IV. Разделение церковной истории на периоды

Church history usually begins by indicating those sections into which the facts naturally fall apart. But there are disagreements between historians regarding the indication of the departments themselves. Strictly speaking, any division into periods is forced in the course of historical events and has only didactic significance. Social life is such a complex phenomenon that a division that is successful in relation to one order of phenomena turns out to be inconvenient in relation to another: an event that constitutes an era in one order of phenomena has very little significance in another. In addition, the division is further complicated by the fact that for many aspects of church life it is impossible to indicate the events that determine them. Therefore, we have to not look for nodes that cover all aspects of church life, but take some average values. Such values ​​can be found: 1) in the internal side of the life of the church, and 2) in the external, in the history of the relationship between the church and the state. If satisfactory nodes can be shown in relation to these sides, then the division can be carried out successfully. If we accept that the basis for division into periods should be an event that introduces new beginnings into life, then all history can be divided into only two sections: before the Reformation and after the Reformation, into ancient-middle and modern history. The only event that can be said to have introduced a new principle into church-historical life is the emergence of Protestantism. In place of the ancient church system, which relied on the subordination of believers to the church and salvation through church institutions (sacraments), the Reformation puts believers in a direct relationship with Christ and faith here takes first place; the concept of “church” recedes into the background, it becomes possible to talk about the invisible church; the concept of the church is simplified, the hierarchy is completely destroyed: it is ridiculous to compare Protestant pastors with Orthodox or Catholic priests, since they are nothing more or less than theologically educated laymen, elected by the parish or community (Gemeinde) without any church initiations. Rothe, for example, took advantage of this meaning of the Reformation and, according to this, divided church history into a) Catholic until 1517 and b) Protestant. But the Reformation, which had such enormous significance for the West, is not such an event for the East. Moreover, with such a division, an extremely long first period is obtained, and we need some point for rest: a division into periods of the history of the Catholic Church itself is required. To select other departments on which to focus attention, they usually use the division of history into three periods: ancient, medieval and modern. But there is still a dispute regarding the boundaries of these periods. Where ancient history ends and middle history begins is indicated by various points. Hasse distinguishes periods of church life from the point of view of the relationship of the church to the state and divides history into a) the pre-Constantinian period, when the church lived its own internal life, b) the post-Constantinian period, when the church alienated itself from itself and became in a certain relationship with the state, and c) the Protestant period, when the church again returned to itself. But usually the limit for the first period is set further, and the Constantinian era is considered only a boundary dividing this period into two halves. Some (Neander, Schaff, Baur, Müller, Loofs, Kraus) consider the reign of Gregory V. of Rome from 590 to 604 to be such a limit; others (Kurtz, Zöckler, Alzog, Hergenrother, Funk) – Trullo Council of 692; Gieseler – the beginning of iconoclastic disputes (726); others take the era of Charles V. as such a milestone, focusing here either on 800 (the coronation of Charles, Hase) or on 814 (†, Guericke). Möller believes that between the ancient and middle ages there is an intervening period between Gregory V. and 800, the year of the coronation of Charlemagne. The division according to the forms of education of Christian life (Bildungsformen) is very common. Thus, the Catholic scientist Möhler proposes the following division: a) the first period - the church in the classical Greco-Roman form - before John of Damascus and Boniface, the enlightener of the Germanic tribes; b) the second - in the German form from the 8th to the 15th centuries. and c) the third - from the end of the 15th century to the present day in the form of Greco-Roman and Germanic, in a form that represents a synthesis (Verschmelzung). Zöckler also divides history into three periods: a) ancient, where life takes place in the ancient (Greco-Roman) form, b) middle, where life goes partly in the Byzantine, partly in the German-Roman form, and c) new - the church in the modern order of life. At the same time, he divides the ancient period into two periods: 1) ecclesia pressa or the time of persecution, the period of martyrs (100–323), and 2) the state church, the time of triadological and Christological disputes, (323–692). The Middle Ages are already divided into three periods: 1) the medieval transformation (Vorbildung) (692–1085), until the death of Gregory VII, 2) the flourishing of the Middle Ages, (1085–1303), from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII (Ausbildung, education), and 3) the period of decline (1303–1517), from Boniface VIII to the Reformation, the time of the decomposition of medieval forms and the birth of new forms (Durchbildung). The new period begins with the nailed theses (1517) and is divided into three periods: 1) before the Peace of Westphalia (1517–1648), the founding (Grundlegung) of the reformation, 2) 1648–1814, a time of transition, self-deepening and spiritualization of the reformation and 3) the period from 1814 – the time of the struggle against internal anti-Christianity and energetic (missionary) action on the outside. Kurtz distinguishes two phases in the development of Christianity: A) the development of church life in the ancient classical form and B) in the Germanic form. The first (A) is brought up to 1453 and is divided into three periods: 1) up to 323, 2) from 323 to 692 and 3) from 692 to 1453. Second (B), from the 4th century. to the present day, is divided into two departments with particular divisions: a) the church in the medieval German form, until 1517, and b) the church in the modern German form. The Kurtz scheme can be represented as follows: Thus, divisions 1,2,3 B here run parallel to divisions 2,3 A. Such a division obviously does not represent a real correct division. Thus, the question of the beginning of the middle period is so controversial that Kurtz is inclined to recognize two parallel simultaneous currents: one belonging to the ancient period, the other to the middle (respective to the new). This idea is natural and fair, but for the architectonics of divisions it is extremely inconvenient, almost resembling a renunciation of separation by periods. In fact, with the indicated distinction between the church in the forms of classical and non-classical life, i.e. Greco-Roman and Romano-Germanic life, the question arises from when to consider the onset of new non-classical forms. The appearance of the Romano-Germanic peoples is very early: the year 378 loudly declares the existence of the Germanic peoples - the Goths. Meanwhile, some historians dispute this point, arguing that it is necessary to conduct the first period in classical forms until the fall of the Roman Empire, others - until the Council of Chalcedon. But it can hardly be admitted that the German people had already created a special form, which was supposed to replace the classical form. The division before the Council of Chalcedon also turned out to be unsuccessful. The IV Ecumenical Council, like the Nicene Council, had its continuation, after it there were disputes about its meaning, and the issue itself was finally resolved at the VI Ecumenical Council, which can be compared with the II. Drawing a boundary between two periods based on the change from classical to Romano-Germanic forms is not easy for the West either. There is nothing to say about the east, because the empire imagined that it was the empire of the Romans. From the point of view of Western historians, it is quite understandable to put forward the conversion of the Romano-Germanic peoples to Christianity. But it must indicate an event that would be significant for both the east and the west, and would constitute the boundary between the I and II periods. An attempt to understand the issue of dividing church history into periods was made in 1887 by the Protestant pastor Wolff (Zur Zeittheilung der Kirchengeschichte in Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben 1887). He makes a demand in relation to the eras that, if they do not represent new principles, then at least they are taken from the inner life itself, not from the external, and represent its progressive phenomena, but not at all regressive; they must therefore represent positive quantities, not negative ones. But this is the position that the principle of division should not be a fact external to the church, but an event in the life of the church itself, and, moreover, one in which the church enters a new stage of its development (a moment of progress), which is much more likely to be negative, like a protest against false rubrics, than positive. From the Protestant point of view, the Reformation, of course, is good and progress; a very major internal event in church life - the reformation will be from every other point of view. In the eyes of a Protestant, the positive moment in the Reformation (a new stage) is stronger than the negative one (division, rupture of the Western Church); It is natural for a Protestant to imagine that the Roman Catholic half of the Western Catholic world was unable to progress, fell behind and fell away. But from this point of view it is not so easy for a Protestant to motivate the beginning of the middle period. Rejecting such milestones as 800 or 813 (a narrow political moment), as the activity of Boniface (at this moment it is strange to talk about the German form of education; and besides, Boniface, enslaving the Germans to Rome, was precisely against this special form), even in general as a change from the ancient form of education to the Germano-Roman (for a) Bildungsform is by its very nature a product of culture, and not a fact of internal church life, and b) in the Middle Ages intelligent people imagined themselves to be the true successors of the classical form of education, looked at Aristotle as a praecursor Christi in naturalibus, and had no intention of creating a new form of education), Wolff takes the year 858 as the milestone, the accession to the throne of Pope Nicholas I, for “the papacy is undoubtedly the dominant force in the Middle Ages, determining the course of development,” “the focal point of church development,” and Nicholas I is with strongly expressed the makings of a medieval pope (his references to false Isidore's decretals). Thus, the division is based on the division of churches. But this is a negative point, and even admitting that the Eastern Church was not able to bear the “new principle” (the emerging medieval papism), fell behind and fell away, it is still not easy for a Protestant to point out a positive moment, the truly progressive side of the fact, since the Reformation itself consists precisely in a negative attitude towards this “new principle” and, therefore, justifies the Eastern Church: however, the beginning of further divisions are taken from the life of the Western Church and the Eastern Church is ignored 92. Thus, instead of the logical beginning of the division being presented, what we get is a simple triumph of an exclusively Western point of view. And this is evidence that the attempt to create a truly church-universal division failed. We have to put forward the beginning of the division: a) more modest (logically), but b) eastern in point of view, a) The basis of the division may be an external (political) and negative in its meaning, but a fact of undoubted importance, the consequences of which were reflected in the subsequent life of the church. Therefore, the division of churches - without any painting of it with positive, progressive tones - can be put as a determinant of the middle period, b) From the Eastern point of view, the choice has to be made between two separations from the church: aa) the falling away from the Eastern Church of the Monophysites and bb) the falling away of the Western Church from the Eastern. The seriousness of this second fact (bb) cannot be disputed. 1) Having fallen away from catholic unity, the Monophysites prepared for themselves the wretched position in which they find themselves today. 2) This apostasy weakened the Eastern Christian world, which so needed to concentrate its forces to repel the external enemy (Islam). But 3) after their apostasy, the Monophysites did not declare themselves to be particularly original in their historical life, and this, of course, weakens the significance of the very fact of their separation from the point of view of historical science. On the contrary, 1) it was precisely after the apostasy that the Western Church expressed with all clarity the features of its historical life. 2) The apostasy was very important in its consequences for the Western Church: it was now that the Latin patriarchate, not moderated in its aspirations by the authority of the Eastern patriarchs, developed into an ecclesiastical monarchy - the papacy, and the best representatives of the Western Church lost the moral support that they had previously found in church communion with like-minded members of the Eastern Church (cf. communication between Dominic, Patriarch of the city, and Peter, Patriarch of Antioch in 1054). 3) The falling away of the Western Church was very important in its consequences for the Eastern Church. This division is all the more sad the less motivated it was. The Monophysite Church is separated from us by heresy, while the Western Church is separated only by a special (papal, before the Vatican Council) system (since the judgment about the Filioque fluctuates). And, however, the union attempts of the Comnenos and Palaiologos remained fruitless, and such facts as the Latin Empire in Constantinople from 1204 and the Turkish from 1453 - this fruit and indicator of the indifference or hostility of the Western Christian world to the Orthodox East, must be attributed to the consequences of 1054, and clearly speak of the severity of this event for the Eastern Church. So, the break between the Western Church and the Eastern (bb) is an event of greater historical significance than the rejection of the Monophysites (aa). The first should set the boundary between the ancient and middle periods, and not the second. But recognizing on this basis the decisive importance of the separation of the Eastern and Western churches, we cannot dispute that from a scientific and Eastern point of view, the fact of the separation of the Monophysites from Catholicism, namely the era of the VI Ecumenical Council, can be successfully placed as an era between the two periods. If the first milestone is important in relation to the future, then the second has value from the point of view of the past, since it closes the cycle of events. And above all, this boundary constitutes the boundary of a special stage in the history of dogma. There is a well-known historical parallelism between the triadological and Christological stages. The first ecumenical council (325) resolves the triadological question, the second (381) completes it after a long series of historical fluctuations during the intermediate time (between 325 and 381) and, having established the irrevocably all-embracing significance of the Nicene faith, eliminates the very interest in the Arian question. Historically, Arianism emerged as a faction that in the future was destined to disappear into the bosom of Catholicism, and the triadological dispute was replaced by the already mature Christological one (Apollinarianism). In the Christological stage, the IV Ecumenical Council (451) is the same historically as the first in the triadological stage, and the VI (680–681) is the same as the second. The Council of Chalcedon resolved the Christological question, the Council of Constantinople III completed it, after a long series of hesitations, compromises, union experiments with the Monophysites, and, having established the irrevocable authority of the Chalcedonian δρος ("definition of faith") and explaining its meaning against the Monophysite tricks, established the basis for subsequent relations with the Monophysites. The dogma of the God-man was clarified; the reaction under Philippi (711–715) was a completely ephemeral phenomenon. On the basis of the VI Ecumenical Council, a summary of the experiments in theological thought was summed up in ’Έκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως (“Accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith”) by St. John of Damascus. The subsequent ecumenical council (787) no longer dealt with the Christological question. The Monophysite churches have not ceased to exist to this day, but by 681 they were historically revealed - in their hardened, established alienation from Catholicism; They have already lived through the time of greatest dogmatic energy. But this landmark character of the VI Ecumenical Council lies not only in the dogmatic area: in other respects, too, the church in 681 appeared with certain features of the future in its face. – Start with its external distribution. If by 451, under the pressure of the Germanic Aryanized force, both the Greco-Roman Empire and the Catholic Church were limited in scope (under the yoke of the Vandals the power of the glorious African Church of Cyprian and Augustine was broken), then this 451, the year of the Council of Chalcedon, was also the year of the Catalaunian battle, when hordes of barbarians were driven back by the troops of the empire; and the council took place after this political success, when even an expansion of the church’s boundaries could be in prospect. On the contrary, the reign of Heraclius marks the beginning of Monothelitism, this serious last experience of union with the broken-off Monophysite region, and the year 662, the era of the Hijra, the first glow of Islam, is a harbinger that a fresh Arab nation will take the place of the Persian state broken by Heraclius. By 681, the fact of the Arab conquests had become sufficiently clear: the Muhammadans had established a strong foothold in Egypt and Syria; under the yoke of these conquerors, normal church life in these ancient Christian territories was suppressed; at the VI Ecumenical Council, the patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem appear as sedes vacantes (“empty chairs”), i.e., as churches that have temporarily ceased their normal historical existence; and the Patriarchate of Antioch is replaced artificially (the Patriarch of Antioch is elected, ordained, and lives in Constantinople), and, in fact, not a single bishop came from Syria (with the exception of Cilicia and Isauria), as well as from the patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem. Thus, the Eastern Church at the VI Ecumenical Council is limited within the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Constantinople alone - a fact that is important for the internal structure of the Eastern Church. On the other hand, the Western Church is here - in a significant part - outside the Greco-Roman Empire, as the church among the Germanic peoples, it gravitates towards its center - the Roman Pope and shares the pretentious views of this latter, at the council for the first time heard ecumenically (the Roman Church “nunquam a via veritatis in quarlibet erroris parte defluxa est”) and received an ecumenical response (in the form of an anathema Pope Honorius as a champion of heresy). These are also shadows of the future. However, the VI Ecumenical Council also provided (indirect) assistance to Roman influence: on the basis of this council, the reunification of the churches of northern Italy with Rome took place (700), which had broken off communication during the “three chapters” dispute. Consequently, 681 could serve as the era for the beginning of the medieval period. However, the accession of Photius to the See of Constantinople (857) and the subsequent division of the Eastern and Western churches puts us even more directly before the force that set the tone in the Middle Ages - before a loss even more serious than the deposition of the Monophysites. Here there is a choice between the division of churches under Photius and Kerullarius. As is known, Smirnov’s textbook adheres to the latest date. But it cannot be said that it is true. Divisions of churches in the 11th century. The Byzantine emperor and the Christians of that time did not want it, and if it happened, it was only because it was ripe in advance. Not only in the East, but also in the West did not want to recognize this division: Western theologians, explaining the presence of the words: “κύριε ἐλέησον, Χριστὲ ἐλέησον” (“Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy”) in their rites, argued that the Greeks and Latins adhere to the same Orthodox faith. Meanwhile, if you look at the previous period, it turns out that the communication between the Western and Eastern churches was not strong. Under Cerullarius, the name of the pope was not mentioned during the service, and if communication took place, it was caused by the selfishness of Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh. Having failed in his intervention in church affairs, he threatened to appeal to the pope. But no one in the east wanted to recognize the authority of this latter; and Rome itself, which at that time was under the dominion of the so-called pornocracy, could not interfere in the affairs of the East; he had no time for it. If they say that the Western Church, not restrained by an alliance with the East, quickly took the path of deviation, then there is a significant amount of misinterpretation. While the reign of pornocracy continued in Rome, the popes had no time for reform, and only from the time of Leo IX a series of popes began so energetic that they, having secured the consent of the German rulers, and then, when this became inconvenient, entered into a fight with them, undertook a series of reforms in church life. Finally, it is enough to say that many faults were found behind the Latin Church under Cerullarius, but the main accusation - the doctrine of the Holy Spirit - was missed, and this aspect is inconvenient for recognizing the significance of the era for the time of Michael Cerullarius. It’s a different matter if we raise the question of the division of churches under Patriarch Photius. Here we are dealing with an era in the proper sense. Here a new, solid principle is introduced, defining the nature of relations between East and West. In all the clashes that happened before Photius, the Western Church showed enthusiasm, but the Eastern Church did not always answer “the madman according to his madness” or even did not answer at all. True, even Basil the Great thought of giving a proper response to the West in the person of Pope Damasus to his absurd claims, but out of Christian peace he did not fulfill his intention. On the Latin side there were demands and an authoritative tone, and on the Greek side there were bows. Out of misunderstood brotherly love, they thought they would preserve both truth and peace. The truth was observed, but the world was false. It always turned out that the truth was on the Roman side. If you look not at the facts, but at the words, then it seems as if the popes were unlimited rulers in the church and their power over the east was overwhelming. This spirit of evasiveness characterizes the general attitude of the East towards Pope Damasus. Celestine took an inappropriate tone at the Third Ecumenical Council, but received a polite rebuff. The Council of Chalcedon presents a more characteristic phenomenon. The question of granting certain rights to the Patriarch of Constantinople has already ripened. Although these rights were granted by the Second Ecumenical Council, the popes previously ignored this. When this issue was raised, the legates staged a whole parade with slamming doors, going out, and so on. Should have read dad's instructions. This instruction was firm, but ridiculous. If the fathers of the cathedral had not been a reed shaken by the wind, but had been like the African fathers, the matter would have ended in the triumph of truth. They would have given a fight that would have remained in the memory of the popes for a long time. In the end, the east stood its ground, but in the messages to the west it was not stated that the matter of the rights of Constantinople was, in fact, an eastern matter, and did not concern the pope at all. On the contrary, it was written that the legates made a mistake by protesting at the council against canon 28, since the apostolic see, of course, would be happy with the elevation of the Constantinople one, and the matter, in general, was left to the discretion of the pope, and the discretion of the pope was that the Patriarch of Constantinople should not be elevated. The further history of relations between Rome and Constantinople is of the same nature. Here the Acacian schism comes into play. The history of this schism ended, as we know, with the fact that the Eastern Church condemned the heresy without the intervention of the Roman Church and the latter restored communion with the East. The triumph of Orthodoxy had already taken place when the Roman legates came to celebrate this Orthodoxy (519). What have they achieved? - humiliation of Constantinople. They demanded that the Orthodox fighters, Euthymius and others, be deleted from the diptychs, on the grounds that they succeeded Akakios, and the Greeks agreed, but again in their own way. The fathers were crossed out from the diptychs, but were included in the martyrologies, in the calendar, and are now honored as saints. And it has always been like this. When any demands were made from the west, the Greeks did not think about fighting back, but compromised. Adrian also distinguished himself at the VII Ecumenical Council. He raised a cry, demanding the return of the patrimonies taken from Rome by the emperor, and also raised the old question regarding the title οἰκουμενικός (“ecumenical”), but the Greeks did not object here either, but omitted in the Greek translation of Hadrian’s epistles places with inconvenient requirements for reading at the council. Photius proved that he was created from a different metal. He would have been more right with history if he had immediately taken the right tone, but at first he also adhered to traditional politics. But when Pope Nicholas took a firm position and, moreover, from his point of view, the right one, when he called Photius λαϊκός (“layman”) and νεόφυτος (“convert”), Photius realized that now was not the time to think about compromises, but it was time to think about the struggle. True, Photius ascended the throne during the life of Ignatius. But this circumstance could not serve as an obstacle. Ignatius could retroactively declare a voluntary refusal. But another question is when Photius was called a layman and a convert. Even at the seventh ecumenical council against Tarasius, the Roman legates had the courage to object that he was immediately elevated from a layman to patriarch. The history of the Eastern Church was such that such facts were encountered more often in it than in the West, and it had to defend this practice, but the Eastern gave in, and, at the insistence of the West, a rule was made not to install patriarchs from the laity. But this rule was circumvented. So, for example, Nikifor was from the laity. Under Photius, this question was raised point blank. From a canonical point of view, Photius could not answer the pope; then he himself went on the offensive and raised the question of the incorrectness of the Roman teaching about the Holy Spirit. The bold manner of Photius and his rule in general and the attempt to divide the churches are characterized by the fundamental formulation of the issue - namely, the Greek church goes on the offensive, responds not with bows, but with blows, and this made a strong impression in the West. Thus, the era of Photius must be considered a turning point in the nature of relations between East and West. The right to see here the beginning of the medieval period lies in the fact that the change in the position of the Eastern Church in relation to the Western, previously defensive, from now on offensive, took place under Photius (867), and the dogmatic difference (Filioque), as a motive for division, was indicated by Photius. True, the division with the West itself did not take place at this time, but the sides had already been determined by which we can conclude that church life would now flow within new boundaries. That the polemical tone soon changed did not change the matter at all: after Pope John VIII, various nonentities ascended the papal throne, and when a worthy person, Leo IX, ascended, a final break occurred between the churches. If we raise the question of the external boundaries of churches, then this question has already been clarified. Volume of the Eastern Church by the time Photius was finally determined by the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But at the same time, a characteristic circumstance is that this time was the time of development of the missionary activity of Saints Cyril and Methodius, which represents, as it were, a way out of the Eastern Church from the cramped position of the Greek patriarchy. On dogmatic grounds, as has already been said, the sixth ecumenical council ends a long Christological dispute - the dogma of two wills was defined. Then comes the iconoclastic era, which apparently has no connection with the previous era, and the question arises: should the sixth ecumenical council not be considered ending the ancient era? However, the seventh ecumenical council must belong to an ancient era. But by the time of Photius, the question of icon veneration should be considered completed, and from this side, church life by the time of Photius had received a completely definite physiognomy. Then, the fifth-sixth Council of Trulla in its rules on discipline and rituals was of great importance in the history of the Greek church; There is a noticeable tendency in them to isolate themselves from other churches in terms of ritual, and to look at other people’s rituals as something reprehensible. Here, at the Council of Trullo, several blows were dealt to the rites of the Armenian Church and the Roman Church was affected; there was an attempt to raise the issue of celibacy. Thus, by the time of the VII Ecumenical Council, the relations between the Greek Church and the West in this regard were sufficiently defined. The case of Photius in itself, however, is not so radical as to be considered revolutionary. If we take into account how the ancient church lived in communication with the West, we will see that this communication was rather fictitious: there were frequent interruptions in the world and there was little communication. Thus, the division of churches did not bring anything new, radical; the Greek Church continued to live, as it had lived before, a completely unique life; only now she received the moral right to completely ignore all the claims of the popes. In addition to disagreement about the beginning of the second (medieval) period, scientists do not agree among themselves on the year in which the second section of the first period begins. In essence, the division of the first period into half-periods is clear. In order not to notice that the reign of Constantine V. constitutes an era in church history, one must be born blind. The question can only concern a more precise indication of the year within the time of Constantine the Great. The choice has to be made between 311, 313, 323 and 325. They usually stop at 313, the time of the Edict of Milan. 323, the year of Constantine's victory over Licinius and the establishment of Constantine's autocracy, is indicated (Kurtz, Zöckler) because only now the church actually ceased to be an ecclesia pressa, which it remained in the east under the regime of Licinius. But under Julian it was again ecclesia pressa; therefore, the year 323 is not the end from this point of view. 311, when the edict of Galerius on toleration was issued, this, of course, was the beginning of the end, but toleration was given rather craftily, de invita voluntate, and could be taken back without repealing the edict of 311. 313, the time of the Edict of Milan, is the true principled end for the position of the ecclesia pressa, and therefore the proper beginning for the second half of the first period. However, voices that are not without theoretical foundations are raised against such a division. In any case, the Edict of Milan lies on the periphery of church life, relating only to the relationship of the church to the state and having only a passing significance. In the last years of his reign, Constantine V. in his relations with the church did not stand on the basis of the Edict of Milan. The latter provided only freedom of religion, but did not declare Christianity the state religion. But one can hardly doubt that Constantine V. left his children an empire with Christianity as the dominant religion. Therefore, some believe that the end of the first half-cycle is the year 325, the year of the first ecumenical council (Wolff). The year 325 is a strictly ecclesiastical date, however, in terms of the content of the dogmatic dispute, it falls in the middle of the triadological stage, and viewed from the outside (the first ecumenical council), it depends on one of the previous (political) dates. The First Ecumenical Council has not only ecclesiastical, but also state significance; the church knows itself only as ἐκκλησία καθολική (“catholic church”), and not as οἰκουμένη (orbis terrarum, “universe”). He, the first of the ecumenical councils, begins an era, but if we keep in mind his decisions, then he only continues what was given by the previous time. The dogmatic doctrine of the Holy Trinity was considered even in the period before Constantine V., and the council of 325 said its word on this dogmatic issue in such a way that the Nicene answer cannot be considered final. The fact that our church has not the Nicene, but the so-called Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol, shows that a new edition of the same presentation was required in order for this very question to receive its final dogmatic outline. Thus, the proposed date is no more convenient than the date of 313. I do not consider the Apostolic period to be related to church history. One can talk about it either a lot in order to properly illuminate every side and every issue in this period of Christian history, or very little. In the first case, the uniformity and proportionality in the presentation of history will be violated; in the second, the result will be a generally unsatisfactory and unclear presentation of the most important events of our history. Moreover, it must be admitted that Holy Scripture sometimes illuminates the historical situation very little: in order, for example, to find out the position of such small units as the Colossians, there is not sufficient data in Holy Scripture; to be content with general conclusions alone would mean giving an overly compressed and colorless presentation. Metropolitan Philaret attributes this period to biblical history, and this is true for many reasons. Church history already has a lot of its own material. In addition, biblical history has its source in inspired books, the contents of which we believe; As a result, we are deprived of the right to conduct a critical study of the sources of biblical history with the same freedom as the study of the sources of later history. The subject of biblical history is very special and has a special meaning. The Apostolic period is particularly different from those that deal with church history in that the issues dealt with during this period were of fundamental importance, and their solution was irrevocable. We are so accustomed to taking the outcome of these decisions for granted that the fundamental importance of the issues themselves escapes our attention. For example, the decision of the Apostolic Council on the question of whether Jewish rites are obligatory or not as applied to pagan Christians answers the question posed by history about whether Christianity should be an independent world religion or join the Jewish sects. On the other hand, those points in which the apostolic period is adjacent to other church periods can be understood only by illuminating church history. For example, no matter how much we try, on the basis of Holy Scripture alone, to restore the image of the hierarchical structure of the Apostolic Church, we must certainly take into account the results presented by subsequent church history, and contemplate it in its light. Thus, we take the outline for this work from church history, and not vice versa. Protestant scholars who do not want to make this borrowing represent the administrative hierarchical structure of the apostolic time - according to their own arbitrariness. This makes it clear why New Testament history takes up a third of the course in Protestant church history textbooks. Thus, the apostolic period seems to be very important, so that if we were to study it, we would have to study it for a very long time. Then, the apostolic period is closely connected with biblical history, for it uses one source, excluding any proofreading, since here we are faced with questions that the apostles themselves put an end to forever. That is why, when presenting church history, we consider it our task to present only those events that do not take place in the Bible. Divisions of the second period: 1) 858–1048, from Nicholas I to Leo IX; 2) 1048–1378, from Leo IX, under which the division of churches finally took place, until the beginning of the great papal schism, the rise of the papacy, and 3) 1378–1517, the decline of the papacy. Divisions of the third period: 1) 1517–1648, establishment (Ausbildung) of the Evangelical Church until the final separation of the Roman and Evangelical Churches; 2) 1648–1817, from the Peace of Westphalia to the Prussian Union, weakening (Nachlassen) of religious consciousness; 3) 1818, awakening (Wiedererwachung) of church faith. And the general characteristics of the periods: I – “period of the united church”, II – “period of the papacy”, III – “period of the evangelical church”.