Speech before defending a master's thesis. Master's disputation

Contents Speech before the defense of the master's thesis: “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.” I part and II part 1 half. 1895 and 1903. From academic life. Master's debate of the Rector of the Podolsk Theological Seminary Archpriest N. P. Malinovsky Speech before the defense of the master's thesis: “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.” I part and II part 1 half. 1895 and 1903 Your Eminence Archpastors, Gracious Sovereigns and the entire venerable assembly! The content and nature of my work, which is the subject of discussion in this scientific meeting, prompt me to ask you to devote your enlightened attention to listening to some preliminary explanations on my part, especially since my books themselves do not contain the usual author’s preface. I will try to be brief in my explanations. The title I gave to my work - "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" - shows that it does not represent a new, completely original work in Russian theological literature. Not only people of science, but also lovers of theological reading in general are well aware of the dogmatic systems of the Right Reverend dogmatists: Macarius, Philaret and Sylvester. And in my work the same dogmas of faith are considered and expounded as in the above-mentioned dogmatic systems, which is why it was given the usual name, and not any new one. In its main features, the plan or construction of the system is the same as in the named works, which in turn are very close to the plan of the famous educational manual on Dogmatics by Archimandrite Anthony, later Archbishop of Kazan. Changes or deviations from the generally accepted plan in my work concern only some particulars (the distribution of chapters and §§). in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, for more details in the “Catechism” and “Right Confession of Faith”. As far as I know of Russian theological literature, there are no fundamental objections to the arrangement of dogmatic material according to this plan (Fr. Svetlov’s objections do not seem to be such). But, in this case, was there a need for the emergence of a new dogmatic system, built on the same plan as works whose high merits and authority are generally recognized? Of course, the appearance of such would be unnecessary if these latter provided a complete and comprehensive explanation and coverage of dogmatic issues, and fully satisfied the demands placed on theology at the present time, so that there would be nothing left but to repeat what was already said in them. In reality, the situation is different, and this should be said not only in relation to the dogmatic system of Rev. Metropolitan Macarius, which appeared half a century ago (1849–1853) and, in its abbreviated form, is still a textbook on Dogmatics in theological seminaries, as well as the system of Rev. archbishop Philaret, also approaching half a century since its publication (1864), but also the latest extensive dogmatic work of Rev. Ep. Sylvester (1877–1891). I don't think there is any particular need to explain this. This is well known to those who study theology. I personally had to verify this not only theoretically, but also experimentally. Let me be allowed to talk about this, for this experience disposed me to take up my dogmatic work and give it the character and characteristics that it has in comparison with other dogmatic systems. Upon completion of the academic course, I was appointed as a teacher of theology at one of the theological seminaries. This was a transitional time for the introduction of the new charter of spirit. seminaries in 1884, with a modified distribution of academic subjects by class and new programs. I had to teach four theologies: dogmagical, basic, comparative and moral. It is clear that I wanted to organize the task of teaching as thoroughly as possible, and to encourage students to study theology. The programs also made broad demands. It soon became clear that one of the main difficulties in achieving this goal was the lack of satisfactory teaching aids and manuals, ones in which students would find an accessible and satisfactory explanation of theological issues. In very, very many cases there were no such explanations in the complete courses of Dogmatics, or the ones that were available did not seem sufficient. This caused difficulties not only for the students, but also for the teacher. To resolve questions, objections and perplexities that arose, one had to turn to many books, and sometimes attempts to find the necessary books turned out to be in vain. Circumstances dictated that pupils, at least the best ones, should be encouraged to prepare lessons from various books, often from magazine articles. This, by the way, is the reason for the use of lithographed notes in addition to textbooks in almost all seminaries. I also published these... Gradual acquaintance with Russian theological literature led me to the conviction of the need for a careful revision and verification of positive justification, and even more so for apologetic explanations of the truths of faith in existing systems of Dogmatics, a more vital disclosure of dogmas, the introduction of an apologetic element into Dogmatics on a wider scale, the introduction and consideration of new questions, the exclusion of what has already lost significance for our time, a more precise formulation of the differences between Christian confessions, eliminating erroneous ideas on certain issues, more strictly distinguishing dogmas from the so-called. private opinions, etc. Under the influence of such conviction and desire to satisfy as much as possible the urgent needs of secondary theological educational institutions in the teaching and study of theology, especially dogmatic, I published in 1895 the first part of the experience of Dogmatic Theology. The book was considered useful for spiritual educational institutions; It was also received sympathetically by society interested in theological reading. Then I decided to complete my work according to the plan outlined in the first part, but with a broader formulation of questions and greater attention to scientific requirements. These are the circumstances of the origin of the published parts of my work, explaining its nature. Without necessarily seeking to find and pave new paths, following the generally accepted plan in the arrangement of dogmatic truths, I tried to present in a brief and accessible presentation the most complete and comprehensive coverage or consideration of each dogmatic issue; I consider dogmas from the point of view of revelation or the teachings of St. Scripture, from the point of view of the symbols of the confession of the universal church, from the point of view of patristic literature (or patristic), from the point of view of considerations of reason, or philosophical, from the confessional point of view, and finally, from the point of view of the defense of Christian truths against unbelief or apologetic. The introduction of the apologetic element on a relatively wide scale was caused by the demands and needs of the time. Revealing the dogmatic question from one side or another, I wanted to present everything that is most valuable, proven, stable, available in Russian spiritual literature of the last half century, which serves to substantiate, clarify or defend dogma, while distinguishing the dogmatic area from the so-called. private opinions. On some issues, there is almost nothing in Russian literature other than what is said in well-known dogmatists, and therefore it is natural that in these cases I limited myself to only verifying what was said in them, adding, if necessary, explanatory notes. On other, but not many issues, there were only one or two articles in spiritual journals, on the basis of which the corresponding sections of systems were compiled by other dogmatists; More than others, I noticed attention to Russian literature in the system of Rev. Metropolitan Macarius, although this literature at that time was not rich in dogmatic works, and such attention was almost not noticeable in either St. Philaret or St. Sylvester, although by the time the latter’s system was published in Russian literature there were works worthy of full attention. I was also guided by these same articles, which is why it may seem that in these few cases I was only reproducing the content of others and from other dogmas, although in fact this was not the case. But there is quite a rich Russian literature on many issues, and there are also carefully compiled scholarly monographs. Naturally, these questions should have received a more complete and thorough disclosure in my work, especially in the 2nd part. Having set the task of my work to present the conclusions of Russian dogmatic literature on each dogmatic issue, in my books I also indicate existing Russian literature. I paid special attention to ensuring that these indexes are complete and accurate. And all the dogmatic monographs or articles in journals that I indicated were re-read - with a few exceptions, when it was impossible to have one or another publication at hand, due to its not being in the book depositories available to me, and sometimes even on sale. By the way, for the same reason I used ancient fatherly works in Russian translations. References are placed in footnotes at the beginning of each chapter or §, and when presenting the very contents of a particular §. References to the named monographs or articles, with a few exceptions, are no longer repeated. So much was done not for the purpose of concealing borrowings from this or that author, but because repeated quotations would not contribute anything to the elucidation of the dogma, unnecessarily only increasing the volume of the book. There could be awkward quotes, for example. in those not rare cases when the same idea was encountered by many authors. I didn’t see the need to find out who borrowed this idea from whom. By placing complete references to the literature at the beginning of a chapter or §, and not scattered, the answer to the question is naturally given in a clearer form: is Russian theological literature rich? Complaints are not uncommon that they allegedly seek clarification from theologians on various issues in vain. It seems that the indexes in my books provide grounds for the conclusion that our theological literature is not as poor as many are accustomed to think; one must have great learned arrogance to assert, as someone asserts in his writings, that everything written by Russian theologians (of course, except for his theological works) is only “scholastic rags.” But from the same pointers one can see that our literature is not so rich that there is no room left for regrets that many dogmatic questions have not yet been studied with scientific thoroughness. The task I set has not yet been completed. So far I have published two parts that are subject to discussion. In the manuscript, the last and third are completed in the main features, and are even published in the form of separate dogmatic essays. But even from the published parts, I dare to think, one can judge that my work is not superfluous given the existence of other well-known systems of Dogmatics, that it has its own characteristics in comparison with them, and is not a repetition of them, but a general summing up of the dogmatic and partly apologetic Russian literature of the last half century. With gratitude I will be ready to accept comments and guidelines on the development of the published parts in order to use them in the publication of the last edition and the proposed second edition of the first part. At the same time, I must state that I myself have already outlined some sections of this part for complete correction and even replacement. Archpriest I. Malinovsky. From academic life. Master's debate of the Rector of the Podolsk Theological Seminary Archpriest N. P. Malinovsky On April 9, in the large auditorium of the Academy, a master's debate was held by the Rector of the Podolsk Theological Seminary, Archpriest N. P. Malinovsky. In addition to the chairman of this meeting, the Most Reverend Rector of the Academy, Bishop Evdokim, and members of the Academic Council - ordinary and extraordinary professors - present at this debate were: other members of the academic corporation, the Viceroy of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra Archimandrite Tobias, the Synodal Sacristan Archimandrite Theodosius, the Rector and some teachers of the Bethany Theological Seminary and students of the Academy. The debate opened at 6 pm. At the beginning, the Secretary of the Academy Council N.D. Vsekhsvyatsky read the following curriculum vitae of the disputant: “Having defended a dissertation for the degree of Master of Theology in this meeting, Rector of the Podolsk Theological Seminary, Archpriest Nikolai Platonovich Malinovsky is the son of a priest from the Vologda diocese. After completing the course at the Vologda Theological Seminary to continue his education in 1881, he entered Moscow Theological Academy. In 1885 he graduated from the full academic course with the degree of candidate of theology and the right not to take new oral tests when seeking a master's degree, in which title he was approved by His Eminence Ioannikis, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on June 27. In the same year, on October 19, he was appointed to the position of teacher of dogmatic, moral, basic and comparative theology at the Kharkov Theological Academy. Seminary. In 1889 he accepted the priesthood. In 1894 he was transferred to the position of Inspector of the Stavropol Theological Seminary. Since August 15, 1902 he has been the Rector of the Podolsk Theological Seminary. In addition to the dissertation to be defended under the title: “Orthodox dogmatic theology.” Part one, Kharkov, 1895. Part two, Stavropol-provincial, 1903. Archpriest N. P. Malinovsky published the following articles and studies at different times in various spiritual publications: In the “Readings of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment”: a) Celebration of the 1000th anniversary of St. Cyril and Methodius in the Latin Church. b) Propaganda of the papacy among the Slavs. In the magazine “Faith and Reason”: Protestant teaching about the church hierarchy. On the issue of religious education in our secular educational institutions. In the “Podolsk Diocesan Gazette”: a) The doctrine of the sacraments as a means of human sanctification (dogmatic essay). b) The Doctrine of God the Redeemer (continued by printing) and friend. And it was published as a separate publication, “Essay on Dogmatic Theology.” Study guide (1st half)." After this, the disputant made a speech in which he pointed out the motives that prompted him to compile a complete course of Orthodox dogmatic theology and the plan adopted in the latter for the disclosure, illumination, proof and defense of dogmatic truths. The speech was followed by a debate, which was opened by the first official opponent, Honored Ordinary Professor in the Department of Dogmatic Theology, A.D. Belyaev. Professor A.D. Belyaev. I think it is not superfluous to note that both in some places of your research, and in the speech you just delivered, for some reason you try to avoid, if possible, indications of the chronological sequence of the opinions of those authors that you used. O. Archpriest N. P. Malinovsky. I did this in order to maintain their authority. The memory of many authors whom I used is valuable for the Russian people. A. D. B. But you could, without insulting their memory, still say: this has already been said by the earlier ones. O. N. P. M. Indeed, I could highlight and quote at least a fifth part from one dogmatic course of the Most Reverend Macarius, taken from various journal articles. A.D.B. By engaging in this kind of comparison, you would be doing a considerable service to science. I turn now to more significant objections. First of all, I must note to you that in your work you reveal a lack of attention to the primary source of Dogmatics - to the text of the Holy Scriptures. For example: on page 251 of the first part, as proof of the actual hypostasis of all three persons of the Godhead, you cite the words of the 1st Epistle of John (5:7): “There are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one,” meanwhile, the words three are not in the ancient copies of the New Testament text. O. N. P. M. But the same text and for the same proof is given by the Most Reverend Macarius, which is noted in my note. A. D. B. The Most Reverend Macarius gives it by mistake. And you are thus repeating a mistake made fifty years ago, then, perhaps, excusable and inexcusable now. O.N.P.M. Together with His Eminence Macarius, I quote E. Budrin’s 1889 study. A. D. B. Agree, however, that repeating other people’s positions, whenever they were expressed, without critically verifying them is a technique that is far from scientific... Similarly, on page 31 of the second part, you say that “in the Apostolic prayer (Acts 4:24-28) the initial words: Master, you God, who created the heavens and the earth and the sea, and all things in them,” are addressed actually to God the Father,” while not only the initial words, but the entire prayer is addressed to God the Father. Here again it is impossible not to see that you are repeating the Most Reverend Macarius, and in this case, checking his course did not present any difficulties: the Bible, undoubtedly, was at your fingertips. O. N. P. M. The prayer all refers to God the Father, but I had the reason to highlight its initial words because in its subsequent words it speaks of both the “Holy Spirit” and the “Holy Son Jesus.” A. D. B. Similarly, on the previous page, in proof that God is the Creator of the whole world, you quote, without citing the text itself, various passages from the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which are also given by the Most Reverend Macarius, but among them there are those that point more to the establishment of a moral world order than to creation, such as, for example, 7 verse 45 of the chapter of the prophet Isaiah: “I... am the creator of the world and the builder of evil: I am the Lord God, create all this”; verse 12, chapter 10 of the prophet Jeremiah. On page 53, as proof that judges and other God-chosen men were called by the name “elohim” in the Old Testament, you refer, among other things, to verse 9 of Psalm 46, but there is no word “elohim” there at all, and as proof that the name of the son of God or the sons of God was adopted by the people of Israel, you cite, among other things, verse 2 of chapter 20 of the book Judges, but it says about the people of God, and verse 1 of chapter 2 of the book of the prophet Hosea, but there God says about the people of Israel: my people. O. N. P. M. Regarding the first case, the use of the word “elohim,” I can only say that I carefully checked all the quotations from the Holy Scriptures concerning it; they are also given in the first part. In the second case, with the cited passages of the Holy Scriptures, I wanted to confirm the general idea of ​​God's chosenness of the Jewish people, as the son of God. A. D. B. This idea is absolutely correct, but one cannot ignore the letter of the Biblical text. Further, for example, as proof of the assimilation of the name of the sons of God to the chosen people, you refer to the 13th verse of the 102nd Psalm, but the word of God is not there. On page 55 of the same part, in a note, you determine the time of life of the last Old Testament sacred writer, the prophet. Malachi 445–408 years before Christ. In science, the life time of this prophet is not precisely established. Some attribute his life to the first half of the 5th century, others to the second. You classify it as the second and at the same time define the period of the conclusion of the canon of sacred Jewish books as years from 459 to 445. Thus, the latest year of the conclusion of the canon (445), according to your chronology, coincides with the year of birth of the prophet Malachi indicated by you. But how then could his book enter the canon? If he was born in 445, then by this time the canon of sacred books could not yet be concluded. O. N. P. M. Both definitions of time were made by me only approximately. This is an area of ​​speculation, but not proven facts. I will try to eliminate the resulting contradiction when republishing the course. A. D. B. On page 66, among the places of Holy Scripture that call angels by the name of the howl of heaven, you indicate: the 15th verse of the 15th chapter and the 7th verse of the 38th chapter of the book of Job; and also the 21st verse of Psalm 102, but the first speaks only about heaven, the second about the creation of the stars and the subsequent praise of the Lord by the angels, and in the third the angels, although they are called powers, are not called heavenly... O. N. P. M. It is customary to understand by these names (sky, stars) the forces of heaven. A. D. B. On page 392, for evidence that the Trinitarian God is sometimes called the Savior in Revelation, you refer to the Epistle of Jude (verse 25), 1 Messenger. to Timothy (1 chapter 1 art.; 2 chapters 3–4 verses) and Sent. to Titus (chap. 8, verse 6); but in the places you indicated from the Epistles of Jude and Timothy, only God the Father is called the Savior, and in the 6th verse of the 3rd chapter of the Epistle to Titus, nothing is said about the Savior, the Holy Spirit. O. N. P. M. By pointing to these places, I wanted to confirm only the idea that the name Savior in the Holy Scriptures, in addition to the Lord Jesus Christ who appeared on earth for our salvation, is also applicable to other Persons of the Holy Trinity. A. D. B. What I said about your attitude to the text of Holy Scripture must be repeated about your attitude to another, no less important source of Orthodox Dogmatics - the sacred Tradition, and in particular, to the text of the patristic works. So, on page 52 of the 1st part of your course, by the way, we read: “St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (sc. 202) and Tertullian (220–240),” etc. It is indisputable that with the first number, enclosed in brackets, you mark the year of the death of St. Irenea, but what do the numbers in the second bracket mean? By analogy with the number in the first bracket, perhaps they should also be understood as a vague indication of the death of Tertullian? O. N. P. M. No, they indicate the period of Tertullian’s writing activity. Due to an oversight during proofreading, the explanatory word that should have preceded them was released. A. D. B. When do you think Tertullian lived? O. N. P. M. He died in the third century. A. D. B. Most of his life is usually attributed to the second century. The exact time of his life is unknown. The data for determining this time remained from Blazh. Jerome. He says that Tertullian flourished and lived to a very old age and was a contemporary of Septimius Severus (193-211) and Caracalla (211-212). Taking into account the short reign of the last emperor and based on the testimony of Blessed Jerome that Tertullian lived to a very old age, the time of his death is determined to be 212, and the time of birth is 135–160 years. O. N. P. M. The figures given by me are borrowed from Arch. Philareta. A. D. B. It is also unlikely to agree with your opinion regarding the Stromata, which you call “an experience of completely scientific research and presentation of dogmas, sometimes not without a predominance of the philosophical element to the detriment of faith” (p. 53). The fourth book of Origen’s work: “Περὶ ἀρχῶν,” according to you, turns out to be of an exegetical nature, but it does not contain any interpretations. O. N. P. M. It contains rules of interpretation. A. D. B. Absolutely right: it contains rules of interpretation - and nothing more. There is nothing in it either from Dogmatic Theology or from the field of Christian moral teaching. It gives only a theory of interpretation, but in this case it would be more correct to call it having a hermineutical character, but not exegetical. On the 55th page in the note you indicate the existing Russian translations of the Catechetical Teachings of Cyril of Jerusalem - Moscow. Arch. Ambrose and made at the Yaroslavl Seminary, but you do not mention a single word about the translation of these teachings at the Moscow Theological Academy. O. N. P. M. I not only knew the last translation, but I even used it several times, although, I confess, I missed such an omission in the note. This omission is completely random. A. D. B. On the same page, counting among the “experiences of a cumulative presentation of dogmas in a certain system” - “Abridged presentation of divine dogmas” by Blessed. Theodoret, you indicate only 23 chapters of his fifth book against heresies, while it is known that there are 29 chapters in all. What guided you in giving preference to the first number over the second? O.N.P.M. Here we have to deal with a typo. A. D. B. Not at all. The number 23 is completely appropriate here. You, in all likelihood, borrowed it from the Reverend. Sylvester. The fact is that out of the 29 chapters of the Vth book against heresies, not all are of a dogmatic nature, but only 23. O. N. P. M. I repent of the omission of words “of a dogmatic nature.” A. D. B. In the note on page 57 you state that “Ἔκδοσις” or “Εκϑεσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὁρϑοδόζου πίστεως“, unknown by whom, was subsequently divided into four books. Is this true? O. N. P. M. At the time when I was compiling my book, this question was not without difficulties. There was no data in Russian literature to resolve it. Now, after Mr. Bronzov’s translation, permission was given to him, but I no longer had the opportunity to use it, my book was already completed. A.D.B. The indicated work of John of Damascus, as you state on page 59, was forgotten during the times of scholasticism. The statement is incorrect. In the first period of scholasticism he was not forgotten. It was forgotten only in the second half, from the time of Thomas Aquinas. I consider it necessary to also note your inattention to the text of the footnotes concerning the Patristic works. For example, in the second note on page 312 of the first part there is such a strange quotation: "Epiphanes. Ep. 76 (opp. 35 chapter. Aetia)" in the second note on page 68 of the second part: "Hilary (Lib. contra Aufnt II. 6.)." O.N.P.M. In the first case, of course, “Refutation of Aetius.” The second one is a proofreading error. Under the conditions in which I was placed, I could not personally carry out responsible proofreading. A. D. B. On pp. 72–73 of the second part, among the writers of antiquity who called angels immaterial beings, incorporeal, incorporeal, pure spirits, you indicate, by the way, Lactantius, but, as you know, Lactantius in Chapter 16 of the II book of Divine Institutions shared the opinion about the fall of angels through carnal intercourse with the daughters of men. You refer to Chapter 21 of the VII book of Divine Instructions, but even in this place it only says: they have nothing firm, but God can punish them. Here (on page 73), among the writers who shared the opinion that supposed the existence in angels of a body similar or close to the sensory body of a person, you indicate Athenagoras and Clement of Alexandria, but in the indicated place from the first (On Resurrection, ch. 16), nothing is said about the corporeality of angels, it only says that they are perfect beings; The reference you made to the Stromata (IV, 3) of the latter is also incorrect. O.N.P.M. I have not checked the indicated passages according to the original text. I used the Russian translation of Korsunsky. The quotations may be incorrect, but Clement of Alexandria undoubtedly held the opinion that I attribute to him. Page 259 of my work can serve as confirmation of this. A. D. B. And on the page you indicate there is also some inaccuracy. The opinion about the fall of angels through carnal intercourse, according to your statement, was predominantly widespread in Jewish literature.” Why “predominantly”? You yourself, in a footnote, cite a number of names of ancient Christian teachers who shared this opinion. O. N. P. M. Yes, but it was not shared by the church fathers. A. D. B. Now I would like to draw your attention to one of the shortcomings that I have already indicated in my written review of your work. In some places you encounter annoying rearrangements of the text. On page 63 in the first part of Christian Orthodox Theology, read by Rev. George Konissky at the Kyiv Academy, you refer to the years 1795–1804, that is, to those years when he was no longer alive, and the Dogmatic-Polemical Theology read at the same Academy by the Most Reverend. Irenaeus Falkovsky, date back to the years 1751–1755, precisely to those years, then theology at the Kyiv Academy was read by the Most Reverend. Georgy Konissky. O. N. P. M. The years are indicated by me in accordance with Prof. Pevnitsky. In the printed text, the brackets enclosing them were rearranged - one instead of the other. A. D. B. On the same page you first indicate the Christian Theology of Juvenal Medvedsky, and then the Eastern Orthodox Church of the Archimandrite. Macarius, - while the latter is thirty years earlier than the first. O. N. P. M. I did not adhere to a strict chronological order. Yes, in this place it is not significant. A . D. B. The same lack of chronological accuracy is noticeable in your division of the history of Dogmatics into periods. For some reason you begin the second period in the history of Dogmatic Theology with John of Damascus, - see page 57, - whereas on this same page you call its first period the period of the dogmatics of the ecumenical councils. O. N. P. M. To such a selection of the exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith of St. I was inspired by John of Damascus by the dominant position that this work occupied among other works and systems until the third period. A.D.B. But you yourself assert, as I have already indicated, that when scholasticism arose and took hold in the West, the work of Damascus was forgotten. And as I already noted to you, such a statement, indeed, can have an application to the second period of scholasticism, which began with Thomas Aquinas. Characterizing the third period, you highlight the years of teaching Dogmatic Theology in Russia 1631–1711 and note that during this time there was no strict separation of the dogmas of faith from moral truths. This is not true. Perhaps there is reason to say that during this time the teaching of Dogmatic Theology included a polemical element, but not the presentation of moral truths. The first who separated Dogmatic Theology, as a special science, from Moral Theology, in your opinion, was Feofan Prokopovich (p. 62). Is this true? On page 73, among the representatives of the confessional or church direction of Theology, you indicate Delitzsch and Schmidt. Delitzsch cannot be counted among the theologians of this trend. Also unknown is who you mean Schmidt here. After all, there were several of them. O. N. P. M. Here I repeated only what was said by the Most Reverend. Sylvester. A. D. B. On page 205, you point to Rome as the place of spread and dominance of Sabellianism. Was it widespread only in Rome? Where did it appear? O. N. P. M. I point to Rome as the place of his special dominion. It appeared not in Rome, but in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Detailed instructions, it seems to me, were not required here. A. D. B. But such omissions, ambiguities and inaccuracies occur very often in your work. For example, in the second part on page 87, considering the question of the creation of the world, you call the teaching of Genesis on the origin of the world the most complete and detailed. According to you, the completion of the legend of the Writer of Genesis by later sacred writers consists only in a clearer indication than in Moses of the participation of all persons of the Holy Trinity in the work of creation? Is this true? O. N. P. M. Of course, the New Testament gives clearer indications of what is also contained in the story of the creation of the world by Moses. A. D. B. But you must agree, for example, that from this narrative it is not clear by whom and when the angels were created. We already know both from the New Testament writers. And if this is so, then you should also call “the completion of the Mosaic legend by later writers” not only clearer, but also new. O. N. P. M. Touching upon Moses’ narrative about the creation of the world, I meant mainly, and more accurately, exclusively, the creation of the material world, as indicated by the very title preceding this paragraph, and about the creation of this world, the tale of Moses cannot be denied completeness and detail. A. D. B. Let me make one more note related to this story. Noting in the footnote on pp. 142–143 the existence, both in antiquity and in later times, of views on this legend as an allegory and fiction, you say that such a view is especially expressed by Lenormand. The link is completely incorrect. Lenormand, at the very beginning of his book, declares that there is no story more accurate than the story of the Holy Scriptures, that this story was not disfigured by fantastic inventions, and so on... Lenormand only said that in it it is difficult to separate what needs to be understood literally and what is an allegory... But sometimes the Orthodox theologian is faced with similar difficulties. Take, for example, the question of the “tree of life.” How many opinions did the Church Fathers themselves have about it? – He has not been given a solution even in our time. O.N.P.M. While compiling the “Essay on Dogmatic Theology,” I was at one time inclined toward a symbolic understanding of the “tree of life,” but then, due to circumstances beyond my control, I had to abandon such an opinion. And it now seems to me that if there is some data for such an understanding, then there is no data that contradicts the literal understanding. This is precisely the approach that Orthodox theologians follow. It is especially clearly expressed in the Rev. Philareta. A. D. B. But by adhering only to this method, you always run the risk of avoiding many questions raised by the text of the Bible. For example, you say that Adam did not witness the conversation between his wife and the serpent (p. 314), but this is not clear from the text of the Bible. Others think differently. Their opinions must also be taken into account. O. N. P. M. The Bible is indeed silent about the special temptation of Adam and the incentives to sin. And therefore, it seems to me more convenient, without embarking on further assumptions and conjectures, to repeat after other Orthodox theologians that he fell as a result of his wife’s convictions and passion for her, sharing, of course, all her sinful thoughts and feelings. The fact of his fall is of greatest importance, but the circumstances in which it occurred are not so important. A.D.B. It is impossible not to note some of the contradictions found in your work: on page 29 of the first part you claim that the conviction in the truth of dogmas is based not on any experimental or rational data, but on trust in the testimony of Revelation, but further (on the next page) you yourself try to prove that faith does not exclude the conscious assimilation and understanding of dogmas and penetration into their deepest meaning and so on. To avoid such a contradiction, you should say that the conviction of the truth of dogmas is based on both: on trust in the testimony of Revelation about them, and on rational data. O. N. P. M. In my opinion, one of the main signs that define dogmas is their assimilation by faith. They are an object of faith. A. D. B. But you won’t argue against the fact that the demand for faith alone, “blind faith,” is unreasonable. O.N.P.M. But there can also be danger from the mind. Reason can take you far. A.D.B. You will forget what I said. I said that dogmas must be assimilated by both - both by faith and reason. I will continue pointing out the contradictions. The expression “τὰ μὴ ὄντα” sometimes means complete non-existence for you, sometimes it means relative non-existence. Outlining the history of the creation of the world and citing the words: “let the earth sprout the former grass”..., “let the waters of the creeping things take away the souls of the living” (pp. 102, 105), you explain the subsequent raising of grass from the earth, from the water of living creatures by the direct action of the Omnipotence of God, but along with such an explanation on subsequent pages you allow participation along with Omnipotence God’s other factor: the possession of matter with the inclinations of life (See, for example, page 109. “Such words,” you write, “clearly suggest the thought of the natural development or revelation of the hidden life of the created thing according to the creative verb... When the creative power of God acted in the formation of the world, the forces that God put into matter during its creation also acted,” etc. A number of ambiguities arise. You see the Old Testament indications of the Hypostasis of the Son in various images of the Jehovah Angel in the description of some theophany (for example, Gen. 16:7–12; 21:17–19; 22:15–17; Josh. 5:14; Judges 6:11; 13, etc.), (pp. 240–241 of the first part), and these The same passages of the Bible (in the second part of p. 49) are given in your presentation of the doctrine of created spirits or angels - in the appendix to the angels of God. O. N. P. M. The last of the indicated contradictions I have already recognized and eliminated in the “Essay on Dogmatic Theology” I published. I think that in the first cases there are no material errors, there are only errors of language. A. D. B. Yes, you often make errors of the latter kind: a) – On page 335 of the first part you write; “The idea of ​​various self-revelations of the Divine life, in addition to its positive meaning, also has a very important negative meaning,” and in parentheses you explain: “metaphysical.” Are metaphysics and negation really the same thing - synonyms? b) – “Consistently carried out materialism,” according to you, leads to the denial of science” (Part II 117 p. 1 note). Perhaps we can talk about the denial of philosophy and the humanities by such materialism, but in addition to the humanities, there remains an extensive cycle of practical sciences recognized by it. c) – Light and ether turn out to be almost completely identical to each other (on page 121 of the same part). Are light and ether the same thing? O. N. P. M. In all these places, errors of the same type as those above have crept in. A. D. B. You claim that in the pantheism of the Eleatics, Spinoza... the world is viewed as a temporary manifestation in various forms of a single, eternal and absolute substance (p. 81). The word temporary is completely unnecessary here. This passage was borrowed from you from my research and borrowed from its first edition. If you took the trouble to check it against the second edition, you would find corrections there that would be useful for you to take note of. In general, sometimes you rely too much on one or another benefit, without checking one benefit with another. For example, you claim that all the highest and most perfect organic forms, according to Darwin, originated from four or five primitive simple forms (Part II, p. 130); You were prompted to make such a statement by Rachinsky’s translation of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species,” but if you had used Filippov’s translation, you would have come to a completely different conclusion. Regarding the same Darwin, you claim that all the most prominent naturalists refuse to accept and outright reject his hypothesis about the origin of species, as inconsistent with the obvious laws of nature, and you name Cuvier among them (p. 134). Did Cuvier refute Darwinism?... Yes, one should not overuse the words: “all natural scientists.” Further (on page 148) you assert: the doctrine of the animal origin of man is refused to be recognized by “all outstanding representatives of natural science.” Is that all? O.N.P. M. More precisely, it should be said: many. A. D. B. Absolutely right. They themselves objected to me that all scientific naturalists are Darwinists. These kinds of extremes should be avoided. Among natural scientists there are Darwinists, and there are also anti-Darwinists. Take, for example, in Russia – Timiryazev and Tikhomirov. With such expressions you are directly harming your book. You are depriving it of scientific value. In this way, trying to provide an apologetic service to Dogmatics is not necessary... Of Darwin’s ancient predecessors, who produced people from animals, you refer to Anaximander (the last words of the 3rd note of page 144 in the second part), but for some reason you do not find it necessary to mention Empedocles in this case, although the idea of ​​​​the origin of people from animals was expressed more clearly by him than by Anaximander. His teaching, although devoid of substantiation, comes very close to later Darwinism... You also made mistakes in indicating the number of original species (races) of various polygenists in the first note on page 158: Morton distinguished not 82 original families, but 22, Gliddon - not 65, but 11. O.N.P.M. I borrowed the numbers for the last note from Prot. Sergievsky. A.D.B. On page 156 you mention that the genealogy of the sons of Noah was sometimes taken as a basis for thinking about the origin of various tribes of the human race from various ancestors, while in your subsequent discussions you are completely silent about the Hamites. And on page 160, classify all known languages ​​on the globe into three main families of languages: Indo-European, Semitic or Chinese. The division is quite strange. In what sense do you use “or” here? It would be interesting to know: to which family do you classify the Negro language?... On page 163, without any factual evidence, you state that the number of all people on earth today barely exceeds 1,000 million. Where did you get this figure from? O.N.P.M. More likely it would be necessary to say one and a half billion. A.D.B. But on the next page, speaking about the settlement of continents and islands separated by large spaces, you find that the population of Africa could have occurred without difficulty (from Central Asia through the Isthmus of Suez and the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb), and you find more difficult the question of how its original settlers could penetrate into America. In my opinion, it is the last question that cannot present any difficulties in its solution. It may very well be that the Bering Strait, separating Asia from America, did not exist in ancient times. By calling this question difficult, you repeated a very old opinion about it, long abandoned by science. Let me now make a few comments about the scientific names that you mention in your course. You usually do not provide reviews about the various authors whose opinions you use. It is all the more strange to sometimes encounter sudden reviews of them, as, for example, in the note on page 60 of the second part - about Taylor. And these few reviews can sometimes cause confusion in the reader of your course. For example, on page 309 of the same part, you call Luken’s “Die Traditionen des Menschenge-schlechts” a classic work. Did you derive this definition of it from direct use of it? O.N.P.M. Yes, I used it. I have made very large extracts from it. A. D. B. For my part, I must note that now in science this very small book has no significance. Remember Horace's saying that books have their destiny. Previously, this book, indeed, enjoyed great authority, but its authority in science has long been lost, and therefore it is very strange to call it even now a “classical work.” You repeated the views on it from a very long time ago and therefore deviated from the true scientific direction. In conclusion of my objections to your work, I will point out the frequent distortions in the translation into Russian of the names of foreign authors. On page 72 of the first part, among the dogmatists of the supra-naturalistic trend, you indicate Sporr - instead of Storr; on the 169th among the newest Protestant theologians Nitis - instead of Niekisch, on page 136 of the second part among the supporters of the hypothesis of the days of creation - eras (the agreement hypothesis) of Reim - instead of Reisch, among the defenders of another hypothesis, the “hypothesis of ideal harmony” of Michelis - more precisely, it would be necessary to write: “Michaelus”; on pages 69 and 185 of the second part, do you cite the opinions of Gennady of Messalia? O.N.P.M. Error. Gennady of Massilia. A.D.B. You call Pavel Samosatsky Pavel Samosadsky. You encounter similar errors when indicating the names of even Russian authors, for example, on page 62 of the first part you quote the work of Yu. Samarov. O. N. P. M. Yu. Samarina. That there is a typo here is clear. The next reference to it (on page 65, second note) does not contain this error. A. D. B. With this I consider it possible to limit my objections regarding the text of your work. Your work is a course. Like any course in general, it is presented according to a generally accepted plan. And the principles underlying it are generally accepted principles. For this reason, most of my objections concerned various small details. I agree with the plan you have chosen in presenting your course and with the most important principles underlying it. Regarding the no less abundant objections, which constituted a coherent treatise placed above, by the second official opponent, an extraordinary professor in the department of metaphysics and logic, A. I. Vvedensky, the disputant gave explanations within his power in defense of his chosen plan and method. "The existing Russian theological literature," he said, "does not contain data for the presentation of Dogmatic Theology using the indicated (synthetic) method, and this method in itself is hardly applicable to Dogmatics. This method can have an application to Christian Apologetics, Basic Theology, philosophy of religions, but not to Dogmatics. And with the usual method, Dogmatics can explain and bring closer to the human understanding the dogma of faith. It seems to me that a sufficient explanation of this is given in § 6 of my work. Despite the method I have chosen, which my opponent does not agree with, it seems to me that both (explanation) and the other (approximation) are in my course. When presenting Dogmatics, one must and must always remember that dogmas are truths given in Revelation, and not sought-after truths, and accordingly, every dogmatist gives preference to precisely the very method by which my course is presented. Some exception is the course of Rev. Sylvester, but also the method of Rev. Sylvester's method cannot be called synthetic in the strict sense; in my opinion, the name historical method is more applicable to it. ” At the end of the debate, several comments about them were made by the ordinary professor in the Department of Introduction to the Theological Sciences S.S. Glagolev. S. S. Glagolev (addressing the disputant). For some reason you kept silent about which Delitzsch you mention in your work. Of the theological writers with this name, two are most famous: Delitzsch, a church apologist of the sixties, and Delitzsch, a famous researcher of the Bible and Babylon (who attracted attention from the eighties). A. D. Belyaev. For my part, I objected to the fact that the names of Delitzsch and Schmidt were placed among the dogmatists; neither one nor the other belonged to dogmatists in the strict sense. S.S.G. It was objected to you that you use the expression μὴ ὄντα to designate unconditional non-existence and relative non-existence. There is no big mistake on your part. And in ancient times this expression had a double meaning. Take Plato's philosophy, μὴ ὄν in it means matter. You are close to the truth in your definition of Lenormand’s direction. From the dogmatic side, he recognized the divine inspiration of the Holy Books, but he cannot be counted among the allegorists of the type to which, for example, Clement of Alexandria belonged. He's more of a mythologist. For example, Cain and Abel, according to his understanding, are types. You had to listen to many objections regarding your attitude towards Darwinism. There is still no scientific data on the question of the origin of life. Questions about the original individuals are controversial issues. In addition to his published works, Darwin left correspondence in which he did not share everything he said in print. At present, perhaps, we can say that Darwinism in its pure form is living out its days, but this does not detract from the camp of defenders of the natural origin of life. His hypothesis has great application to various scientific constructions. Now, however, new theories of the natural origin of species are emerging, but their representatives cannot be called opponents of Darwinism in the strict sense. A.D.B. But it cannot be denied that there is a large camp of opponents of Darwinism. I remember an article by Menzbier from Russian Thought not too long ago. It even directly states that in some countries, for example, Italy, Darwinism is still not widespread. I also remember two reports read at the congress of naturalists at the Technical Museum: Timiryazev and An. Nick. Beketova. The latter, in his report, presenting experimental data on the adaptation of plants, so to speak, to the rules of life, for example, to the sun, one might say, even treated Darwin's conclusions regarding such an adaptation ironically. S. S. G. In my opinion, the merit of your books, O. Archpriest, may also lie in the fact that you sufficiently used existing Russian theological literature. You paid her due tribute. Our theologians in most cases have a separate attitude towards each other. A. D. B. I don’t think that introducing elements alien to it into the field of dogma, given, for example, moral theology, could give it special vitality. An example of this is Anthony. It is safer for a dogmatist to follow the paths that have long been indicated. Inventing your own special systems for constructing Dogmatic Theology is a very difficult task even for great minds. Take Schleiermacher, for example: his plans for constructing a symbolic Dogmatics ended in rationalism for him. The same can be said about Ritschl, whose constructions turned out to be very far from the Holy Scriptures. It is more convenient to use new systems in sermons and special monographs, but not in complete and detailed courses. In the latter, this is a very difficult and unsafe matter. You might be interested in: