers of Church hymns, should pay attention primarily to the Fathers of the Church, not limiting itself to the presentation of their biography, bibliographic studies of their writings and extracts from the works of the fathers, but presenting, if possible, a whole worldview each father and determining the significance of his writings for the history of the Church (ibidem, p. 633). The practical consequence of these opinions was that Patristics was excluded from the range of subjects taught in Theological Seminaries; in the Academies it was left as a separate science. Currently, in the West, the question of Patristic science from the point of view of judgments about the shortcomings in its formulation and the impossibility for it to achieve its goal under these conditions has been transferred to a principled basis, and representatives of the newest trend in Protestant Church-historical science are already completely denying Patrology the right to exist because its idea is false, its foundations are meaningless. It is based on the concept of “father of the Church”, borrowed from dogmatics, and with this concept it is supposedly “so connected that it can be not history, but only a catalogue, since together with the concept of “father of the Church” it also receives a ready-made list of those works that it should consider and study” (Fr. Overbeck // Histor. Zeitschrift. 1882. S. 419). “On the grave of Patrology, the history of Ancient Christian literature should blossom, which will illuminate the entire writing of ancient Christianity from a purely literary-historical point of view; in this history there is no place for assessing the theological and ecclesiastical significance of the writers” (Gust. Krüger, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. 2. Aufl. Freiburg. i. B. 1898. S. XX). If the history of Ancient Christian literature, constructed in this way, did not necessarily set as its task “to take the place of Patrology and flourish on its grave,” then both of these sciences - Patrology and the history of Ancient Christian literature - without excluding one another, could mutually complement each other: Patrology and the history of Ancient Christian literature examine essentially the same material; therefore, in reporting facts, in determining what really goes back to the earliest times of the Christian Church, in firmly establishing what this or that writer really wrote, a wide field opens up for common and peaceful work, and illumination of the same material from different points of view would exclude one-sidedness in the study. True, rationalistic principles led to the replacement of the history of Ancient Church literature with the history of Ancient Christian literature in the 19th century; but it does not follow from this that the history of Ancient Christian literature in its concept is based on rationalistic assumptions, or that it is incompatible with positive Christian views; therefore, on the part of Patrology, peaceful coexistence with the history of Ancient Christian literature is quite possible. On the contrary, rationalism by its very essence is encouraged to deny the history of Ancient Church literature the right to exist, because by its very name it points to the positive Christian Church principles underlying it. And in fact, the denial of the very idea from which Patrological science develops directly and clearly shows that this attitude is based precisely on the views and assumptions of the newest rationalistic Protestantism with its negative attitude towards the very idea of ​​the Church and its historical implementation in the very first days of the existence of Christianity. But since the idea of ​​the Church is denied, naturally there cannot be any Church literature, but only Christian literature in general. This explains the view of the “Church Fathers”: they were bearers and representatives only of personal views, which, depending on changing relationships and circumstances of the time, were also changeable. There was absolutely no definite faith to which they could testify, since the Church faith, which, despite external development, would constantly be and remain essentially the same, according to this view, is a completely historical fiction. Hence the expressions: “Church literature”, “Patristic literature” - cannot be anything other than a name without content. The distinction between “Church” and “non-Church”, “Orthodox” and “heretical” is supposedly devoid of any internal justification, any factual and historical justification, since what was still considered Church today could tomorrow be tainted by the Church as heretical. Naturally, from this point of view, they do not find unity of teaching in the writings of the fathers (For more details, see O. Bardenhewer. Gesch. deraltkirch. Litteratur. Bd. 1. Freiburg im Br., 1902. S. 27–28). With such principles as the basis for the study of Ancient Christian literature, which are recognized as the only possible and permissible, all ground is taken away from Patristic science. There is a very instructive rule of worldly wisdom, which is sometimes certainly useful to apply; the rule is: contranegantem princi pia non est disputandum. In the view now presented, we see the consequence of a deep spiritual rift, which in the 16th century divided the Western Christian and scientific world, in particular, into two opposing camps, which, representing two significantly different understandings of Christianity, are moving further and further away from each other, based on different basic points of view, striving towards different goals. And the basis for the destruction of the old Patrological science and its replacement with the history of Ancient Christian literature is not based on historical research in the proper sense, but on philosophical and theological assumptions, from the point of view of which light is shed on historical facts. Objections to this kind of fundamental views would lead us too far from our science; why, in contrast to them, we will limit ourselves to a simple indication of the principles we profess, and first of all to the basic teaching of the positive faith about the Divine origin of the Church and to those generally accepted final conclusions of the research of positive historical science, which convincingly establish that already at the end of the first century this Church appears as an organized whole: it appears at this time with a certain Church government and Church discipline, with holiday times and fasts, with the Liturgy, if not written, then, however, defined in its main parts, with a collection of canonical writings - this is in the external manifestation of her life; in her inner life she is distinguished by purity, depth and certainty of the basic Christian teaching, firmness of confession, clarity and confidence in her relationship to the environment. From the beginning, the Church possessed a certain amount of saving truths received from the Divine Founder and preserved them faithfully and without distortion. On the other hand, for an Orthodox theologian there does not seem to be anything reprehensible or unscientific in the fact that the basis of the discipline is based on the concept of the “father of the Church,” borrowed not so much from dogmatics as from the very life of the ancient Church, especially since Orthodox Theological science does not exaggerate the significance of the works of the fathers and is alien to the abuse of their authority. Recognizing and persistently pointing out in the Fathers of the Church the most reliable and authoritative leaders in religious matters, studying their creations, presenting them as proof of the correctness of their teachings, Orthodox theologians from ancient times to the present day did not affirm in the Fathers of the Church the infallibility and unconditional obligation for believers to follow their opinions. From this point of view, it is completely possible to apply a strictly scientific method to the study of Patristic literature, and for Patrological science the danger of turning to a simple catalog from outside the given list of works is decisively excluded. Finally, regarding historical information regarding the lack of unity of doctrine in the works of the Fathers of the Church and deviations from the recognized Church teaching and in order to eliminate any misunderstandings in this regard, it is necessary to take into account the indisputable historical fact that already in the first centuries of the existence of Church literature there was a certain distance between the objective content of Christianity, as it is given in the consciousness of the Catholic Church, and the subjective understanding of it by individual writers, precisely to the extent that this literature was made scientific and in varying degrees, which varied depending on the personality of the writers. But faith and theology should not be identified. The guardians and authorized exponents of the faith were not individual literary figures, but the Catholic Church itself. This is the outstanding historical significance of the Church organization. The emergence and development of anti-church, heretical literature - namely heretical - is irrefutable proof that there were objective norms that regulated the understanding of Christianity, and there were also boundaries beyond which passion for the dominant philosophy and excessive dependence on it led to a conflict with true Christianity. This norm was the unconditional recognition of the foundations of Church doctrine and the Holy Scripture accepted by the Church. Church writing developed within these norms and the boundaries they defined; but for a correct assessment of it in particular, it is necessary to keep in mind that in Church writing itself there were many steps in realizing the ideal of truly Christian Church literature on the one hand and in approaching false Christian literature on the other. Inattention to the essential difference between the experience of grasping the content of Christianity through spiritual work, clarifying and revealing it according to the principles of the theological mind by people of different directions and various spiritual gifts and the authoritative expression of this content by the Church itself through its recognized bodies, and constitutes, by the way, one of the reasons that lead the newest Church historical school of the negative direction to the approval of the imaginary Hellenization of Church Christianity already in the 2nd century and to negative conclusions regarding Churches. Having thus eliminated the dispute about principles from the field of research, it is necessary, however, against the stated denial of Patrological science's right to exist, to resolve the question of whether a special science is needed - let's call it Patristics, Patrology, the history of Church literature or the history of Church literature - for independent study of the material that it includes in its field of competence? The identification by the newest researchers of Ancient Christian literature into a special science of study testifies to their own recognition that, next to various national literatures, there is a special type of writing that develops within the boundaries of a particular nationality, but belongs to every Christian people, having arisen on the basis of one way or another understood Christian religion. But, as has already been said, in this latter writing there are clearly distinguished numerous works that reflect, to a greater or lesser extent and accuracy, a certain religious consciousness (Christian-ecclesiastical), and belong to authors who recognize themselves and are recognized as members of the Catholic Church. These works constitute a special subject of study in Patrological science. They stand out from the general body of Ancient Christian writing on the basis of their special character, which marks them as works of Church writing. Obviously, the point of view that should be the basis for studying them is its own special, entirely determined by the essence of this writing. The newest Western researchers of Ancient Christian literature establish an exclusively historical and literary point of view on the study of it, when they indicate the following formula as a guiding principle: “literature has its own history in its forms, therefore every real history of literature is the history of forms” (Fr. Overbeck. Über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur, âù Historische Zeitschrift, N. F. Bd. 12. 1882. S. 423; compare: Gust. Gesch. der altchristlichen Litteratur i. This position completely denies the essential difference between the history of Ancient Christian literature and what is usually called the history of literature in general. The general history of literature or the history of literature of any nation notes primarily the artistic and aesthetic side. But this point of view is not applicable to Church literature, because this literature arose not from literary-aesthetic, purely artistic needs, but from practical-religious, Church and theological needs. Its history runs parallel to, or rather organically connected with, the history of the Church, especially with Church doctrine and Church science. Works of Church literature are not works of art and do not strive to be such: Church literature is not elegant sketches, but a depiction of the life and suffering, faith and hope of the ancient Church. Its authors are not “writers” and “literati,” but Church men and theologians; they, with rare exceptions, are concerned not with form and style, but with the matters they reveal. Why is the historical development of Christian Church literature expressed immediately and mainly not in form, but in content. The aesthetic development of the Church style, if it really took place, did not determine the general course of development of this literature. True, the sermons of the Church Fathers have a rhetorical side (for example, John Chrysostom), hymns have a poetic side, liturgies have an aesthetic side, some Church Fathers show a desire for classical forms of expression of thoughts and feelings. However, all this has only a casual significance for the course of development of Church writing; the interest that these works have for us is essentially based on their special content. Thus, as long as it is recognized that it is necessary to write the history of Church literature, borrowing guiding principles for the study of this literature, until then it turns out to be absolutely obligatory to give priority to the theological-Church point of view over the literary one. For these reasons, for special study, from all Ancient Christian literature, all those works that arose on the basis of Church teaching, and whose authors did not go beyond the limits where the area of ​​heretics begins, should be singled out. According to the generally accepted name of the science - Patrology or Patristics - the main part of the works of literature to be studied consists primarily of the works of those men who bear the honorary title of “Fathers of the Church”. But Church writers, who do not have Church authority equal to the patristic one, should also be the subject of careful and detailed study in Patrological science. And the need for this is based primarily on the fact that the division into the Fathers of the Church and simply Church writers is possible only in abstraction, when the Church writer is assessed as a person, isolated from the general course of Church life and especially considered in relation to her personal merits, firmness in faith and unshakable devotion to the teachings of the Church; but such a division cannot be made if one vividly imagines the wide, often stormy, course of the life of the ancient Church; here the Fathers of the Church are constantly replaced by Church writers, some influence others, everyone takes an active part in the life of the Church, in Her struggle with external and internal enemies of the faith, in the disclosure and substantiation of Christian truth, and there is no way to accurately calculate what should be attributed to the literary activity of the recognized Fathers of the Church on the one hand, and Church writers on the other. It is enough to recall the influence that the Church writer Tertullian had on the Father of the Church Cyprian, Origen on the outstanding fathers of the Church of the 4th century, and Blessed Augustine on the Theology of the Western Church. Further, Church writers-theologians and the most educated men of Christian antiquity had a strong and very important influence on the disclosure of the internal content of Christianity, the deepening and formulation of Church teaching; in support of this, one can point to Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Theodoret of Cyrus. Finally, and as historical witnesses to the faith and life of the Church of their time, Church writers are of great importance. As for, so to speak, the legal right to such involvement in the study of the works of Church writers who were not proclaimed by the Church as “fathers,” it is sufficiently based on the historical fact that the Orthodox Church has never set out with its deliberate task to determine the Church significance of all Church writers and the degree of accuracy of their expression of Church teaching. Among the monuments of Ancient Christian writing that have come down to us, there are also works whose authors are either unknown, or which essentially cannot have specific authors, since they constitute the common property of the Church, such as, for example: “The Teaching of the 12 Apostles,” the most ancient symbols, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Apostolic Decrees, and the like. These literary monuments were accepted with honor by the Church and had a significant influence on the disclosure of Her teachings, the strengthening of the Church organization, and at the same time on Church writers; why they cannot be excluded from the number of works, the study of which is necessary in Pathological science if it wants to achieve the greatest possible completeness in the study of the available material. Thus, Patrological science should not establish in advance a definite choice between the works of Ancient Church literature and study some and reject others; all surviving monuments of Ancient Church writing, all literary and historical material left by members of the Ancient Church, must be studied with the detail and thoroughness required by its significance as a whole and in individual parts. It goes without saying that in this case it should always be preferable to nominate the most significant and influential leaders of theological development, to whom were joined less significant ones, such as epigones, followers and disciples. Its own special pathological point of view acquires significance only when judged by individual Ancient Church writers, and the necessity of this theological judgment is certainly required by the very nature of Ancient Church literature, the essence of which lies not in its form, but in its content. But this judgment can be legal and fair only if its starting point is not taken as the later Church dogma, but the Church norms that existed and were recognized during the period of the emergence of the ones under consideration monuments, and then the theological assessment is determined according to the extent to which in the later course of Church writing the direction for the development of theological thought outlined by the basic norms was retained or abandoned; therefore, the standard for the theological assessment of later monuments must be taken from the books of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and the monuments of Church literature of the time preceding them, as sources for determining the Church consciousness of the previous period. Currently, there is a desire and even attempts to include in the “history of Ancient Christian writing” the writings of the New Testament (Fr. Overbeck, Gust. Krüger, P. Batiffol) on the basis that the most ancient written monuments of Christianity are the New Testament Scriptures. Thus, the newest scientific criticism, rejecting or ignoring the Church teaching about the inspiration of the Holy Books of the New Testament, obviously proceeds from the assumption that New Testament writing does not differ significantly from later Church literature. But no matter how one looks at the composition of the New Testament and the origin of its parts, such a view decisively contradicts the judgment of the entire Church from the very first days of Its existence, according to which the New Testament writings owe their origin to the Divine guidance of the Holy Spirit and inspiration from Him, and therefore She draws such a line between the New Testament and the rest of Christian literature that makes it impossible to put them on a par and begin to present the history of Ancient Christian writing with the New Testament. Just as the history of the Church in the period of the founding of Christianity has not its first period, but its absolute era, so later theological literature relates to New Testament writing as a derivative of the main one: the first has its roots in the second and is nourished by it. A different view also contradicts the consciousness of the Church writers themselves, who do not consider the Apostles their predecessors in literary activity, but themselves claim that they draw the revealed teaching from the source of Apostolic writing. It must be recognized as a historical fact that most of the New Testament writings already in the immediate post-Apostolic time enjoyed a special authority that belonged only to them, and other works that arose were not placed on the same line with them. These circumstances are not properly appreciated if the New Testament writings, according to their literary form, are distributed among different groups after the Apostolic writings; however, this attempt is from Gust. Krügera (Gesh. deraltchristl. Litteratur) turned out to be unsuccessful (see J. Haussleiter // Götting. Gel. Anzeigen. 1898. Nr. 5. S. 341 ff). Thus, from a historical point of view, not to mention a dogmatic one, the New Testament should not be included in the history of Ancient Church literature - the New Testament canonical books should be considered as an assumption and the basis of Ancient Christian, Patristic writing. On the other hand, the question inevitably arises: to what extent does the time of “Patristic”, “Ancient Church”, “Ancient Christian writing” extend and can this period be determined more or less accurately? In the latter case, the question arises why Church writing of a certain period deserves special study in comparison with others. This question is usually posed this way. If we are talking about Patristic literature, then the solution to the question posed about its limits requires a preliminary solution to another question: is it possible to assign a limit beyond which the existence of the Fathers of the Church would not extend? As has already been said, on this basis the question of the patristic period cannot be resolved in any satisfactory manner, since Western patrolologists argue about the limits of this period, and the Orthodox do not recognize it at all. In this case, it is necessary to proceed not from the concept of “father of the Church,” but from the general awareness of the primary significance that a certain period of its history has in the life of the Church, and from here move on to the setting of a certain era for Church literature, which has received the meaning of Patristic. This is precisely the essentially important period that must be recognized as the period of the indivisible Church, when the religious and national achievements of seemingly different peoples harmonized and complemented each other thanks to the consciousness of the unity of the Universal Church. Just as all Christian confessions of all times and nations, with the exception of different sects, are based on the dogmatic results of the great and Ecumenical Councils of that time, so Christian theologians of all nations and confessions in the writing of this period, taken as a whole, find a common basis and a common starting point, sometimes even becoming in conflict with their religious and scientific principles. Therefore, in any attempts to unite the divided parts of the Christian world, the soil for this is sought in the indicated period. This is based on the significance of the first marked period, long in time and very important in its content, in the life of the Church. In general, the periods of foundation and initial dispensation are not exclusively the first periods, but much more than that: they never have the advantage of primacy only in time, but at the same time they receive, in a certain sense, a defining, normative meaning that is no longer repeated. And in the life of the Church, the first period, which embraces Her history before the division of the Churches, has an independent, absolute and in its own way unique meaning: this is the time of the organization of the Church and the gradual initial internal revelation of the content of Christianity, when the basic principles of the life of the Church are established for all subsequent times in a fundamental and determining way in their full richness. This is where the monuments of Church writing of this time, especially the oldest of them, receive outstanding significance. They differ from the works of later times in their originality, purely Church-religious content and Ecumenical character, while at the same time reflecting the spirit and interests of a particular Church or nationality, thereby increasing the spiritual wealth of the Universal Church. The writers of these works, before many others, became participants in the fullness of spirit and life that distinguishes Christians of the first centuries, and their works represent the first fruits of the work of human thought under the guidance of Divinely revealed truth. They are the most important and in many respects almost the only sources for the history of the initial revelation of a new religious life, witnesses of the Church Itself, Her teachings and institutions, her life and activities, representing the continuity of Church consciousness and showing that the faith of the later Church is no different from that by which the Church of the first times of Christianity lived. Therefore, if for the entire Church on all aspects of Her life and for Theology in particular, it is essential at each later stage of development to clearly represent and firmly adhere to the historical consciousness of the initial period, then the selection of Church literature of this time as an independent subject of study is completely justified, but not for literary, but purely theological reasons. On the very significant question of what tasks science should pursue in the systematic study of Ancient Church writing. In the Pathological literature there is no consistent and completely accurate answer that would sufficiently illuminate the final point to which one should strive. In defining the task of Patrological science, the most common and even, one might say, official view is that its special subject is the study of works of Church literature, as monuments of the expression by Christians of a certain time and place of the Holy Tradition, and the ultimate goal of this study is to isolate in that literature the eternal, God-given truth from its outer shell, conditioned by historical circumstances and the personal character of the authors. Thus, Patrological science must represent the history of the Apostolic, Ancient Catholic tradition. This view is attractive in that it indicates a certain discipline that is engaged in the scientific development of one of the two ways in which Divine Revelation, namely Sacred Tradition, is disseminated among people and preserved in the true Church; At the same time, Pathological science is given a highly respectable task, ensuring its primary significance in the system of Theological Sciences, next to the science of the Holy Scriptures, and all other sciences, in comparison with these sciences about the sources of Divine Revelation, receive secondary importance, as using the material already developed in them. But is it really possible to set such a task for Patrological science, with the hope of its possible fulfillment, if we bear in mind the content of Sacred Tradition and Patrological literature? Sacred Tradition, according to the correct concept of it, is living (as opposed to written), in speech and in all human life and activity, able to express the Word of God, erected by Christ, accepted in all the completeness necessary for the salvation of all mankind by the Church, headed by Christ and enlivened by the Holy Spirit, and by it proclaimed to a person who wants to assimilate the salvation accomplished by Christ, to the extent that is necessary for him, and in the form that corresponds his personal character and development. It goes without saying that the Tradition defined in this way can be and is actually proclaimed by the Church in a wide variety of ways, through missionary and Church preaching, family and school teaching, sacraments and Divine services (with rituals associated with them), and in general through the entire structure of life and activity of the Church. It is clear that with such a variety of ways in which the Church manifests and disseminates the Holy Tradition, and the sources of knowledge of it are also diverse, why it could never and cannot be presented so completely, so completely, that the monument containing this presentation could be identified with the Sacred Tradition itself. Nor can the entire body of Patristic literature be a complete and accurate expression of Holy Tradition: regardless of the loss of many of its important works (which must be taken into account), it is indisputable that this literature in its entirety has never reflected the embodiment in the modern life of the Church of everything faithful from the Apostles in all its aspects and in all its details. Thus, there always remained many features of the tradition that did not find their expression in it, which is why the study of patristic works in their entirety cannot constitute the history of the Apostolic ancient Catholic tradition. In addition to the Apostolic writing, the sources of the God-given teaching are the symbols of Faith; dogmatic and canonical definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, the entire religious life of the Orthodox Church, as it is expressed in its internal structure or organization, in Church services, discipline, in Church customs, and finally, material monuments (see for more details: Priest I. Filevsky. The Teaching of the Orthodox Church on Sacred Tradition. Kharkov. 1902. P. 547–605). Therefore, one can only say that in a number of the most diverse ways in which the Church and the entire totality in the person of its individual members spreads it among new and new generations of people, Church literature also appears from the very beginning; one can even argue that this method of disseminating tradition, since it makes it possible to study the Holy Tradition not only in the modern generation of Christians, but in all - from the very beginning of the Church, and in fact shows its constant preservation in the Church, very early occupies a prominent place among the ways of expressing the Holy Tradition. But only in a number of other ways, and not as the only and exclusive one. Why can Patristic literature only be a rich source for the history of the Apostolic, ancient Catholic tradition, but cannot, on the one hand, provide data for the complete (within the limits of possibility) fulfillment of this task, and on the other hand, cannot be exhausted even by the most complete implementation of this task. Finally, as far as is known, not a single course of Patrological Science even makes an attempt to isolate the eternal God-given truth from the outer shell in Patristic literature. Isn't this a sure sign that the task set in this way does not correspond to the content of the material to be studied, but is taken from the outside? Data for determining the task of studying Ancient Church writing must be sought in it itself, in its content and in the meaning that it has for the present time. If Ancient Church literature, as was said, is especially important precisely because this literature - as it appeared at the time when the Church teaching, mainly dogmatic, was initially revealed and formulated, the organization of Church life was determined and developed - largely reflects the life of the Church, testifies to what happened in It, then the task of studying it should be to fully extract from it everything that it can give, that is, on the basis of study Ancient Church literature to trace and historically present the gradual and continuous development, mutual continuity and internal agreement in the course of the historical disclosure and definition of Church consciousness, as far as it was reflected in the works of Ancient Church literature, or more specifically: the gradual development of Church Theology, if “Theology” is understood not in the narrow technical-scientific sense, but in the broadest, when it is presented as the general concept of all Church-religious interests that have reached the realm of consciousness, or as a form of manifestation of the Church spirit that has reached consciousness. Thus, Patrological science looks at the ancient Church writers as representatives of the Theology of their time and witnesses about the teaching, life and institutions of the Church, and can be considered as the history of the Theological literature of Antiquity, standing on the basis of Church teaching. The purpose of studying their works is to lead to an understanding and assimilation of the spirit and content of Patristic literature, to show its development and significance in the interests of comprehending the spirit of Ancient Church Theological thought and the structure of Church life for a correct assessment of the existing Church consciousness and Church life and to determine on the basis of this the normal course of both one’s own personal life and the life of the entire Church in all its manifestations, consistent with the spirit and tasks of the true Church. It goes without saying that any science, if it wants to meet modern requirements, must, for its part, keep up with the times, as far as this is permissible by its being: therefore, Patristic science must enter into a certain relationship with the enormous scientific material that modern scientific research provides, and in general with modern scientific requirements, examining everything achieved by science, discussing, accepting or rejecting. As was indicated, it is forced to relinquish the right to independent existence and therefore must pay special attention to all the instructions of its opponents, even if sometimes unfair, and eliminate, if possible, everything that serves as a serious and valid basis for such a humiliating assessment of it as a science. In this regard, it must make a decisive change in the method of research and, first of all, is obliged to counter the accusation of the dominance of mechanics in the arrangement of material, determined by a single chronological and biographical point of view, with a clear consciousness that on the formal side it is a historical Science, which obeys the general laws of historical research, historical-scientific understanding and presentation of its subject. It must give a possible explanation of the origin of Ancient Church literature and its gradual development and growth; at the same time, it must show and prove the pragmatic connection of literary-historical facts, consider not only the works of individual Church writers or their individual works in themselves, but present them as an expression of a certain spiritual movement or theological direction, grouping them from a historically based point of view, without for a moment losing sight of the indisputable position that “all Church literature of the era of originality and independence of Christian thought, both in its origin and in its content and character, is fully determined by the historical life of the Christian Church and is in the closest and inextricable connection with the main moments and events of this life” (D.V. Gusev. Readings on Patrology. Issue I, Kazan, 1896. pp. 9–10). She must follow the actual movement of literature and try to understand and explain its movements. Therefore, pragmatism should not be established from points of view external to the material under consideration, and should not be forcibly imposed on historical development, but should be derived from the latter through genetic development and in its individual moments should be revealed organically. For this, it is certainly necessary to expand the point of view by bringing into consideration not only the works of all famous Church writers, but also other monuments of Ancient Church literature that do not bear the name of certain writers. For the same reasons, Patristic science should not refuse its more or less significant attention to anti-Christian and anti-Church literature, at least in general reviews, of course, not for its own sake, but for the sake of its close connection with anti-heretical Church literature, which in this study will find an important auxiliary means for a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of it. We must not forget that the course of development of Ancient Church literature was significantly conditioned and caused by the struggle against anti-Christian and especially anti-Church heretical literature, and the vast majority of ancient Church writers entered the literary field only prompted by hostile attacks. Such attention to works of anti-Christian heretical literature is all the more necessary because the genetic development of Church literature and the historical chain of Church writers is repeatedly interrupted. This study of all available monuments of Church and partly extra-Church literature of antiquity makes it possible to determine with an accuracy achievable under existing conditions the wide stream of Ancient Christian life, on which the more clearly the main and main current of Church life stands out, the more understandable will be the monuments of Ancient Church literature belonging to those writers who were the predominant bearers of the Orthodox Church consciousness and leaders of Church life. In relation to each individual writer, we must not forget that the main subject of study always remains the monuments of Church writing, understanding and evaluation of their significance in the development of Church Theology. But the best key to understanding this or that work is the personality of its author, his individual character traits, the course of his education, personal relationships and other properties. Therefore, if the author is known, it is necessary to provide accurate information about him in all these areas. But no writer stands so isolated from his time and surroundings that he is not connected with them by thousands of threads. He thinks, feels and lives in a certain dependence on them. Just as he himself is influenced by the direction of his time, so in turn he influences it, helping its development and deepening, or delaying it. Therefore, no Church writer can be clearly and distinctly understood without a preliminary assessment of the specific relations of his time, the state of the Church to which he belonged, the position he occupied in the Church, those views and concepts among which he lived and acted and which in one way or another influenced him. Consideration of all these circumstances makes it possible to imagine a living image of the writer himself and the life relationships in which he found himself. Then the circumstances of the origin of his literary works, the purpose of the latter and the details of the content will be clear. And this, in turn, will make it possible to determine the writer’s system of views, with all the particulars, to indicate the relationship of his works to previous, modern and subsequent written monuments, and the state of Church Theology expressed by them, and on the basis of all this to determine the significance of this writer for the life of the Church and Church science. The combination of such treatises on individual writers according to a historically justified connection will result in a clear picture of the gradual revelation of Church consciousness in the monuments of Church literature, which is the task of science. According to the current state of affairs, it seems necessary to talk deliberately about the name of science, since in this case the question is not only about the name, but about the very essence of science, its tasks and method of research. The brief outline of Patrological science given earlier shows that the discipline engaged in the study of works of Ancient Church literature already in the 17th century was called either Patristics or Patrology, and sometimes these names were used as completely identical and interchangeable, but for the most part they differed in essence: Patristics was a systematic science, and Patrology was historical, the first gave dogmatic-historical information, the second - biographical-literary-historical. Although in the very names “Patrology” and “Patristics” there are no scientific grounds for the difference between them, since neither in the name “Patrology” nor in the name “Patristics” there is an indication of the special relationship of the first to biographical and bibliographical material and the second to the systematic presentation of patristic doctrine and moral teaching, however, at present in Western science a fairly clear distinction has been established between them. Namely: “Patristics” collects evidence scattered in the works of the Fathers of the Church for dogmas, morality, Church order and Church discipline and seeks to present them according to their internal connections. Therefore, it can be defined as a systematic presentation of evidence borrowed from the works of our fathers, which serves for the historical substantiation of Christian truths. It does not give a lifestyle and literary activity of theological writers, but, omitting the biography and bibliography, it groups the dogmatic content of their works according to the main points of view, presents them in connection and thus creates a system of traditional religious teaching. Consequently, in “Patristics” the individual characteristics of this or that Church writer are deprived of their usual value, sometimes acquiring the character of even an accidental deviation from the norm, and all the strength is concentrated on the fundamental identity of moral dogmatic teaching with the Biblical-Christian fundamental principles. Patrology differs significantly from this science, containing not only a biographical and bibliographical department, but also an exegetical one, which sets out the content of individual works of this or that writer and the whole image of his teaching, highlighting precisely his individual characteristics that characteristically distinguish this writer and determine his place in the history of theological thought, and this side is recognized as an essential component of the science, which it cannot convey to the “History of Dogmas”, since in the latter the historical side is not presented as such in detail and in detail and in a completely different form than in Patrology. In Patrology, the history of Christian dogmas is presented chronologically, in connection with the very life of the ancient Church and in the very order in which Christian dogmas were revealed in reality. On the other hand, in Patrology, each Christian dogma is considered in connection with the entire system of doctrine of those Church writers in whom this dogma is revealed, while the history of dogmas leaves this connection aside and takes from the teachings of a famous father only what he says about this or that dogma separately. Processing the history of Ancient Church writing from the point of view of exclusively literary-critical and bibliographical - that is, in such a way that only different works or entire groups of them would be considered - as well as manuscripts and publications, would eliminate the most noble and most important task to be resolved: in Patrology, not only the outer shell should be considered and evaluated, but mainly the grain full of vital forces and precisely in such a form that the material related to the external, literary side of the works being analyzed, contributed to the theological characteristics and literary-historical assessment of them. In Russian Theological literature, no historical tradition has been created in relation to the name and even the content of science, because science itself, as separate and independent, has existed only since the 40s of the 19th century and had to develop with a constant, almost skeptical attitude towards its consistency as a scientific system, towards its task, method and practical necessity. In ordinary usage, even in official documents, the names “Patristics” and “Patrology” are used, apparently, with indifference. Thus, according to the Academic Charter of 1884, “Patristics” was assigned to teaching in the Academies, and according to the Charter of 1910, “Patrology”; but neither in the new charter, nor in the explanatory note to it there is any indication of any change in the nature of science and the method of its teaching. But the presented data convinces, on the one hand, that such a confusion of these names is unfounded and can lead to misunderstandings, on the other hand, and that, according to the modern scientific situation, it is necessary to take care of the most thorough formulation and broad development of Patristic science in the very direction indicated by the name “Patrology” and not “Patristics”. However, we consider it necessary to make a reservation that what has been said absolutely does not contain the idea that “Patristics,” as a systematic presentation of the theological truths contained in Patristic literature, does not have sufficient grounds or right to exist: a correctly understood and scientifically formulated Patristics is even desirable, since it would be very useful for the most accurate and deep understanding of the Orthodox teaching. But as long as we do not have a scientifically developed Patrology, until then Patristics cannot have a solid foundation, because it must be preceded by the correct installation of the teachings of individual Ancient Church writers, in a historical setting and their mutual connection and continuity, which can only be given in a broadly and scientifically formulated Patrology. Otherwise, we will never be guaranteed against such use of the works of the Church Fathers, when individual passages or even phrases are extracted from the entire work, in order to support the position being proven, for the sake of their verbal suitability, but without attention to the fact that in context they do not have the meaning that is given to them, that this or that writer, according to the state of Theology in his time, could not even raise and resolve the questions with which the modern theologian is busy, seeking support for himself in the Ancient Church literature. And for the discipline that has the indisputable right to preliminary development, the name “Patrology” seems more correct, according to how this name is understood in modern Western patrol science. True, the content of science turns out to be much broader than this name, since its subject is not only the works of the “Fathers of the Church,” but also all the Ancient Church writers in general. However, from this side it can be justified and defended on the basis that from the point of view of the task that Patrological science sets itself, all monuments of Ancient Church writing have the same significance, and that the latter is determined by the proven and obvious influence of certain works of Ancient Church writing on the modern and subsequent life of the Church, and also, in connection with this recognition, have, if not exclusively, then in any case predominantly - οἱ In Patrological science they constitute the main and essential subject of study. a) The need for such research. Works of Ancient Church literature should be subject to research in Patrology with the name of those authors who actually wrote them, and, if possible, in the form in which they came out of their hands; only authentic works and intact texts can give the sought-after truth, and therefore pathological criticism, which in its main provisions coincides with historical and literary criticism in general, should receive its due place and significance. The urgent need to apply critical research to the works of Ancient Church literature is determined by the following considerations. Monuments of Ancient Church literature have a history of more than a thousand years. During this time, they passed through thousands of hands and experienced many different fates, which was accompanied by inevitable changes in such cases. But there are undoubted facts of intentional distortions and forgeries. Already under the name of the Apostles, inauthentic works were put into circulation, which is why the Apostle Paul was forced to write the final greeting with his own hand, as a sign of the authenticity of the Epistle (2 Thess. 2:2; 3:17, 18), and John the Theologian ends the Apocalypse with a formidable warning to anyone who would add or subtract the words of his prophecy (22:18, 19). This happened with some of the Church Fathers. Genuine works turned out to be distorted by the distortion of individual words and expressions, arbitrary additions and omissions, sometimes works written by other authors were published under the name of famous Church writers, new works were compiled based on long-known ones, an original text was allegedly prepared based on an existing ancient translation, and the like. The blame for distortions and sometimes forgeries falls primarily on copyists and proofreaders. Inattentive, often ignorant copyists, during hasty correspondence, distorted individual words and entire sentences, omitted expressions and entire lines, corrected the text according to their own understanding, sometimes the works of several writers in the same code were attributed to one, whose name appeared first in the collection; the name of a little-known later author was replaced by the same name of a more famous ancient writer, and the like. Saint Irenaeus addresses the copyist of his anti-Gnostic work (περì όγδοάδος) with the following words: “I adjure you, who will rewrite this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ and His glorious appearance when He comes to judge the living and the dead, that what you rewrite, you will carefully compare and correct according to the original text from which you copied, and in like manner you will rewrite this oath and place it in the list” (Eus. Hist. eccl. 5:20; Hieron. De vir. ill., 35). Sometimes heretics, in order to give their teaching easier access and authority in Christian society, either inserted their thoughts into the works of ancient, respected Church writers accepted by believers, or published their own works under their name. Already Dionysius of Corinth in the second half of the 2nd century complained about this when he wrote: “at the request of the brethren, I wrote the Epistles; but the apostles of the devil filled them with tares, when they omitted some and added others.” (Eus. Hist. eccl. 4:31). In addition, little-known writers used forgery in order to gain greater fame and distribution for their works, as well as self-interested booksellers in order to quickly sell the manuscripts they had and make a profit. Sometimes, in the struggle with heretics and in the heat of dogmatic disputes, with a general conviction in the authority of the ancient Church and Her fathers, unreasonable zealots of the purity of teaching and the rights of the Church thought to do a service to Her by presenting new works, compiled in the Church spirit, as works of the famous father of the Church of former times, in order to more successfully challenge and refute the enemy. All this opens up a very wide field for pathological criticism, which sets as its task: 1) in relation to the origin of literary monuments, determine which of the works of Ancient Church writing are authentic (genuina, authentica), regarding the actual writers of which there is no fundamental doubt, which are not authentic or genuine (spuria, supposita, apocrypha, adulteria), regarding which it can definitely be said that they do not belong to those writers whose names they claim, and which, finally, are doubtful (dubia), regarding which research has not yet yielded a certain result, since the same number and equal strength of reasons speak for and against their authenticity. 2) In relation to the existing state of the text, pathological criticism should, if possible, identify intact works (sincera), which contain no more or less than what was in the original, and damaged ones (corrupta) - the latter can be interpolated (interpolata), if additions have been made to them by someone else, or abbreviated (mutila, mutilata), if omissions are discovered. Works in which all parts of them have been preserved in their entirety are called complete (integra); individual passages of works are called fragments. b) The main provisions of pathological criticism. On the question of the origin of the works of Ancient Christian literature to be studied, pathological criticism establishes the following basic provisions, which are common to the principles of any historical and literary criticism. Those signs by which the authenticity of written monuments is determined are called positive principles of criticism, and those from which data against authenticity are extracted are called negative. In both cases, evidence is borrowed either from other historical documents, or from the work itself in question - in the first case they are called external grounds or signs of authenticity, in the latter - internal. External positive criteria are historical evidence of all kinds. They are of primary decisive importance. In the first place should be placed the testimony of the author himself, which he gives in his later works regarding those previously written. So, for example, Blessed Jerome, in his work De viris illustribus (“On Famous Men”), himself lists all his works written before 392, and Blessed Augustine, towards the end of his life, in his Retractationes, compares his own works in order to correct, supplement and clarify what is erroneous and misunderstood. Further, this includes testimonies of contemporaries or later writers (for example, friends, students) who knew the author and his literary activity, and attribute a work or part of it to him, or cite passages from it indicating the name of the author. The authority of these witnesses is important insofar as they stood closer to the author, they themselves are free from any suspicion, and also in accordance with the strength of the reasons they give in favor of the authenticity of the work: the older the witnesses, the closer they are to the author in place and time, the more definitely expressed their instructions, the more thorough their certification. In this case, the authenticity of the works from which the evidence is taken is assumed by itself. The agreement of all such witnesses leads to an indisputable conviction of the authenticity of the work or group of them in question. Finally, the evidence of codices is important if several independent manuscripts, namely the most ancient ones, belonging to different localities by origin, agree on the name of the author, and if there is no reason to doubt the reliable origin of the inscription or signature in them. The older the manuscripts, the more different they are in place of origin, the more consistent their evidence, the more decisive it is in favor of authenticity. Internal positive signs of criticism, which are extracted from the content and form of the work itself, are less important than historical evidence and, in general, external signs of authenticity. These include the grounds that affirm the work’s agreement with the national, historical and geographical relations in which the work should be compiled, unity with well-known authentic works of the same author in style and content of thoughts, method of presentation, correspondence with the character, individual characteristics and life circumstances of the writer, and the like. By themselves, this kind of argument never has the character of tactile persuasiveness, but if they are based on sufficiently strong external evidence, then the authenticity of the work can be considered fully proven. Negative criteria consist of internal contradictions. In anachronisms, in a sharp difference in style with the famous works of the same writer, in contradiction with its characteristic properties, known from other reliable sources. If a work indicates and describes persons, events and relationships, Church institutions, heresies, which, as is undoubtedly known, belong to a later time, or if dogmatic terms are found in the sense of the decisions of later councils, then it must be considered inauthentic or, at least, interpolated. Another sign of inauthenticity is the complete absence of evidence in favor of authenticity in the codices and among ancient writers. A work must be considered inauthentic if all existing manuscripts indicate a name other than the one it bears, and doubtful if some manuscripts attribute it to one author, others to another. If modern and later authors do not make any use of a work that they could use for their own purpose, then this is also a negative sign; however, in itself it does not have decisive force, because the silence could have sufficient grounds either in unfamiliarity with the work in question, or in deliberate avoidance of using it. Such negative properties make the work suspicious, but do not in themselves provide reliable evidence of inauthenticity. The same must be said about minor differences in style, method, and even content of works: such phenomena may be due to the composition of the work at a later time in the author’s life or to differences in the purpose of the works and the addressees. Only probable evidence can be extracted from this kind of data, and inauthenticity must be proven from other grounds. c) Study of the text of patristic works. The question of the integrity of the text can only be established on the basis of a thorough study of the handwritten material in which works of Ancient Church literature have been preserved to this day. The techniques, rules and tasks are the same as in relation to all kinds of works of antiquity preserved in manuscripts. It is necessary first of all to collect, if possible, all the manuscripts containing a known work and, through the most careful examination and study of each of them, to establish the time of origin and the history of the further existence of each, the degree of accuracy and correctness of the text in it in general, the mutual dependence of one manuscript on another, to determine the main editions of the text and the variants that depend on them, explaining, if possible, the origin of the latter, in order to in this way reach the type of text that the first copyists of the main editions had before them and which, therefore, was the original text the work under study. This is the task pursued by scientific editions of the text of the Ancient Church works. It goes without saying that, as in all other areas of scientific knowledge, so in this matter, possible scientific accuracy and perfection are achieved only gradually, through prolonged and intense effort.