IV том.

In the fourth volume I will dwell in detail on only a few, albeit few, paragraphs. § 141. Conditions for the validity and efficacy of the sacraments (pp. 32–55). The whole page 35 and the beginning of the 36th are copied verbatim from the article by prof. N.Ya. Belyaev-Pelagian principle in Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Interlocutor, 1871, vol. 1, p. 232–235. Actually, most of Belyaev’s works here are extracts from the book of Janus the Pope and the Council. The words of Janus Fr. Malinovsky does not highlight anything, but puts (in 1 note on page 36) a quote: “Janus. The Pope and the Cathedral. 76–77. 311 pages." And then: "See. about the same thing from prof. Belyaeva N.Ya. "As if Fr. Malinovsky uses the book of Janus, and not the article of Prof. Belyaev, from whom he borrows both the words of Janus and a quote from his book! In addition, after the quote from Belyaev and also from Sokolov, the note continues. It turns out that this entire rather extensive note was taken again from Prof. Belyaev, p. 234 note. And then more than three pages were copied from Prof.’s book. V.A. Sokolova - Epiphany of the Anglican Episcopal Church, Sergiev Posad 1897. Compare. Page 36 Malinovsky and 269. 273. 272. Sokolov. Page 37 Malinovsky and pp. 275–277 Sokolov. Page 38 Malinovsky and p. 277. 278. 282 Sokolov. Page 39 Malinovsky and p. 288 Sokolov. Extensive approx. 2nd on page 39, see Sokolov, pp. 272 ​​and 271 approx. Copying is almost always literal, but sometimes Sokolov’s text is placed in Malinovsky’s notes, and Sokolov’s notes appear in the text of Fr. Malinovsky. Prof. Sokolov's book is quoted twice on these pages, but very carefully. On page 36 a small 2nd note is borrowed from it. At the end of the note there is a quote: “See. at Prof. Sokolova. Hierarchy English churches. 372–373 pages,” although Sokolov’s book is only 362 pages (Need pp. 272–273). It is clear that the quotation refers only to one note, which, by the way, is borrowed and not literally. On page 38 in the text we read: “The opinion that for the validity of the sacrament not only external, but also internal intention is necessary, is recognized as dominant in the Western Church.” Here is a footnote and in note 2 a quote from Sokolov. It follows that only this last thought was taken from Sokolov, and yet two pages were almost literally copied from Sokolov’s book above. Page 41–43 were partly copied, and partly compiled according to Macarius (See §245, vol. V, p. 58.59 note 44.60.59 note 143.59–60.61). Quotes in the 3rd note on page 43 are transferred from Macarius (vol. V, p. 58 note 141, p. 60 note 149, p. 61 note 151); Only quotes from Augustine received an illiterate appearance. Note on page 46 borrowed from prof. Sokolov, p. 165 approx. 3. At the end of page 49 and at the beginning of the 50th o. Malinovsky from Prof. Belyaev’s article copies the words Mahrheineke (and not Marcheineke, as Father Malinovsky writes) and in note 1 notes where he takes these words from. But further from the same article the words of the Council of Trent, Prof.’s own reasoning are copied. Belyaev and the words of the Roman Catechism (in note 3), but there are no more quotes from the Orthodox Interlocutor (See 1871, vol. 1, pp. 226.227). § 143. Establishment of baptism (pp. 57–63). In this paragraph Fr. Malinovsky apparently can only own one page; the rest is almost always copied verbatim from the book by A. Almazov - History of the rites of baptism and confirmation. Kazan 1884. Srvp. Page 58 Malinovsky and pp. 7. 8. 9. from Almazov. According to Almazov, a note has also been compiled here, which is only provided with a quotation. Moreover, in the quote copied from Almazov on “Dukhovny Meadow” vm. p. 287 was placed on the 181st for some unknown reason. Page 59 all taken from Almazov, pp. 11–12. Note-Almazova page 11 note 1. About half of this page in Almazov is an extract from the dogmatics of Macarius (vol. 1V, pp. 101–102), but in Almazov the borrowing is precisely noted and provided with a quotation; O. Malinovsky does not quote either Macarius. nor on Almazov. The middle of page 60 is written out without a quote from Macarius, §202, volume IV, page 02, and then throughout the page there is a retelling and partly literal extract from Almazov, pp. 13–16. Almazov’s book is named (page 60 note), but is blocked by Smirnov’s article placed in front. An extensive, full-page excerpt from Tertullian (pp. 19–20) is taken from Almazov (pp. 19–20). Almazov quotes Karneev’s old translation (Part II, pp. 8–9) and cites in a note the original Latin text, to which Karneev’s translation, as made not from the original, but from a French translation, corresponds far from exactly. § 144. The visible side in the sacrament of baptism (pp. 63–77). Of the 14 pages of this paragraph, is there only one that has not been written off? On page 64 there are several extracts from the dogmatics of Macius, §203, volume IV, pp. 107.106.107–108; the end is copied from Almazov, p. 243. In the 1st note. The Latin quotation taken from Macarius is distorted: In Io h an. The quotes in the second note come from Macarius (vol. IV, p. 107 note 204–206). The third note is copied from Almazov’s book, pp. 243–244, whereby Erminians turned into Ermians. Almost the entire 65th page was copied from Almazov from pp. 20–22.28. The first small note was taken from him, in which there is a reference already to page 245 of Almazov’s book (and not exactly: you need pp. 244–245, note 8). The entire 66 pages copied from Almazov, pp. 283.284.285. 287. The note is also taken from Almazov’s text on pages 285 and 292. From myself, Fr. Malinovsky added only a few typos, among other things a distortion of Latin words, esp. vm. Lucifer-Inсifer. The entire 67 pages, with the exception of perhaps the small 3rd note, are taken from Almazov’s book, although not always verbatim. See page 287. 286. 287. 288. 289. Approx. 1st from page 288, and not only Almazov’s words, but also Binterim’s, carefully marked with quotation marks by Almazov, were passed off as their own. Note Almazov has the second one from page 286. Just as Almazov omitted a quotation to the biblical words about Naaman (2 Kings 14), so does Fr. Malinovsky. In addition, the Latin verbs imm egro, subm egro are written illiterately. Fr. himself Malinovsky in the 1st note. on the next page writes - guilty! – writes off: merg itamur. Almost the entire 68 pages are copied from Almazov’s book; only the excerpts from the holy fathers are shortened. See pages 289. 290. 289. 290.291. Quotes in the notes are also taken. Srvn. 1st-page 281 note 1; 2-edged 290 note 1. 2. 3; Z-e-289 note 4 (a mistake was made!); 4th-page 291 approx. 1. At the end of page 68, for some reason, Almazov’s translation from Clement of Alexandria changes for the worse: βαπτιζόμενοι being immersed; Almazov is correct: being immersed. Page The 69th is also copied exactly from Almazov, pp. 292.294.295.294.295.296, along with quotations in the notes. Srvn. lth – page 292 approx. 4–5, pp. 293 approx. and 3; 2nd-page 294 note 1; 3rd page 294 note 4; 4th – page 295 approx. 1; 5th-page 295 approx. 2: 6-os-page. 295 approx. 4 and p. 294 note 3. Page 70 entire retelling and partly an extract from Almazov, pp. 296.300.302 note 5.303. The copied first note is marked with a quotation, and the quotation in the note. 3 creates the appearance that only Herberstein’s news found in the text was taken from Almazov. Note 4 is taken from the text of Almazov’s book, pp. 303–304, and Almazov’s quotes below the line are included in the text of the note. At the end, Almazov's reduction was unsuccessful. It is said about the baptism of the martyrs Akindinus and Ignatius. Theodulus, Filimon and there is a quote (from Almazov) on the Chetya Menaion book. VI, part II. Of course, this does not talk about the baptism of all the martyrs listed. Almazov has more quotes: book. XI years 8 vol., book. XI years 105 rev. Page 71 has been completely written off, literally. See Almazov pp. 304–306. In the large 2nd note the words of St. Cyprian, which was undoubtedly taken from Almazov on page 304, because the abbreviations by ellipsis coincide, the inserted Latin words coincide, with the exception, of course, of a typo in Fr. Malinovsky: luti, need – loti. At the end of the long excerpt, Fr. Malinovsky sets the page on the Russian translation of the work of St. Cypriana. But are the Latin words inserted in the text taken from the Russian translation? Notes 3-e and 4 are taken from page 306 of Almazov’s book. Page 72 entire retelling and extract from Almazov, pp. 306,307,308.309,310,311. In the 1st note the words of St. John Chrysostom with a quotation from the St. Petersburg translation. Academy. But where did the inserted Greek words come from again? Of course, from page 306 of Almazov’s book. Quote in 2nd note: “See. about this from Almazov” comes after the literal extract. To page 73 cf. from Almazov's book p. 317. 318. 321. 320. 322. The middle of page 74 was copied from page 327 of Almazov. Half of page 75 is a set of patristic sayings from Almazov’s book, pp. 330.329–331, where the quotes come from: 1st note. see page 330 approx. 1; 2nd note see page 331 notes 1–2. The entire 76th page and part of the 77th to the end of the paragraph were copied from Metropolitan Macarius (vol. IV, pp. 110–113). Only to the distorted quotation from Photius (in 3 notes on p. 76) Fr. Malinovsky added a footnote to Macarius. But there is no doubt that even the words of St. John of Damascus came not from his works, but from the dogmatism of Macarius, since it is no coincidence that Fr. Malinovsky placed (on p. 77) the magototo exactly where it appears in Macarius!? In § 146 I will mention only unspecified extracts from the dogmatics of Macarius at the end of p. 85 and in note 2 (§ 205, vol. IV, pp. 125–126. The quote from Origen is distorted), in the second half of p. 90 and in the first page 91 (§ 205, vol. IV, pp. 128–130), from Philaret (§242, part 2, p. 140) the end of p. 92 and the beginning of the 93rd is written]. § 148. The concept of the sacrament of confirmation. The institution of the sacrament (pp. 100–104). Almost the entire 101st page is taken from Macarius (§ 208, vol. IV, pp. 137–138), and on the 102nd, much is taken from Sylvester (§ 135, vol. IV, pp. 389). Page 104 is written very close again to Macarius (§208, vol. IV, pp. 139–140). § 149. The visible side of the sacrament (pp. 104–112). In the middle of page 105 is a literal extract from Almazov’s book, page 380. Page. 106, with the exception of a few lines, is copied literally from Macarius (§209, vol. IV, pp. 146–147). Directly following this excerpt is a rather extensive literal borrowing from Almazov, p. 367. Almazov here sets out Smirnov’s opinion and places (p. 367 note 2) a quotation on the Proceedings of the Kyiv Academy of 1874. What does Fr. Malinovsky? Having copied from Almazov a statement of Smirnov’s thoughts, he takes (in note 1 on page 107) a quotation on the works of the Kyiv Academy, but no references to Almazov. The end of p. 107 is again written after Almazov (p. 369). Almazov (from the text on page 369) took the words of Tertullian in note 3 and accurately copied the Latin quote. Only here at Fr. Malinovsky had a visual error, and instead of: “s, XL” he wrote: “s. XI". Page The 108th is almost entirely taken from Almazov (See p. 370.403.402.382) and from Macarius (§209, vol. IV, p. 148). In note 2 the words Resolution. apostolic taken from Almazov, p. 399; He also has quotes in approx. 3rd (See p. 399 note 1.4; p. 400 note 1.3.4). In the first half of page 109 there are also borrowings from Almazov, pp. 383–384. Most of page 110 is a retelling from Almazov’s book, pages 398 and 406. Note. 1st compare Almazova, pp. 400.403. 405. The quote from Tergullian is just as deaf as Almazov’s, who in this case refers above. Note 2nd compare page 399–400. Note 3rd cf. p. 406; the same ellipses in the words of Cyril of Jerusalem. Words of the blessed Augustine on page 111 are copied from Almazov and added to them from Almazov is a Latin quotation, made illiterate in advance: In Io h ann. § 151 is written after Macarius (§ 210, vol. IV, pp. 154–155). § 152. Features of heterodox confessions in the doctrine of confirmation (pp. 117–131). Already note 3 on page 117 is copied from Macarius (§211, volume IV, page 157). Almost the entire page 118 with all excerpts and quotes was taken from Almazov. pp. 562–563. Note 2nd cf. page 562 note 4. Note 3rd comp. page 562 approx. 4 and p. 563 approx. 3. Note 4th svp. p.563 note 1. Note 1 is also borrowed from Almazov and is the only one marked with a quotation. With the exception of a few lines at the end, the entire 119th page is copied from pp. 565–566 of Almazov’s book; only quotes from real scientific ones, as Almazov describes them, are made general and not even accurate. At the end of note 5 (already on page 120) there is a quote from Almazov; after the quote there are three more lines and a quote from Pospelov’s book. But these lines and the quote from Pospelov were copied from the same Almazov (p. 272 ​​and note 3). Part of page 123 is compiled from “Accusatory Theology” by Archimandrite. Innocent (vol. II, pp. 196–197). Srvn. and the beginning of p. 124 from p. 187 archim. Innocent. Part p. 125—exposition of Innocent (vol. 2, p. 189, §143). The entire page 128 was compiled, and in some places written out literally, according to Innocent (vol. IV, pp. 258–261. §360). § 155. The visible side of the sacrament of euxapucmiu (pp. 138–151). Half of page 140 consists of two extracts - from the archbishop. Philaret (§260, vol. 2, p. 167) and from Metropolitan. Macarius (§214, vol.IV, pp. 170–171). Page 142 partly literally, partly in paraphrase, borrowed from §152 of “Accusatory Theology” by Archimandrite. Innocent (vol. 2, pp. 204–207). The end of page 146 and half of page 147 are taken from Macarius (§214, vol. IV, pp. 174–175). The first half of page 148 was literally copied from the archbishop. Philaret (§260, part 2, pp. 167–168). and the end is with the Metropolitan. Macarius (vol. IV, p. 177). Quotes in 1 note. collected from notes to pp. 177–178 Metropolitan. Macaria. § 156. The transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of euxapucmia (pp. 151–180). On page 154 there are several borrowings from Macarius (§215, vol.IV, p. 188. 190–191). Half of page 160 is a close-to-text retelling from §257 of the dogmatics of the archbishop. Philaret (Part 2, p. 163). The words of the VII Council of Veelen on 163 pages undoubtedly came from the dogma of Macarius (vol. IV, p. 201), although the archpriest is looking for pages from “the deeds of all” for them. cathedrals; the same as in Macarius, abbreviations, the same Greek words (Fr. Malinovsky did not find them in the Russian translation!?), the same typos in the word αίμα (αίμα, of course!). On page 164 about. Malinovsky begins to cite the testimonies of the Fathers of the Church and copies them from the book by A.L. Katansky - Dogmatic teaching on the seven church sacraments in the works of the most ancient fathers and writers of the Church up to and including Origen, St. Petersburg. 1877. The words of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (on pp. 164–165) are taken from pp. 69 and 72 of the book of Catansky: they coincide. translations, Greek words, italics. The translation equally deviates from the existing Russian translation of Archpriest. P. Preobrazhensky (See 2 ed. St. Petersburg. 1895, pp. 304–305). Words of St. Justin the Martyr (on pp. 165–166) taken from pp. 79–80. Amendments are also being made to the translation of Archpriest. P. Preobrazhensky (Moscow 1892, pp. 97–98 cf.), italics match. Not only the words of St. were copied. Justina, and a whole half-stranger and the reasoning of Katansky himself (from pp. 80.81.82.83), which are reproduced by Fr. Malinovsky even retaining italics. One and a half pages of words by St. Irenaeus (pp. 166–167) are also taken from Katansky (pp. 101–104), whose translation differs significantly from the translation of Archpriest P. Preobrazhensky (cf. ed. 2, Moscow 1900, p. 409). Italics and Greek words coincide, in which, however, Fr. Malinovsky makes gross typos, for example, όμολογι ϭ ε vm. όμολόγη ϭ ε . The words of St. John Chrysostom (on pp. 170–171) are reproduced, with slight changes, according to the article by V.Ya. Malakhov - Transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Theological Bulletin. 1898, vol.3. pp. 125–128. From here the words of St. are taken (on page 172). Ambrose of Milan with many inserted Latin sayings (Theological Bulletin, 1898, vol. 3, pp. 129–130). Quote taken in the 3rd note. on page 129, hardly all of it relates to the words given. Note 2 has been moved (with an error in the Latin word) from page 130, note 2. The words of Blessed Augustine (on pp. 172–173) are taken from page 131. Only in the first line on page 173 is a parenthesis placed in the wrong place, and a typo has been added to the quotation (in note 2). Excerpt from St. Grigory Dvoeslov (on p. 173) is cited from the same article, pp. 134.133; The 4th note is also retold from the same article (p. 133). Quotes in 1st note. on 174 pages, collected from the dogma of Macarius (vol. IV, p. 199 note 504), and Sylvester (vol. IV. p. 460 note 2 and p. 461 note 1). The second half of 175 pages was compiled according to Malakhov’s article (Theological Bulletin 1898, vol. 3, p. 122 note 2). The beginning of page 178 was copied from the same article (See Bog. Vest. 1898, vol. 3, pp. 115.119). § 191. The fruits of the sacrament of communion for those receiving communion (pp. 191–193). In this paragraph we note borrowings from Macarius. Srvn. Page 191 end and Macarius vol.IV, p. 224. Page 192 middle and Macarius vol.IV, p. 224. Page 193 beginning and Macarius vol.IV, p. 225. § 192. Eucharist as sacrifice (pp. 194–200). Here are borrowings from Macarius and Innocent “Accusatory Theology”. Srvn. Page 195 and Innocent §379, vol.IV, pp. 360–361. Page 197 middle and Innocent, ibid., p. 361. Page 198 beginning in Innocent, p. 363. Middle and end in Macarius §219, vol.IV, p. 228. Quotes in notes. from Macarius, p. 229 note 600. Page 199 and Macarius, p. 229. Note 2, see Macarius, pp. 229–230. Page 200 srvn. with Macarius. § 160. The essence and properties of the Eucharastic sacrifice (pp. 200–205). The paragraph begins with a retelling from Macarius §220, volume IV, pp. 232–233. From Macarius (§220, vol. IV, pp. 236.238.239) a retelling in the middle and at the end of p. 202 and before the middle of p. 203. Almost the entire 204 pages is a retelling and extract from Macarius (§220, vol. IV, pp. 234–235). Only the last three lines are placed in quotation marks and a reference is made to Macarius. Page 205 srv. with Macarius, vol.IV, p. 234. § 161. Features of the Roman Church in the doctrine of the Eucharist (pp. 205–220). Page 205 approx. srvn. from §148 “Revelation.” Bogosl." archim. Innocent, vol.2, pp. 199–200 approx. In the middle and at the end of page 206 are extracts from Innocent (vol. 2, pp. 203.208). In note 2, a quote from Innokenty is copied from a Russian book (see Innocent, p. 203, note 3). Half of page 207 is literally copied from Innokenpya §154, vol. 2, pp. 209–210. Note on page 208 cf. with Innocent vol.2, p. 213 ff. Note on pp. 210–211 copied from Innocent (§164, vol. 2, p. 254 note 1); although the work of Seredinsky is quoted in it, this quotation is also made according to Innocent. Start page 214 compare. with Innocent §168, vol. 2, p. 261, and in the middle with Macarius §218, vol. IV, p. 221. Quotes in the notes are collected in the same place. 1st note Macarius, page 221 note 577 and Innocent, vol. 2, page 266. 2nd note Macarius, page 221 note 578. Page 216 start compare. with Innocent, §172, vol.2, p. 274. The second half of p. 218 and the beginning of p. 219 compare. with Innocent, §177, vol.2, pp. 285–287. Quote in the 1st note from Innocent, p. 287 note 1. In §162 Protestant doctrine of the Eucharist - I would like to draw attention only to the large 2nd note on page 221. This note consists of the words “Formula of Consent”. O. Malinovsky hastens to warn the reader that he quotes the Formula of Concord “according to Mǘller’s edition”! But it is surprising that the translation of Father Proteus was published 50 years ago in Kazan, in the book “Accusatory Theology” by Archimandrite. Innocent, rector of the Kazan Theological Seminary, §367, vol.IV, p. 297 approx. O. Malinovsky opened page 663 of Müller’s work; from there he inserted, although not without sin, several Latin words. but he did not bother to check the translation. If only he had done his own translation, maybe. words: pronuntiatio ministri and would not have translated through “the ministry of the executor”, the simple “scd” through “on the contrary”, would not have inserted words that are not in the Latin text, and would not have omitted those that are (for example, a whole subordinate clause was omitted: quae Christus in priraa Coena locutus est), otherwise he would have translated the end of the excerpt somewhat. But no, the text is about. Malinovsky repeats the translation made 50 years ago - and not according to the “ed. Mǘller's"! – completely unchanged, even retaining one of the italics. The same is true in the 2nd note. on page 223, where the translation from the “Formula of Concord” again does not belong to Fr. Malinovsky, and Archimandrite Innocent (§384, vol. IV, p. 381). Unfortunately, the translation of Innocetius in this case is not only not accurate, but even incorrect, as can be seen from the following parallel: Elementa ilia seu visibiles species benedicti panis et vini adorare oportere. Quod autem Christus ipse, verus Deus et homo (qui in Coena sua, in legitimo nimirum ejus usn, vere et substantialiter praesens est) in spiritu et in veritate (quemadmodurn etiam omnibus aliis locis, praecipueque vero ubi ecclesia ipsius est congregate) adorari debeat, id nemo nisi arianus haereticiis negaverit. Muller. S. 674. The substances or visible forms of the blessed bread and wine should not be given divine worship, but rather Christ himself, the true God, who is truly and essentially present in the Eucharist during the lawful use of it, should be worshiped. Translation by Innokenty and Malinovsky. So in the 4th volume Fr. performs. Malinovsky’s promise given in the 3rd volume (p. 422 note 1) to make references to the symbolic books of the Lutherans “according to Mǘller’s edition! § 164. Establishment of the sacrament of repentance (pp. 231–237). The end of page 233 is a retelling, and the beginning of page 234 is a literal extract from the dogma of the archbishop. Philaret (§266, part 2, p. 179); where is the note on page 233 taken from (page 179 note 1). The second half of 234 pages is a retelling and partly a literal extract from Filaret (§266, part 2, p. 180). With the exception of just a few lines, the entire page 235 was copied literally again from Filaret (§266, part 2, p. 181. §267, part 2, p. 182). Moreover, here is not the testimony of the fathers, but the archbishop’s own reasoning. Philareta. The middle of page 236 is literally copied from the dogma of Metropolitan. Macarius (§222, vol.IV, p. 242), from whom we received an indication of John Chrysostom. Words of St. Ambrose of Milan was copied from Macarius (§223, vol.IV, p. 245), but the quotes in approx. 2nd transferred with an error: – delivered: “In Luc. V, 23" - instead of: "In Luc. V, 13" (see Macarius, p. 245 note 663). After the words of St. Ambrose again follows a retelling from the dogma of Philaret (§267, part 2, p. 183). Putting in approx. 2 Latin quotations on St. Ambrose, Fr. Malinovsky quotes Macarius, as if only these words were taken from Macarius in this paragraph. In fact, most of this paragraph was copied not so much from Macarius, but from the completely unmentioned archbishop. Philareta. §165. The visible side of the sacrament (pp. 237–246). The paragraph begins with a retelling from Filaret (§268, part 2, p. 189). The middle of page 238 is copied verbatim from the book by Alexander Zamyatin - Repentance and its significance for the moral life of a Christian 1904, p. 188. Quoted here by Fr. Malinovsky “The Path to Salvation” Bishop. Feofan, and the quote, of course, was transferred from Zamyatin (p. 188 note 2). The second half of p. 240 consists of the words of Archimandrite Innocent - “Accusatory Theology” §399, vol. IV, p. 429. On page 241 there is an amazing mosaic of the words of the archbishop. Philaret and Archimandrite Innocent: sometimes half of a phrase is taken literally from one, and half literally from the other. The page begins with an extract from Philaret (§267, part 2, p. 189), three lines later the words of Innocent (§890, vol. IV, p. 429), two more lines later an extract from Philaret (p. 184), but in the same extract, the words of Innocent are inserted in the words of Philaret in brackets (p. 429), and the end of the same period is taken literally from the same Innocent (vol. IV, p. 430 note). In the note we even find a reference to the Syrian reading of Acts 19:18, of course, taken from Innocent (vol. IV, p. 430 note), Page 242 was compiled according to Filaret (§270, part 2, p. 189 note 23) and according to Zamyatin (p. 202). But Zamyatin in this case quotes Filaret. A significant part of p. 244 is literally copied from Philaret’s dogma (§271, part 2, p. 190). From here there is a small extract at the end of page 245. There are no references to either Philaret or Innocent in the entire paragraph, while (in note I on page 243) on the issue of confession and confessors, Fr. Malinovsky considers it necessary to indicate “literature,” naming not only scientific works, but also reviews of them. In §160 about penances, we note only a small curiosity in the note on page 250, dedicated to the listing of penitential steps in the ancient Church. This note is copied verbatim from the 5th volume of the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia” (st. 476). This is not a problem, since there is a quotation. But oh. Malinovsky turned out to be an overly accurate copyist, we read from him: “the mourners who had to stand at the door and, crying, beg for admission to repentance”... Here “a”, of course, is a typo instead of “and”, but isn’t it amazing that the same typo is in the “Encyclopedia”; with this same “a” it’s clearly a meaningless phrase. § 167. Features of the Roman Catholic Church in the doctrine of the sacrament of repentance (pp. 252–273). Why write about these features in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology is not entirely easy to understand. And o. Malinovsky also adds “The Doctrine of Satisfaction and Indulgences.” Page 253–255 were compiled according to the article by A.P. Shostin - The superiority of the Orthodox confession over the Jesuit-Catholic confession (Faith and Reason, 1887, vol. I), the title of which is inaccurately named in the 3rd note on page 253. But especially diligently Fr. Malinovsky in this paragraph uses the book of Prof. N.Ya. Belyaev - Roman Catholic teaching on satisfaction with God on the part of man. Kazan 1876. Actually, this entire paragraph was copied from this book and copied for the most part verbatim. Srvn. Page 255 and Belyaeva p. 18. "257 „ „ „ 23. 24. 28. 29. "258 „ „ „ 205. 208. 210. 216. "259 „ „ „ 219. 225. 226. 227. 228. 235. 236. "268 „ „ „ 38. 42–44. 46. “272 „ „ „ 305. 306. 307. Here, we note, the quotation from St. Jerome is both illiterate and incorrect (in note 2), and in the note on page 270 the “Abbag Migne” (i.e. Migne) is mentioned. Our parallel column is missing pages 263–266, but these pages are filled with extracts from the “Collection of Articles” by Archpriest D.O. Kasitsyn, which talks about Catholic indulgences and provides some paragraphs from Catholic taxes. Everything here comes from Kasitsyn. Together with Kasitsyn, Fr. Malinovsky even quotes “Russian Word” §81 for 1895. But Fr. Kasitsyn wrote small articles of a journalistic nature in “Soulful Reading”, and Fr. Malinovsky writes “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”. Copying from Kasitsyn's articles, Fr. Malinovsky still almost always quotes accurately, but with Prof.’s book. Belyaev, the situation is incomparably worse. Exact and literal borrowings are not marked in any way, although in total from Belyaev’s book Fr. Malinovsky gleaned up to ten pages of text. Occasionally occurring quotations, at first glance, can only be attributed to individual, completely insignificant notes (See, for example, p. 261 note 1; p. 262 note 1; pp. 269–270 note 2). On page 260 there is a note: “See. In Innocent, Archim.Oblic.Theology.II vol. §§.182–183.” One might think that the previous pages were borrowed from Innocent. In fact, only two small excerpts of four lines each (pp. 300 and 302) were taken from Innocent (literally) and immediately above, almost two pages (258–259) were taken from the book of Prof. Belyaev, so the borrowing from Belyaev was hidden in this case behind a quote from Archimandrite. Innocent. § 170. The visible side of the sacrament of the priesthood (pp. 288–299). Here, first of all, one can notice the use of the article “On the Sacrament of the Priesthood” in the Orthodox Interlocutor for 1867, from which there are also literal extracts. Srvn. Page 289 beginning and Prav.Sob. vol.III, p. 107. “289 end and 290 beginning, etc. III, p. 108. “290 middle, etc. III, p. 109. » 293 Wednesdays, and the end, etc. III, pp. 114.115. “294 beginning and end, etc. III, pp. 115.117. "294 approx. and vol. III, p. 116 note 3. “295 middle, etc. III, p. 118. “297 words of the blessed one. Theodoret and quotation on the “History of the God-Lovers”, see vol.III, p. 119 and note 4. In addition, there are extracts from the book by Prof. V.A. Sokolov - Hierarchy of the Anglican Episcopal Church. Srvn. Page 290 end and Sokolov p. 180. "291 first. half and Sokolov p. 180. 181. “292 beginning and end and Sokolov p. 289. 291. The words of St. Ambrose of Milan (on p. 297), of course, are copied from Macarius (§240, vol. V, p. 33) and the Latin quotation is, as usual, illiterate. § 173. Features of the Roman Catholic teaching on the sacrament of the priesthood (pp. 318–330). The words of the Council of Trent in the 4th note on page 318 are taken from the book of Prof. I.P. Sokolova - The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the sacrament of the priesthood. St. Petersburg. 1907. p. 52. The end of page 322 and half of page 323 are close to the text, and in places they literally coincide with the text, V.A. Sokolov-Hierarchies of the Church of England, pp. 181–182. 185. Almost all of page 327 and half of page 328 are taken from the book by I.P. Sokolov, pp. 164–165, together with notes 3–5 on p. 327. In the middle of p. 328 there is a quote: “see. about this from prof. Sokolova, 166–202 pp. » Before the footnote we are talking about the demands for recognition of the episcopate as a special degree of priesthood and the denial of the sacramental nature of the degrees of the lower degrees of deacon, demands heard in Catholic theology. This is what Fr. invites. Malinovsky, look in the book of Prof. Sokolov, starting from page 166. About the same thing, that from pages 164–165 of Sokolov’s book, he copied verbatim the previous page of his book, Fr. Malinovsky is silent. On pp. 238–240 of his Dogmatic Theology, Fr. Malinovsky considered it necessary to talk about the Roman cardinals, especially since in the Christian Reading for 1895 (vol. 1, p. 57 ff.) there is an article about them by I.V. Bayagenov. Pages about. Malinovsky, dedicated to the cardinals, and copied from Bazhenov’s article... Compare. Page 328 and Christ.Cht.1895, vol.1, p. 58. Note 3 on pp. 328–329 and Chr.Cht., pp. 85. 88. 89. 90. 92. 93. Page 329 and Christ. Thurs. pp. 77–78. 82–83. Page 330 and Christ. Read. p. 74. 83. 79. (with “mozetta” turned into “moretta”). It cannot be said that in terms of citations on these pages everything was completely fine. On page 329, the first note is written from Bayagenov’s article. There is a quote: “see decree. Art. Bazhenova, 84–85 pp. "(approx.). But the second note next to it (from page 82) was copied from the same article. But already here we see as a quotation: “see. from Avdiy Vostokov. On the relationship of the Roman Church to other churches, XIX chapter, as well as the translated article “Papal conclaves”, in Readers of any spiritual enlightenment, 1876, II part.” Let us also note that the reference to the article of Readers of the General Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment is taken from the same Bazhenov, p. 82 note 1. On the next 330 pages, more than half of the pages are literally taken in a row from Bazhenov’s article. There is a footnote and under the line a small note with a quote: “See. Seredinsky T. Prototype Review. religions. 194 pp. » Here I cut off my study of the way Father Malinovsky compiled the volumes of his “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” that were subject to my consideration. A quick glance at the second half of the 4th volume did not promise me that upon a more detailed examination I would find in this half something that would completely change my understanding of the way of writing about. Malinovsky of his work. Therefore, I think there was no need for me to extend the period of consideration of the work of Fr. prot. Malinovsky, who was nominated by him for the highest theological academic degree, spend quite a bit of time and effort on work for which there is not only no need, but even no need. Is it worth killing expensive time to engage in some kind of scientific sport when you can have real business! Techniques and methods of scientific work Fr. prot. Malinovsky are outlined quite clearly. First of all, he tries to “write off.” He copies from a book that comes to his hand, whether it is a serious scientific work or a small, hastily written article, he copies whole pages, he copies hastily and, therefore, makes a lot of mistakes, sometimes of a curious and scandalous nature. The composition of some paragraphs, which I examined more carefully, is clear to the point of transparency. A clear picture emerges before my eyes. 2–3 books are opened and copied one by one, then from the other; to this is added the fact that it will later accidentally appear in some other book or magazine article. The result is a paragraph of 20–25 pages, in which only one fifth may belong to the author; You need to write something, at least for the connection between the individual extracts! Due to this, individual paragraphs are not always coherent and consistently presented; they contain repetitions of the same thing in different places; there is inconsistency even in their judgments. It cannot be otherwise: after all, one page is taken from one author, another from another. There, in the manuals. these pages stood in organic connection with others. From this connection Fr. prot. Malinovsky tears them out and places them next to other pages and lines, also torn out from their natural environment. It is therefore difficult to expect that Fr. Malinovsky, some kind of organic unity may result; rather, it should turn out to be like a heap in which fragments of various things from various materials, old and new, are collected. To the work o.prot. Malinovsky does not apply the biblical saying about patches made of unbleached fabric to old clothes; his scientific clothes are made from old materials, half-decayed on library shelves, and from new ones, which have barely lost their factory (resp. typographic) smell. Some pages of “Dogmatic Theology” by Fr. Malinovsky were published (in other books) in the first half of the last century, others relatively recently, and others only appearing for the first time in the books of Fr. Malinovsky. These latter are far from being the majority, but rather significantly less than half. It is, of course, true that it is impossible to write an entire system of dogmatic theology and be independent everywhere, but I am talking about a special form of dependence on manuals, which I had to observe when considering the work of Fr. Malinovsky. One could not help but be amazed and perplexed as to what kind of irresistible desire the archpriest had to copy everything literally. There are a lot of pages of dogma about. Malinovsky could, undoubtedly, have written himself no worse, if not better, than he found them in his manuals and literally transferred them to his book. But he seems to have a habit of writing even about the simplest things, always holding someone else’s book or article before his eyes. Often he prefers not only to glance at his manual from time to time, but to copy phrase by phrase, without ever looking up from the book. A certain kind of special mental laziness is created, manifested in the reluctance to even compose one’s own phrase. I had to observe such phenomena. The author begins to present his manual in a well-known section. After just a few lines, the presentation becomes closer and closer to the original, and then there is a literal copying. Often in his work Fr. Malinovsky not only does not create, but does not even compose, and very often he did not even want to engage in exposition. He is not a scientist or a writer, but, using the ancient Russian literary term, “copyist” and is a little reminiscent of that unfortunate Gogol official who, having just made his first experience in the field of clerical creativity, immediately asked to be given something to rewrite. And Archpriest Malinovsky, as a zealous copyist, sometimes rewrites accurately and accurately, reproducing even the typos of the original. Custom about. Malinovsky’s almost no quotation should also be mentioned as a not entirely commendable technique in a scholarly essay. He considers numerous extracts from sources and accompanying quotations to be, as it were, an indisputable common property and, copying entire pages of other people’s excerpts and quotations from sources into his book, he does not feel the need, even just out of politeness and some kind of gratitude, to remember the name of the author who himself worked on the collection of material, which was already at the disposal of Fr. Malinovsky. Somewhat freely about. Malinovsky cites only one Cyprian of Carthage, about whom he wrote his Ph.D. essay 30 years ago. From the analysis I presented above of individual paragraphs of Fr. Malinovsky can be seen that he almost never notes where he gets his material from. And he does this not only when he borrows, for example, a series of patristic quotations, but very often when he rewrites entire pages of his own words and reasoning of one or another author. Not only that. I have already noted several cases when Fr. Malpnovsky, having made a literal extract from the manual he had at hand, puts quotations on other books and articles, borrowing these quotes from the same manual, which alone is deprived of the honor of being mentioned in a footnote. Being very stingy with quotes from manuals, Fr. Malinovsky is very generous with quotes from various sources, although the first would be his own, and the second are almost everywhere alien to him. May the Lord God forgive me if I listen to false testimony against my neighbor, but it seems to me and I absolutely cannot rid myself of the thought that everything related to the quotation is from Fr. Malinovsky happened far from accidental or unintentional. Didn't the archpriest have a desire to pass off someone else's work as his own and to give the appearance of serious scientific and independent work to his mediocre compilation and even in some places outright plagiarism? I would not like to answer this question positively, but if Fr. The archpriest had a similar goal, then we can perhaps say that he partially achieved his goal. When you first become acquainted with his enormous work, when you see whole pages of patristic testimonies on almost every issue, whole strings of all kinds of quotations. there are many references to symbolic books of Catholics and Lutherans, when you notice the statements cheekily thrown by the archpriest that these references are made according to such and such a newest edition, and these ones according to such and such, then you involuntarily feel some surprise at such an extensive scientific work, even if you assume that it is not all written from primary sources. Only the closest acquaintance with the work of Fr. Malinovsky, which, of course, is not accessible to everyone, makes us look at him a little differently. I myself, although I never felt any particular respect for Malinovsky’s dogma, still, before the Academy Council ordered me to give an official review of it, I looked at it far from the way I look now, when two volumes of Fr.’s work lie before me. Malinovsky, in the margins of which it is noted what and where was borrowed from them, what and how was written off in them, although I do not dare to pretend that I positively noted everything and that nothing copied escaped my attention. Of course, it is not the first impression that should be decisive in the assessment of any scientific work, but upon closer critical examination of the work of Fr. Malinovsky is deprived of all right to the scientific name. There is no science or writing techniques in it. Malinovsky has nothing in common with scientific ones. But this conclusion is obtained only after a detailed comparison of the book by Fr. Malinovsky with the manuals he had at hand, which sometimes were not even mentioned by him at all. And without this, the burden of petty and painstaking comparisons, the work of Fr. Malinovsky, thanks to his special manner of putting quotes, may receive in the eyes of the reader some semblance of a scientific essay. Prof. V.V. Bolotov, reviewing one doctoral dissertation, said: “it’s not clear that the pipet is a doctor of theology.” Having become acquainted with the books of Father Prot. Malinovsky, I, not having at all the high scientific scrupulosity of our great scientist, can say: “it is not clear that even a master of theology writes." It is hardly necessary to have even some kind of academic degree in order to write as Father Malinovsky writes. Two volumes of “Dogmatic Theology”, with the same approach to the matter as that of Father Archpriest Malinovsky, could be written very quickly and without much difficulty. In two The volumes of “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” subject to present discussion contain only 136 paragraphs (Total p. 1472:136 about 11 pages). You can instruct students of any two courses of the Academy to write one paragraph each, warning that they should not be embarrassed by borrowing and extracts from textbooks that come to hand. One can hope that in the shortest period of time, in two or three weeks, we will have two volumes no smaller in volume and no worse in merit than those compiled by Fr. Malinovsky. But if Mr. students decided to submit their notebooks as another essay, for example, on dogmatic theology, then it is unlikely that many of them would receive high scores, and there would undoubtedly be a larger number of failures than we usually have. But let’s forget for a moment that “Dogmatic Theology” by Rev. Malinovsky, almost everything is copied from manuals, that the methods of its compilation are not only unscientific, but perhaps even anti-scientific, that in the way of quoting one can see not particularly commendable tendencies. Let's forget all this and come to the work of Fr. Malinovsky without any prejudice, as if we were not in his academic office and did not see the process of his writing. But evaluating the essay by Fr. Malinovsky and regardless of the way it is written. one cannot help but see great shortcomings in him. First of all, it doesn't live up to its title. This is not “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, but rather a collection of large and small articles on all sorts of theological issues. In his “dogmatic” theology, Fr. Malinovsky, first of all, introduced a completely special theological discipline, which is usually called “accusatory” or “comparative” theology. In addition, he has many interpretations in the proper sense not related to any theology, many discussions of a canonical, liturgical and church-historical nature. To all these foreign matters Fr. Malinovsky devotes special paragraphs, often very extensive. I will now list which paragraphs in the two volumes examined can hardly claim to be placed in the course of “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” and whose presence in the work of Fr. Malinovsky is obviously due to some special, unknown to me, views on the composition and tasks of dogmatic theology. §81. Latin cult of the heart of Jesus... 6 pp. §84. Dogma of the Roman Church on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God 28 pp. §111. Roman Catholic doctrine of justification and salvation of man 22 pp. §112. Lutheran Doctrine of Justification and Its Conditions 26 pp. §113. The extremes of Reformation in the doctrine of justification and salvation: denial of the universality of grace, the doctrine of unconditional predestination and irresistible grace. The teaching of the Church of England on justification and its conditions, and on predestination 20 pp. §126. Extraordinary Gifts and Ministries in the Church 15 pp. §127. Commemoration of the departed heterodox Christians 14 pages. § 134. The nature of the Roman Catholic teaching about the Church. Dogma of Papal Supremacy 38 pp. § 135. Dogma of papal infallibility... 18 p. § 136. Protestant teaching about the Church as a spiritual invisible society. Features of the Anglican teaching about the Church 12 p. § 147. Features of heterodox confessions in the doctrine of baptism and its grace-filled effects 7 pp. § 152. Features of heterodox confessions in the doctrine of confirmation 15 p. § 161. Peculiarities of the teaching of the Roman Church on the Eucharist 16 p. § 162. Protestant doctrine of the Eucharist 10 pages. § 167. Features of the Roman Catholic Church in the doctrine of the sacrament of repentance. The Doctrine of Satisfaction and Indulgences 20 pp. § 168. The doctrine of repentance of the Western confessions that separated from the Roman Church 11 p. §178. Features of the Roman Catholic teaching on the sacrament of the priesthood 18 pp. § 174. Protestant doctrine of the universal priesthood of Christians. Protestant Ordination. . 8 pages § 175. Question about the validity and legality of the Anglican hierarchy. . . 16 pages § 176. Hierarchies of Old Catholics. . .... 6 pages § 177. The teaching of heterodox confessions on marriage.. 6 pages. Note Civil marriage........................ 4 pages § 183. Peculiarities of heterodox confessions in the teaching about the sacrament of consecration of oil................................................................... 9 p. To this total of 345 pages should be added more than a hundred pages on which the author forgets that he is writing dogmatic theology, and which appear in paragraphs that do not raise doubts about involvement in dogmatics by their very title. All foreign elements give Archpriest Malinovsky’s “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” a special tone and appearance. For our author, the boundaries of dogmatic theology do not seem to exist, and having become acquainted with his dogmatics, one can imagine that dogmatic theology discusses not only dogmas, but also all questions in any way related to theological thought and church life. After all, he finds Fr. Malinovsky, is it possible in dogmatic theology to insert a special paragraph directly under the title: “The question of the validity and legality of the Anglican hierarchy”? Does he also write a special paragraph about the “hierarchy of the Old Catholics”? What about the Anglican or Old Catholic bishopric, when Fr. Malinovsky, under a special title, four pages of small print are written about “civil marriage”! In general, in Orthodox dogmatic theology, Fr. There are incomparably more Malinovsky dogmas than the Orthodox Church knows. One involuntarily draws attention to the fact that about heterodoxy in some sections of Fr. Malinovsky says almost as much, and sometimes more, than about Orthodoxy. Here are examples of this, in any case, strange phenomenon in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. In § 83, the author sets out the teaching of the Orthodox Church about the “Most Blessed Virgin Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ”, writes about the “Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God” and that She is the Mother of God. This entire paragraph in Volume 3 takes up 14 pages (pp. 150–164). Immediately following this paragraph is §84, entitled: “The Dogma of the Roman Church concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God.” Here the author finds it useful to even talk about the “physical ascension of the Mother of God into heaven” and the “cult of the heart of the Blessed Virgin.” In total, the paragraph on Catholic teaching regarding the Mother of God occupies 28 pages (pp. 164–191), i.e. exactly twice as long as the previous one, dedicated to Orthodox teaching. In the section on repentance, four paragraphs (163–166) are devoted to the Orthodox teaching on repentance, and these paragraphs occupy a total of 22 pages (pp. 230–252), despite the fact that much is introduced into the author’s discussion that is not related to the doctrine of repentance. Two paragraphs are devoted to heterodoxy (167–168) and these two paragraphs occupy 32 pages (pp. 252–283). In the section on the sacrament of the Orthodox priesthood, four paragraphs are devoted (169–172), occupying 35 pages (pp. 283–318), and four paragraphs (177–176) are also devoted to heterodoxy, but these paragraphs occupy 48 pages (pp. 318–366). What kind of information does not Fr. Malinovsky about the non-Orthodox hierarchy! He wrote about cardinals and congregations, even about the non-liturgical clothes of the Roman clergy, about the titles of the Roman Catholic “princes of the church,” about celibacy, about Matthew Parker, about Ios, Lip. Reinkens, oh Ed. Duke, about the Catholic teaching regarding the episcopate, etc. The author writes about issues regarding the church priesthood and church hierarchy in less detail, but in a completely formulaic manner. But it would be much more natural in Orthodox dogmatic theology to talk about the clergy of the Church of Constantinople than about Roman cardinals. Why not Fr. Malinovsky cannot list the modern autocephalous churches that make up the united Orthodox Catholic Church? How many Orthodox people of our time know what parts the One Church of Christ consists of? And it is perhaps more necessary to know this than to be knowledgeable in the Roman clergy, in the history of the Anglican and Old Catholic hierarchy. Let us not forget that many are seriously ready to consider Catholicism and Protestantism as local churches. I’ll tell you about one more, perhaps subjective, impression. The paragraphs devoted to heterodoxy are the best in the dogmatics of Fr. prot. Malinovsky. They are more meaningful than the paragraphs devoted to Orthodoxy, which is reflected even in their external volume. 19 paragraphs are specifically devoted to heterodoxy; each of them averages more than 17 pages; the remaining 117 paragraphs, despite a lot of unnecessary material in some of them, average less than 10 pages. But that, of course, doesn't matter. The important thing is that the paragraphs devoted to heterodoxy are incomparably more interesting than those devoted to Orthodoxy. These latter ones are boring and formulaic. Everything in them seemed frozen in a stereotypical form. A set of sayings from the Old Testament, the words of Christ, the teachings of the apostle. Paul, the teaching of the other apostles. Then the teaching of the primal Church, the teaching of the later ones. and teachers of the Church. Actually, there is no single father’s teaching, but “testimonies” are collected from the fathers in chronological order. All this is done according to the model of the Metropolitan. Macarius and Bishop Sylvester, as if there were no dogmas in the science of history with tasks and methods of a slightly different kind than what the old dogmatists adhered to. In modern theological literature, many new questions are raised, new views are expressed on many dogmatic issues. Voices are being heard about revising our traditional school teaching about salvation, about grace, about the threefold (what kind of word is that?!) ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. School dogmatics are sharply and not unreasonably accused of rationalism, depending on Catholic medieval models. Archpriest Malinovsky walks past all this and doesn’t want to know anything. It is impossible to lead him off the beaten path, and he deigns only the briefest and most favorable remarks to those who invite them to leave the beaten path. In one thing I note and in §140 about the number of sacraments (on pp. 24–25) we read: “Unfortunately, we are beginning to encounter something similar (the Protestant statement) in Russian theological literature.” Of course, the book † by Hierom. Tapacia-Great Russian and Little Russian Theology of the 16th and 17th centuries. Having made several extracts from this book, Fr. Malinovsky does not consider it necessary to criticize and refute its provisions, but directly passes judgment: “The statements of Hieromonax Tarasius, no matter how bold and decisive, are just as empty and unsubstantiated, even deliberately tendentious in relation to persons awarded only consecration (both married) and consecration and “monastic vows”... O. Malinovsky does not notice that at the heart of the book o. Tapacius lies in completely different views on grace, on salvation itself, a different concept of Christianity as life and achievement than we are used to reading about this in scholastic dogmatics courses. No, oh. archpriest and in the theological work there seems to be a trick on the part of the monk against the white clergy. It seems to him that all the fuss was made only for the sake of declaring “tonsure into monasticism” a sacrament. “Aren’t such considerations, he writes, partly a trial experiment to lay down dogmatic foundations for the orders and phenomena of church-practical life?”... Fr. Malinovsky remains his own and, not paying attention to anything, the section “on the threefold ministry of Jesus Christ” writes according to articles from the 40s of the last century. Against the general background of pallor and boredom, the paragraphs devoted to heterodoxy stand out. There is a lot of information in them, and the thought is visible. However, here the great merits of Fr. Malinovsky is not there. Our theological literature, always more inclined towards exposition and criticism of others, rather than towards positive creativity, put into his hands better and new tools than he had when writing all the other paragraphs of his dogma, Noting this destruction in the work of Fr. Malinovsky's rigor and certainty of the dogmatic system, we can evaluate it precisely as a collection of articles and materials on various issues of church knowledge. We will not call it good Christomathy. A good christomathy should contain classical passages that could educate thought, scientific and literary taste. For the education of good dogmatic and literary tastes, not to mention scientific techniques and methods, compiled by Fr. prot. The books are completely unsuitable for the Malinovskys. He has so much random material, extracts are made from books and articles, sometimes completely colorless, which usually remain in complete serenity on the shelves of book depositories, sometimes there is so little clarity and certainty of judgments, so noticeable in places is the lack of harmony and strict consistency in the development of certain positions, that it is hardly worth talking about the education of literary and scientific tastes through reading such works. But if the books are about. Malinovsky is considered precisely as a collection of more or less popular articles on various issues, then quite a lot of approving things can be said about them. Even if the articles that fill two huge volumes are completely unscientific, not original, not independent, even if they are not entirely neatly copied, many, and perhaps the majority, don’t care at all about all this. There are few scientists, but there are a lot of people who want to learn something and read something. This majority always needs to have knowledge on many and varied issues. Many are not at all willing to research and study the issue; They only need, if possible, to read briefly about a well-known issue in order to know at least something about this issue. If you are particularly interested in any question, then you would like someone to indicate what else you can read about this particular issue and where. The “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” of Archpriest Malinovsky is meeting the urgent needs of people of this very kind. His work is a kind of compendium of our theological literature, from the ideological side accurately reflecting its merits and, even more so, its shortcomings. Even though this compendium was compiled hastily, even if it has the character of a huge rough job, it is, and this is essentially the important merit of Fr. prot. Malinovsky. There are special works in Russian theological literature on many interesting questions, but there are so many questions, and so few books, that even a person who has enough leisure in life to read entire books cannot read a whole book on a well-known question. But you can quickly and easily get acquainted with the same question by reading a dozen or two pages in the book of Fr. prot. Malinovsky, which is not difficult to always have on hand. It is true, of course, that the acquaintance will not be particularly wide and deep, but still, at least some acquaintance is better than none. And on what questions alone cannot satisfy the curiosity of the reader “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Archpriest. Malinovsky? Here the reader will find information not only about Orthodox teaching, but also about heterodox teaching, and what we noted as a shortcoming of the dogmatic system, for which the reader will only thank Fr. archpriest. An analysis of the false teachings of heterodoxy is also given here. Anyone interested in issues of polemics with sectarianism, even briefly, will find something on these issues from Fr. Malinovsky. If anyone hears objections to the dogmatic and other truths of Christianity and does not know what to answer, he will find in the books of Fr. Malinovsky and excerpts from apologetic treatises. Even on liturgical and church-historical issues one can read in these voluminous books. When you imagine the whole mass and variety of information collected in the work under review, then, leaving scientific standards, you will involuntarily greet the selfless worker in the person of Archpriest Malinovsky. Even if his work was completely devoid of a genuine scientific character and had no significance for science, its usefulness cannot be denied. Those lists of “literature” that are often given at the beginning of individual paragraphs of Fr.’s dogmatics can also be of great benefit. Malinovsky. Compiling these lists, of course, was not easy. But it goes without saying that these lists have meaning only for those who are still feeding on the milk of learning and do not have a particularly strong desire to switch to solid scientific food. Let's say a few words about the style of the essay being analyzed. Strictly speaking, we do not know Fr.'s style well. prot. Malinovsky; Before us is only the style of his “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.” Judging by what can be more or less likely attributed to the pen of Fr. Malinovsky, he does not belong to the brilliant stylists. A somewhat peculiar way of composing an essay about. Malinovsky was also reflected in the style of this work. His style is varied and variegated, since in different places it belongs to different individuals and even different eras. Where is Fr. The archpriest was fond of copying from books and articles of venerable antiquity, there. of course, his style also smacks of the style of “the times of the Ochakovskys or the conquest of the Crimea,” although the phrases “this,” “because,” “consequently,” etc. are usually eliminated. But the truth must be told that there are very few pages with such an outdated style. There are incomparably more pages with a good style. The manuals from which Fr. Malinovsky, most of his literal borrowings, belongs to a time when the printed word was treated with care, when there was no trace of our modern literary sloppiness, which, unfortunately, is beginning to penetrate into theological literature, among other things, into works that have, like the work of Fr. Malinovsky’s task was to present the “Christian doctrine”. That is why the extensive work of Fr. Malinovsky is read in parts not without pleasure and easily and, with the exception of some five or ten pages, almost never creates a frivolous mood, so little in keeping with the importance of the subject under discussion. I wrote more about the shortcomings of “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Fr. prot. Malinovsky, rather than about his merits, but this is only because I needed to review not just a popular theological collection of articles that appeared in the literature, but about an essay presented for an academic degree. I would not sometimes make a minute analysis of the techniques and method of composing o. Malinovsky of his works, if he had not expressed the desire for the last two volumes of the “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” he wrote to receive the highest academic degree of Doctor of Theology. Now, respectfully submitting all of the above to the discretion of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy, I, for my part, would believe that even with a certain leniency, the desire of Father Archpriest Malinovsky cannot be satisfied. You might be interested in: