Scientific works of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) of Moscow and their significance for the Orthodox Church

Contents Introduction I. Fundamentality and independence of research II. Accusation of scholasticism III. Metropolitan Macarius as an exponent of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church Conclusion The era of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) (1816–1882) produced a number of archpastors and pastors who, along with the holiness of life, shone as outstanding church administrators and scientists. It is enough to mention some of the most famous: St. Innocent (Borisov), Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride (1800–1857) 1, St. Philaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop of Chernigov and Nezhin (1805–1866) 2, St. Theophan the Recluse (1815–1894), Archpriest Alexander Gorsky (1812–1875). With each of them, as well as with his famous predecessor in the Moscow See, Saint Philaret of Moscow (1782–1867), Metropolitan Macarius was connected in one way or another. Saint Philaret of Moscow was a strict and exacting censor of his research and edified him after his monastic tonsure 3 ; Saint Innocent - rector and teacher of the Kyiv Theological Academy during the years of Metropolitan Macarius's studies there, patron and connoisseur of his scientific works; Saint Theophan the Recluse - his classmate at the Kyiv Theological Academy, fellow monastic tonsure, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy and successor at the Tambov See. Metropolitan Macarius exchanged literary comments with Saint Philaret (Gumilevsky), and he replaced him at the Kharkov See. The lifetime of these giants of science and spirit contrasts sharply with our unspiritual, albeit technically advanced age. It is noteworthy that although Metropolitan Macarius wrote with a quill pen, 4 this did not prevent him from creating monumental theological and historical works, which, due to their unique merits, became the enduring property of the Orthodox Church. It is all the more surprising that it is precisely in our time, when not a single theologian is seen in his scholarship and theological tuning fork equal to the men listed above, that undeserved reproaches began to be heard against this remarkable worker of theological science. I recall the words of another classic, no longer of theology, but of literature, who saw the dubious strength of those attacking an elephant in the incomparability of the size of the opponents 5 . In a relatively short essay it is impossible to touch on all facets of the rich personality of the Moscow saint, so let us set a more modest task - to analyze the “classical” claims for liberal theology against Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov): accusations of theological lack of independence, the influence of scholasticism on his works and their dogmatic and historical inaccuracy. I. Fundamentality and independence of research Before proceeding to a direct theological analysis of the stated charges, I would like to make a small digression. What is the secret of the unusually successful theological and literary activity of Metropolitan Macarius? It seems that the matter is not only in his extraordinary diligence, strictly established regularity of life, and the influence of the wisest and most educated people of his time. From the biography of the saint it is easy to notice that especially in the first half of his life, “fortune” clearly patronized him in his academic and administrative activities. From Metropolitan Macarius’s own correspondence, it is known how favorable the impression the young Hieromonk Macarius made on the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, His Eminence Afanasy (Drozdov), who, on the very evening of the arrival of the welcome guest, experienced his way of thinking for five (!) hours. Macarius wrote: “I confess that my happy answers that evening, for which I did not prepare at all, not knowing at all that I would have to teach here, I consider these answers to be a special benefit of the Providence that was benevolent to me: after all, my everything depended on them for the first time.” 6 We dare to express our guess regarding one of the reasons for this “luck”. To do this, let’s turn over a few pages of his rich biography. At the end of his stay at the Kharkov See, on January 6, 1867, His Eminence Macarius wrote to the Synodal Chief Prosecutor Count D.A. Tolstoy: “In 1841, moving from a student’s bench to the bachelor’s department of the Kyiv Theological Academy, I made the following vow to myself: if God blesses my intentions and works, then all the money that will follow from my writings will be kept inviolable until a large sum is made up of them ... in order to establish annual bonuses on the interest from it to encourage domestic talents devoting themselves to the cause of science and generally useful knowledge... Feeling the gradual weakening of my physical strength and fearing that in the event of my death, especially a sudden one, my long-standing vow would for some reason remain unfulfilled, I decided to ensure its fulfillment during my lifetime” 7 . Archbishop Macarius donated a huge sum of 120,000 rubles at that time, collected from the income from the publication of his works, on the interest of which five annual prizes were established in his name in various fields of theological and secular sciences: two full ones, one and a half thousand rubles each, and three incomplete ones, one thousand rubles each 8 . Prot. F. Titov notes: “Everyone’s attention was especially drawn to the fact that for the distribution of prizes for scientific works, capital collected from the sale of scientific works was donated” 9 . It seems that this extraordinary nobility of the then young soul did not escape the Lord’s Heart-reader, a visible sign of which was the improvement of external circumstances. In general, regarding the spiritual makeup of Metropolitan Macarius, one feature was clearly manifested in his character, which could not help but captivate the people around him - his exceptional nobility. In the “report on the behavior of students of the Kursk Theological Seminary,” Mikhail Bulgakov noted: “noble and excellent zealous behavior.” Prot. F. Titov notes: “One involuntarily attracts attention to the fact that a similar note about the behavior of Mikhail Bulgakov is often found in the reports that were usually presented to the Metropolitan by inspectors of the Kyiv Theological Academy. And here we often encounter reference to nobility as an outstanding feature in the character of student Mikhail Bulgakov. This means that in the character of the latter, indeed, there was some special feature that made him be considered noble” 10. An eloquent expression of respect for seminary student Mikhail Bulgakov can be the fact that some mentors addressed him by name and patronymic. Bibliographer of Metropolitan Macarius, Archpriest. F. Titov rightly notes: “He himself was a tireless devotee of science, who with his world-famous works made a great and valuable contribution to the treasury of our theological and church-historical science, he was at the same time the most benevolent and generous encourager of the scientific works of other figures, distinguished by his amazing scientific tolerance towards his very opponents” 11. It is enough to note that it was Metropolitan Macarius who allocated funds for the publication of the works of E.E. Golubinsky, his principled opponent in his ideological approach to understanding church history. The same trait manifested itself when Archimandrite Macarius passed the obedience of a censor at the Spiritual Censorship Committee - his humanity as a censor became generally known over time. Prof. F. Titov notes: “Not only did he seriously and carefully read all the works entrusted to him and was lenient towards the author’s oversights or their somewhat original thoughts, he, with his love of being precise and accurate in everything, never delayed the manuscripts that came to him and allowed them to be printed without delay” 12. One of the pupils of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy during the rectorship of the Right Reverend Macarius recalled: “During the entire time of his management of the Academy, we saw nothing but his most sincere, direct and benevolent attitude towards us - the students of the academy... He was not capable of any kind of searching, any kind of indirect finding out about students by his nature... He was not capable of anything more direct, honest and frank. We have never met a head teacher in our lives” 13. Out of the nobility of his soul, Archimandrite Macarius asked for Prof.’s full pension. DI. Rostislavov, upon his release from the academy. This scientist, known for the sharp independence of his convictions and stinginess in giving praiseworthy reviews of his contemporaries and colleagues, wrote with gratitude to the Reverend Macarius on November 3, 1852: “Your Eminence! Now I no longer belong to the academy, I do not serve and will not serve anywhere, I do not and cannot have any prospects ahead, therefore I have no need to be a hypocrite before you, there is no benefit in flattering you; accept my words as the words of a completely free, independent person, who has no hopes, who does not count on anything, but who only wants to express his feelings to you... Under you, as a boss, I served almost nothing at all, and I even caused a lot of trouble for you, as a person; only the kindness of your heart, the nobility of character alone could make you act in my favor. Moreover, it seems to me that only with you could I receive a full pension; only your petition to the higher authorities could give such a favorable turn to my case; under your predecessor, of course, I would not have received what I now have, even if he began to intercede” 14. How much this nobility of character is lacking in the modern critics of Metropolitan Macarius! Finally, I would like to highlight one more detail. Prot. F. Titov describes how one very educated English missionary, who two years before the death of Metropolitan Macarius came to him in Moscow for some advice and instructions before setting off for Central Asia, then assured everyone that “in his entire life he had never met such a bright mind” 15 . The archpastor's contemporaries admired his profound education as well as his pastoral wisdom. However, these extraordinary mental abilities did not appear immediately. Like the Venerable Sergius of Radonezh and the Righteous Saint John of Kronstadt, in childhood Mikhail Bulgakov was not distinguished by any special abilities in the sciences. His illness (he suffered from scrofula, a type of modern diathesis) was accompanied by a temporary dulling of mental abilities and especially memory. Due to his poor abilities, the boy had to learn his lessons even when his peers could play in the yard. Mikhail usually walked away from the noise with a book for the firewood stacked in the yard. One day, an accidentally thrown stone flew over the woodpile and hit Mikhail in the head, deeply cutting the skin and causing severe bleeding. Contrary to expectations, the loss of blood did not increase the boy's pain. On the contrary, with the healing of the wound, all traces of scrofula disappeared forever, and the painful illness left him forever. Although Mikhail continued to lag behind his comrades in physical development, this no longer prevented the rapid flowering of spiritual and mental strength with acquired hard work. He soon took first place in his class. Subsequently, Metropolitan Macarius was always grateful to Divine Providence, which tested him in childhood through a painful illness: it served as one of the strongest motivations for constant hard work. However, it's time to get down to business. As St. Gregory the Theologian wrote: “But what do we care about this? - perhaps some overly zealous holiday lover will say. Drive your horse to the goal - think wisely about what relates to the holiday and why we have gathered today. “I will do so, although I began at no distance, to which I was forced by diligence and word” 16. Let us consider the accusation of Metropolitan Macarius of theological lack of independence. It is necessary to consider this apparent lack of independence from two sides: possible borrowings from foreign literature and the influence of contemporary Russian theologians. The first dependence, at a superficial glance, looks very probable, because Metropolitan Macarius, as the most educated man of his time, who, unlike the overwhelming majority of his contemporary critics, knew well the Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and French languages, could easily use the developments of contemporary foreign theological science. Although here it is worth making a serious reservation: if this was possible in relation to theological sciences, then in the history of the Russian Church, especially in the history of the Russian schism, this was hardly possible. One of the greatest merits of Metropolitan Macarius lies in the fact that he, in fact, was a pioneer of many church disciplines: the history of the Russian Church, schism, canonical theology, basic theology. Published scientific research in these and other areas had its basis in courses of academic lectures given by a young teacher, which were compiled in the shortest possible time and based on completely raw material. During the training of Hieromonk Macarius within the walls of the Kyiv Theological Academy, there were no independent departments for teaching such important sciences as Russian church and Russian civil history. Both of these sciences were part of the courses of general church and general civil history, and there was simply not enough time to teach them at the end of the entire training course; this was done quickly and fluently. By order of the academic authorities, approved by the Holy Synod, the young hieromonk Macarius, immediately after graduating from the Academy, was to begin teaching these courses, in fact, without any serious preparation for this. And while his comrades indulged in a pleasant and completely natural rest after 16 years of tireless work, he had to use the entire summer holidays of 1841 to prepare for lecturing, which he began on September 1 of the same year. Based on these processed lectures, a separate book, “The History of Christianity in Russia before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, as an introduction to the history of the Russian Church,” was published in 1846. This was the beginning of his famous “History of the Russian Church,” on which the saint worked until his death. Prot. F. Titov notes: “The main merit of Macarius, as the author of “The History of Christianity in Russia before Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir,” was that he was the first of the Russian scientists to navigate a hitherto unknown area with dignity and quite independently created from raw, undeveloped material an excellent threshold to the great edifice of the history of the Russian Church” 17. “The History of the Kyiv Academy,” which was published in 1843, although it was compiled under the direct leadership of the rector of the Academy, Archimandrite Innokenty (Borisov), was, however, also based on completely raw material. Prot. F. Titov notes: “Makariy comprehensively and thoroughly studied the most extensive and, moreover, completely undeveloped literature on his subject. He not only knew all the printed works that contained at least some information about the Kyiv Academy, but also the extensive archival material was well studied by him. He, apparently, very carefully reviewed the academic archive, re-read in it not only more or less important matters for him, but even all the small letters and notes of different persons who had ever accidentally found their way here: he also went through the entire available academic library, read and compared both printed and handwritten, mostly Latin textbooks, used in the old Kyiv Academy on various subjects; he sorted it out and even used all the notes and inscriptions on library books to determine the time and place of their origin and for other considerations. Other Kyiv book depositories, such as the Sofia and Lavra libraries, were also well reviewed by the author, and he extracted from them everything that he found interesting and necessary for his work there.” 18 The essay gave the author a master’s degree, and Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow wrote: “An essay worthy of attention due to the abundance of information collected and the order in which it is presented... Although the subject of the essay is not theological, however, touching upon various scientific subjects with judgment, the writer shows himself worthy of a master’s degree” 19. We have dwelled in such detail on the description of the scientist’s works in order to show how unfounded are the accusations that his works are not independent 20 . Metropolitan Macarius retained this scientific integrity until the end of his life, which was the key to the fundamental nature of his research. But the merit of the researcher is not only in the vastness of the materials and facts presented. Metropolitan Macarius carefully considered and adjusted the very plan of his research. P. Gerasimov notes: “Since 1843, Hieromonk Macarius taught basic theology. During 1843–45, Father Macarius thought a lot about the content of the subject and seriously revised it. The next course was called “Encyclopedia of Orthodox Theology.” And finally, it was published under the title “Introduction to Orthodox Theology.” Macarius had as his predecessors Archimandrite Dimitry (Muretov) and Archbishop Innocent (Borisov). However, Muretov's lectures, like Innocent's, differ significantly from Macarius' lectures. Archimandrite Demetrius, in many cases almost literally repeating Innocent, spoke very briefly about the system of theological sciences, teaching mainly general Christian basic theology. In contrast, Archimandrite Macarius set himself the goal of writing precisely an “encyclopedia of theological sciences” and gave an introduction specifically to Orthodox Theology. The final course was thought out and developed by Archimandrite Macarius independently. It was developed during 4 years of teaching” 21. How independent the researcher was regarding the plan of the work can be seen from the fact that Macarius left the treatise on the Church in his system in its original place, despite the most categorical objections to this by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow 22! The creation of “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” was no exception in this regard. Let us note that this great undertaking of the church scientist was undertaken at the will of his superiors. “I can hear,” wrote the Right Reverend Eusebius A.V. on November 11, 1847. Gorsky, - what about. Our Macarius was commissioned by the Metropolitan to write a Dogmatic Theology in words” 23. From the same correspondence we learn that the secular spiritual and educational authorities, probably in the person of Chief Prosecutor Count A.N. Protasov and his assistant A.I., also encouraged Archimandrite Macarius to compile and publish dogma. Karasevsky, director of the Spiritual Educational Directorate. Prof. F. Titov, after a thorough comparison of the programs on Dogmatic Theology of Innocent (Borisov), Demetrius (Muretov) and Macarius (Bulgakov), comes to the following conclusions: 1. the program of each of the named archpastors had its own significant characteristic features; 2. the similarity noticed between them was required by the very essence of the matter, i.e. generality of the subject; 3. As for the actual mutual relationship between the programs of Demetrius and Macarius (Archimandrite Demetrius was Macarius’s teacher in Dogmatic Theology - Priest A.P.), then Macarius turned out to be faithful to the end to those deviations from the program of his teacher, which we saw in the very first program of Macarius, according to which he taught dogmatic theology to students of the 15th year of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the 1842/3 academic year year 24. Let us present reviews of this work from Metropolitan Macarius’s contemporaries, who themselves stood at the height of modern science and could impartially testify to its merits. On behalf of the Academy of Sciences, the review was given by the master of Russian theological science, Saint Innocent of Kherson. He wrote: “The work we are considering is a rare and most gratifying phenomenon in our theological literature, the like of which it has not seen on its horizon for a long time and, in all likelihood, will not see again soon.... The most foreign theological literatures, despite their long-standing development and centuries-old improvements, do not represent, especially in modern times, creations with such merits as the Orthodox dogma of the Right Reverend Macarius.... After this, a foreign theologian cannot in any way say that in the Eastern Church they are accustomed to believing in their opinions unaccountably: for the new Orthodox dogma contains such an account in everything, the like of which most of the non-Orthodox churches have not yet presented.” Having compared the analyzed work of the Right Reverend Macarius with the best modern foreign dogmatists - Perrone, Klee and Staudenmaier, the great Russian saint concludes: “The Orthodox dogmatic theology of the Right Reverend Macarius represents: a) the most perfect work of all that has hitherto appeared in our country in the same field, and not only equal in scientific processing to the best modern foreign experiences, but also in no small respects superior to them; b) the work is independent and original, because the author, neither in the system, nor in the method, nor in the way of presenting the truths, did not follow any of the domestic and foreign theologians, but followed his own path, deeply thought out and correctly measured, drawing information from the first sources, from which he himself found many and all of them were significantly processed, and thus, with tireless work, a harmonious and enormous whole was erected, which, with all the desire of such phenomena, in all likelihood, will remain the only one for a long time; c) a work that satisfies all modern requirements of science, according to a harmonious system and the derivation of all parts and truths from one beginning, according to the deep and extensive scholarship of the author, according to the dominant historical direction, so akin to theology as a positive science, according to excellent clarity and intelligibility in the way of revealing truths, even according to a purely Russian style, which constantly bears the stamp of sound taste; d) a work that constitutes an important merit not only for the science of Orthodox theology, which the author undoubtedly advanced very far forward, - not only for our spiritual education, in the history of which the birth of its dogmatics will once serve as one of the most remarkable eras - but in general for the entire Russian Church, for all Orthodox compatriots who will receive in this work - what they have long desired - perhaps a complete, harmonious, a thorough and publicly accessible exposition of the distinctive dogmas of their Church, so precious to their minds and hearts" 25 . It is noteworthy that Eminence Macarius did not give up teaching dogmatic theology during his rectorship at the Academy. This wonderful tradition continued for quite a long time in our academies, when the rector of a higher educational institution taught precisely this, in the words of some academic mentors, “dangerous” subject 26. This provided the necessary horizons and the opportunity to independently judge the merits of the lectures of other academy teachers. The prelude to the compilation of this monumental work, for which Metropolitan Macarius received the full Demidov Prize 27 and special royal favor, was the fulfillment of another assignment from his superiors - the compilation of a collection of dogmatic teachings according to the leadership of St. Demetrius of Rostov. The plan of this collection reflects both the plan of academic lectures on dogmatics and the structure of Theology itself. Macarius himself writes: “I admit, at first I wanted to do this thing somehow, and to relieve myself, I distributed according to the book of St. father to students to extract wonderful places. And the students did it just to get away. When I started work, I decided to carry out this good undertaking better, and therefore, throwing away the student’s notebooks, I began to read myself, and while I collected places for my entire plan, I re-read all the works of the saint up to four times” 28 . And Saint Demetrius of Rostov, in turn, was an outstanding theologian 29. In terms of the amount of work done, he can be easily compared with Metropolitan Macarius. It was his theology, directly dissolved by personal holiness and involvement in the holiness of the entire Christian world, that became the root from which the powerful theological system of Metropolitan Macarius grew. It is noteworthy that during the heyday of scholasticism, it was St. Demetrius who outgrew this limited school course, revealing in himself a wondrous branch of patristic theological science. II. Accusation of scholasticism Hieromonk Macarius, being only a beginning teacher at the Kyiv Academy, gained fame as a deep and fascinating lecturer. V.I. Askochensky, who speaks very critically and harshly about many of his colleagues at the Kyiv Academy, at the same time gives the most flattering review of the teaching abilities and activities of Hieromonk Macarius. “But listen,” he writes in his “diary,” to the young monk Macarius, “how well, with what enthusiasm he improvises his lessons from the history of the Russian Church. Listen, I say, everyone is listening to him” 30! Prot. F. Titov cites the testimony of one of the direct listeners of the lectures of Hieromonk Macarius: “Hieromonk Macarius always spoke his lectures by heart, although at the same time it was noticeable that he very carefully prepared them each time at home. Macarius delivered his lectures loudly, clearly, clearly and expressively. He often spoke in class with such enthusiasm and sincere passion that to his listeners his words seemed like living improvisation, as Askochensky testifies to this. But in reality it was not an improvisation, but only a well-thought-out and beautifully delivered speech. In addition, Macarius’s lectures were always rich in content and therefore aroused keen interest in students, who constantly gathered in large numbers in the young bachelor’s auditorium” 31 . A student of the Right Reverend Macarius, Rybakov, testifies to Macarius’s lectures on dogmatics already in the rank of rector of the St. Petersburg Academy: “His speech, imbued with the power of conviction, flowed in an abundant stream and made a deep impression on the listeners, especially since the lectures of the Right Reverend Macarius always had the character of a lively, fascinating conversation that did not need any notebooks or notes” 32. Professor Rostislavov, who claimed that “among the rectors of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy of his time it was not easy to find a good professor,” considered the Right Reverend Macarius an “honorable exception” 33 . That makes it all the more strange to accuse Metropolitan Macarius of scholasticism. Saint Innocent of Kherson, teacher of Mikhail Bulgakov, being the rector of the Kyiv Academy, was one of the first to take serious steps to move away from scholastic forms of teaching. He was the first to teach theology in pure, understandable Russian. It was he, so well acquainted with scholasticism, who left such precious remarks regarding the merits of the presentation of the “Dogmatics” of Metropolitan Macarius: “Theology, as a science, has been moved far forward by this multi-learned creation and has gained a lot by the fact that in it it was completely exposed from scholasticism and the Latin language and, thus, introduced into the circle of Russian literature and proposed, so to speak, for general use for all lovers of theology knowledge... For further clarification of dogmas, the author calls for help their very history, which, due to its importance, has long been a special science in foreign literature, but in our country has remained in oblivion, and gives in its dogma a place for the impartial gaze of common mind on Christian dogmas, while successfully avoiding two shortcomings: the rationalistic and scholastic directions... In its presentation itself, the dogmatic theology of the Right Reverend Macarius differs from all works of this kind that preceded him: it is written in pure, correct, modern Russian language, which can be understood by every somewhat educated and intelligent Russian person; Moreover, this work is presented not so much in the form of an academic textbook, but in the form of a national guide, and therefore free from all boring and heavy forms of scholasticism, almost inevitable in short school textbooks. The author, with his special gift of expressing himself simply and clearly about the most sublime subjects, was able to achieve in his writing the highest degree of general intelligibility. With all fairness, we can say that the science of Orthodox dogmatic theology, which hitherto, as a science, was the exclusive property of the school, was brought by the author out of its close walls into the realm of real life and presented for public use” 34. In sharp contrast to the above review is the later caustic and offensive remark of Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804–1860). Khomyakov, who left behind his only serious theological work, “The Church is One,” published after his death in 1864, wrote: “It’s a shame that theology, as a science, is so far behind... Macarius reeked of scholasticism... I could call him delightfully stupid... It would be a shame if foreigners accepted such pitiful rubbish as an expression of our Orthodox theology” 35. Reading these words, I again want to remember the previously mentioned literary classic 36. In itself, this review, due to its obvious absurdity, does not deserve attention, but since it is often replicated by modern liberal theology, we will dwell on it in more detail. The first thing that immediately catches your eye is the unacceptable harshness of expressions. This very fact already contains an indicator of the incorrectness of the judgment. We mentioned the rare censorial tact and nobility of Metropolitan Macarius himself. Holy Scripture says: “Whether any of you is wise and prudent, prove this by actual good behavior with wise meekness. But if you have bitter envy and contentiousness in your heart, do not boast or lie about the truth. This is not wisdom descending from above, but earthly, spiritual, demonic, for where there is envy and quarrelsomeness, there is disorder and everything bad. But the wisdom that comes from above is first pure, then peaceful, modest, obedient, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and unfeigned. (James 3:14–17). Metropolitan Macarius, who, according to Khomyakov, suffered from “delightful stupidity,” created a number of fundamental works recommended by the Holy Synod as textbooks for teaching Orthodox youth. Therefore, this denunciation inexorably extends to the Holy Synod, which did not consider this “delightful stupidity.” This characteristic sharply contrasts with numerous reviews of Metropolitan Macarius by people who personally knew him quite closely. Nikanor, Archbishop of Kherson, spoke of him this way: “Makarii was not only great, but also, in some ways, unparalleled, a theologian” 37! S. A. Belyaev notes: “Already the contemporaries of Metropolitan Macarius drew attention to the peculiarity of his scientific activity - to his amazing ability to present the most complex and intricate material in an accessible and simple way. This is achieved by the author’s clarity of thought and remarkable ability not only to analyze, but also to systematize extensive material” 38. Khomyakov’s words are partly connected with his proud opinion of his just-composed theological work “The Church is One.” Researcher of creativity Khomyakova I.I. Evlampiev gives an apt description of some facets of this work: “The sharp criticism of the Catholic Church and Catholic dogma in Khomyakov’s works is not supported by almost any real arguments and expresses only the inner religious passion and uncompromisingness of the author” 39. This quality, so contrary to the theological and historical fundamentality of the works of Metropolitan Macarius, with all due respect to Alexei Stepanovich, cannot be called “admirable wisdom.” The Reverend Nikanor, continuing his characterization of the “Dogmatics” of Metropolitan Macarius, makes a very valuable remark: “Of the qualities of his capital theological work, we note only one, too rare, quality that none of the theologians possessed to this extent - this is the extraordinary proportionality and fidelity of the theological view, the extraordinary gift of finding and indicating the boundary between theological and non-theological positions, between dogmatic the revealed truth of faith and the position of human, albeit theological, opinion, a quality - which was called the extraordinary flair of Orthodoxy... Philaret, Innocent and John of Smolensk - those are more poetic, higher and deeper than Macarius. But Macarius is unparalleled in the completeness of his theological system, developed within a certain scientific framework” 40. Note that the works of A.S. Khomyakov, who did not receive regular theological education, was not allowed to be published by spiritual censorship during his life. They were published after the death of this prominent representative of Slavophilism. Recognizing his merits in the development of the doctrine of conciliarity of the Church, it is worth noting that his theological tuning fork was not at all as impeccable as that of Metropolitan Macarius. “I allow myself,” he writes in a letter to Aksakov, “to disagree in many cases with the so-called opinion of the Church” (II, 328).” It is not surprising, therefore, that soon after Khomyakov’s death the newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti called him a teacher of heresy. The purpose of these discussions is not at all to denigrate the memory of the founder of Slavophilism. In the character of A.S. One can see many valuable Christian qualities in Khomyakov. But his above judgment about Metropolitan Macarius is positively unacceptable. The inaccuracy of Khomyakov’s own theological views was noticed by the priest. Pavel Florensky. This inaccuracy extended to the most important Christian Sacrament - the Holy Eucharist. Prot. V. Asmus writes: “The roots of the new theory 41 do not extend beyond the 19th century. Its founder is Khomyakov, who in his “Experience in a Catechistic Presentation of the Doctrine of the Church” wrote that the Church “does not reject the word transubstantiation, but does not attribute to it the material meaning that was attributed to it by the teachers of the fallen churches.” In his essay “A Few Words from an Orthodox Christian about Western Confessions,” Khomyakov says differently: “He who sees in the Eucharist only remembrance, as well as he who insists on the word transubstantiation or replaces it with the word coexistence; in other words, “both the one who, so to speak, evaporates the sacrament, and the one who turns it into a purely material miracle, equally dishonor the holy supper by approaching it with questions of atomistic chemistry.” Khomyakov’s views received a worthy assessment from the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, priest Pavel Florensky, who writes: “So, the Church “does not reject” the word “transubstantiation,” but to “insist” on it means “to dishonor the Last Supper,” “to turn it into a purely material miracle,” “to approach it with questions of atomistic chemistry.” Strange logic! If you insist on the term “transubstantiation” there is no less a mistake than understanding the Holy Eucharist as coexistence (i.e. according to the formula cum pane, in pane, sub pane) or even as a simple remembrance, i.e. fall into obvious impiety, then how can the Church “not reject the word “transubstantiation”? In general, how can the Church “not reject” something that is reprehensible to insist on? It is clear that She either completely rejects the term discussed here, or, having accepted it, thereby allows us to adhere to it, i.e. insist on it as soon as there is a need for it and without it it will be impossible to stop the heretic’s mouth. But Khomyakov wants to avoid certainty and simply silence the term, which in the Eucharistic dispute with the Protestants is as decisive and therefore irremovable as the term “consubstantial” in the Trinitarian dispute with the Arianists or the term “Mother of God” in the dispute with the Nestorians. “This word is not in the Liturgy,” notes Khomyakov, a Protestant. But does Khomyakov not know that such a trick is unworthy of him, for the same thing was said, “without rejecting” the term “consubstantial,” and semi-Arianists, referring to its non-existence in the Holy Scriptures. And, to complete the analogy, the terms “consubstantial” and “Mother of God,” as well as the term “transubstantiation,” were actually used by heretics for their own purposes, using them in a crude, sensual way. But, nevertheless, the Church not only “did not reject them,” but also positively approved them, for without them it was impossible to resist the stream of heretical false teaching that was eroding church dogma” (Florensky, op. vol. 2, M. 1996, pp. 300-301)” 42 . This is what an overly jealous fight against “scholasticism” can lead to! It is noteworthy that Florensky in his reasoning pursues the same idea that Metropolitan Macarius expresses with utmost clarity in his Theology: “St. The fathers and teachers of the Church also expressed that in the sacrament of the Eucharist, bread and wine are broken, changed, transformed, transformed into the body and blood of Christ. The word transubstantiation, expressing exactly the same idea, began to come into use in the West from the middle of the 11th century, and in the East from the 15th century, when it was found in Gennady, the Patriarch of Constantinople. From that time on, this word, as correctly and very strongly expressing the idea of ​​dogma, began to be constantly used by the Orthodox Church along with the word transposition” 43. We see a similar, although not so harsh, accusation of Metropolitan Macarius of scholasticism in the review of N.N. Glubokovsky. He accuses the Metropolitan’s work of “scholasticism” with its “a priori dryness and bookish lifelessness” 44. A wonderful answer to this question was given by the famous Russian patrolologist A.I. Sidorov: “Attributing the concept of “scholasticism” to only “abusive words,” so common in our Orthodox everyday life, greatly impoverishes our understanding of Christian culture. For this concept can be used both with a plus sign and with a minus sign. In a positive sense, “scholasticism,” with its pathos of systematization and the architectonics of logical thought, is simply necessary at certain stages of the development of Orthodox Theology. This kind of “scholasticism” includes, for example, the famous work of St. John of Damascus “The Source of Knowledge” (especially the third part of this trilogy – “An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”). The work of Metropolitan Macarius is in many ways comparable to this creation of the outstanding father of the Church” 45. Let us note on our own that the first part of the “Source of Knowledge” by St. John of Damascus, “Philosophical Chapters”, is completely built on the works of Aristotle. The honorary title of “Scholastic” was borne by the creator of the immortal ascetic creation “The Ladder”, St. John Climacus 46. I would like to wish such “scholasticism” to all critics of Metropolitan Macarius, whose reviews sometimes lack elementary sound logic, not to mention respectful attitude towards people who are incomparably superior to them 47 . III. Metropolitan Macarius as an exponent of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church A characteristic feature of the works of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) is their exceptional doctrinal purity. Let us once again recall the amazingly accurate description of the Right Reverend Nikanor: “Of the qualities of his capital theological work, we note only one quality, too rare, and not possessed by any theologian to this extent - this is the extraordinary proportionality and fidelity of the theological view, the extraordinary gift of finding and indicating the boundary between theological and non-theological positions, between the dogmatic, God-revealed truth of faith and a state of human, albeit theological, opinion, a quality - which was called the extraordinary instinct of Orthodoxy" 48. His Eminence Anatoly Martynovsky wrote: “Glory and thanksgiving to God, who has given us the grace to publish the complete Orthodox rich dogmatic theology, in pure, worthy of the subject, Russian language, to take away the reproach from the Russian Church, which was reproached by the Gentiles for not even having its own theology, not contaminated with opinions alien to Orthodoxy” 49! After the publication of “Introduction to Orthodox Theology,” “Notes of the Fatherland” gave the following review: “Archimandrite Macarius established his own view of Orthodox theology, which none of our theologians had hitherto had; in particular, by introducing into his work a treatise on the Orthodox Church, as the only custodian of the true faith, he did what he wrote an introduction specifically to Orthodox theology, and not to Christian theology, or revealed theology in general” 50. The Most Reverend Innokenty of Kherson notes in his review: “The author’s greatest merit is that in his work for the first time he depicts with all power and persuasiveness, in a learned and at the same time understandable language, those dogmas and provisions by which the Eastern Orthodox Church differs from all other Christian faiths. After this, a foreign theologian cannot in any way say that in the Eastern Church they are accustomed to believing in their opinions unaccountably: for the new Orthodox dogma contains such an account in everything, the likes of which most of the non-Orthodox churches have not yet presented... He tried with extraordinary thoroughness to reveal those dogmas that constitute the distinctive character of the Orthodox teaching of the Eastern Church and are rejected or perverted in other Christian churches. religions, such as, for example, the teaching about the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit from God the Father, about the seven Sacraments of the Church, about the veneration and calling for help of saints, about prayer for the dead, and so on" 51 . It should be noted that this extraordinary accuracy of Metropolitan Macarius’ theological intuition was the fruit, on the one hand, of extraordinary diligence, and on the other, a personal feat of life, abstinence and humility, which attracted the enlightening grace of the Holy Spirit. The Most Reverend Macarius honestly searched for the truth, sometimes revising, as often happened with holy men, his earlier inaccurate views. An interesting document has been preserved from the archives of Metropolitan Macarius - his seminary essay on the topic “Will the pagans who do not believe in Jesus Christ be saved”? We graciously give the critics of Metropolitan Macarius some thoughts from this youthful work, so that they might at least somehow like our wonderful Russian theologian. But at the same time, we urge them to read our maxims to the end. Mikhail Bulgakov positively addresses the issue posed. “The thought of God,” he says, “the good, wise and just God, the thought of the infinite power and action of the merits of Christ, the thought of the immutability of the promises and calling of God - let these three thoughts be guiding stars for us - on the confused uncertain path on which we have entered... Thus, our guiding stars - the thought of God, the thought of the power and action of Christ’s merits, the thought of the immutability of the promises and calling of God - led us to the desired goal: here before us is the thought that the pagans too must be saved" 52 . But how is it possible for the pagans to assimilate the merits of Christ? Mikhail Bulgakov solves this issue in two ways: firstly, through the good deeds of the pagans on earth, and, secondly, through the posthumous existence and preaching of Christ and the apostles in hell 53. A. “Faith is the beginning and foundation of a good deed; a good deed is faith embodied. And the pagans have faith in their gods, and by faith they seem to animate their good deeds. The morality of pagans cannot be equal to Christian morality, but it can still be pure, perfect in its own way. And the faith of the pagans is much different from the faith of Christians. But if a pagan believes in his gods from the heart out of an involuntary natural attraction, then his faith also has its strength. In the person of his idols he adores the Incomprehensible. Striving towards them by faith, he strives for the one to whom nature itself attracts us. So, the good deeds of the pagans, imbued with their faith, can assimilate to them the merits of the universal Intercessor, without a doubt, not as much as the good deeds of Christians, generated by true faith. That is why the Apostle says: God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation whoever fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him (Acts 10:35)… Who knows, maybe even now among the pagans there are prophets who have earned the gifts of the Holy Spirit with their good lives. Christianity is not in word, but in deed. Not the Christian who only bears this name; but the one who lives as a Christian. You can call a pious pagan a Christian, and a bad Christian a pagan... Each deity for a pagan is only a symbol of the Savior, and his faith, false faith in false gods, if only it stems from the depths of the soul, in a sense, is true faith in the true Messiah (! - Priest A.P.). He does not know Jesus Christ by name, does not know how to identify a person (in concreto), but knows by deed (in abstracto), feels the need for him, and expresses this strong feeling by submission to his gods, as well as by his sacrifices” 54. B. But Mikhail Bulgakov recognizes even more possible the assimilation by pagans of the merits of Jesus Christ in the future life. “And beyond the grave,” he argues, “man lives, lives and acts, acts even more than on earth. Here his mind is shackled and burdened by the flesh: it does not allow him to easily and freely strive for the truth. There he is completely free: nothing constrains his endless impulses. Here his freedom, in a constant struggle with passions, does not have time to repel their attacks, and does not have time to care about good. There passions no longer disturb her peace and doing good is so unhindered and convenient. Why not allow a pagan in eternity, with such a convenient development of his mind and will, to finally recognize Jesus Christ and believe in Him” 55? In a word, the author finds it possible for the pagans themselves to convert (of course, to Christ) in eternity. “But is it possible,” he asks, “and from God’s side?” The answer to this is the descent of Jesus Christ into hell! “The conqueror of death and hell, He went there to preach freedom and salvation to the unfortunate prisoners. And at what time? In his most precious, solemn moments, as soon as he had time to finish his great feat on earth. His body, exhausted by suffering, still lies in the tomb; no one on earth yet knows His triumph. The Apostles themselves doubt Him. But He seems to forget about them for a while and hurries to the villages of the dead. There, it is true, there was an even greater need for His preaching. On Earth, only twelve Apostles awaited His resurrection. And there, perhaps, whole thousands just wanted to see Him in order to turn to Him. Why not assume such a sermon always? Why not say that Christ, who preached His religion on earth, passed into eternity to preach it there forever? And the Apostles themselves, who labored so hard in bringing the peoples to Him, did they not then move there, so that they could continue their apostleship there too, to which they were chosen once and for all?.... “For this purpose the gospel was preached also to the dead,” says the Apostle, “so that they, having been judged according to man in the flesh, might live according to God in the Spirit” (Peter 4:6). This means that even beyond the grave it is possible for pagans to repent, be baptized into Jesus Christ, correct their lives and assimilate His merits. And who would believe that Socrates, Plato and the like were not still Christians? So that Plato, who so successfully portrayed the Savior of men, would not recognize his great righteous man, and, having recognized him, would not prostrate himself before him? And some Socrates, who so intensely sought truth here, did not find it there either? To live for so many centuries and act, act and not improve, this is something completely incomprehensible” 56. Later, being already a venerable theologian, endowed with the rank of bishop, the author of these lines himself will refute them. Thus, in § 159 “The Descent of Jesus Christ into Hell and Victory over Hell” of the Dogmatists of Metropolitan Macarius we read: “He conquered and destroyed hell when, having abolished with his death the one who had the power of death, that is, the devil (Heb. 2:14), he descended into hell with his soul, like God, in order to preach good news to the captives of hell about salvation, and brought everyone out of there Old Testament righteous people to the bright abodes of the Heavenly Father... It must be added that if some of the ancients sometimes expressed the idea that Christ brought out of hell not just the Old Testament righteous people, but many others or even all the captives of hell, then they expressed it only in the form of fortune telling, assumptions, private opinions "57. See also § 205. Necessity of baptism for all; infant baptism; baptism of blood. It would be appropriate to remember how, immediately before compiling his Theology, Archimandrite Macarius providentially compiled a dogmatic excerpt from the works of St. Demetrius of Rostov, an outstanding Russian hagiologist. Saint Demetrius also expresses with undoubted clarity the traditional teaching about Redemption as satisfaction of Divine Justice - a teaching that is included in all official church doctrinal books, repeated by subsequent Fathers and Teachers of the Russian Church 58 . It is noteworthy that in the subsequent Dogmatics compiled by Bishop. Sylvester (Malevansky), which, despite its many remarkable merits, never became the official textbook of the Russian Orthodox Church on dogmatic theology, this teaching is obscured and blurred 59. In our opinion, it is precisely this extraordinary doctrinal purity and precision of formulation in the works of the Moscow saint that irritates liberal-minded theologians so much. A.I. Vvedensky likened Metropolitan Macarius’s seminary textbook to an iron hoop, “which squeezed and pressed his head... to the point of pain, to the point of nausea” 60 . The works of Metropolitan Macarius, indeed, can be likened to a harmonious and unusually stable building, with which modern liberals, with all their desire, cannot do anything. His works are too authoritative and his life is impeccable. All that's left to do is swear! Saint Innocent of Kherson wrote: “With His Grace Macarius, every dogma is examined and revealed from all sides from which it can appear with benefit in science. The examination always opens with a detailed presentation of the subject of the teaching of the Church, as the guardian of Orthodoxy, and the author, not limiting himself here to citing only the main points of this teaching regarding the main dogmas, exposes it (the first) with clarity regarding all others, even in relation to some particular truths. The presentation of the doctrine of the Church, regarding each dogma, is always followed by confirmation of it from the Holy Scriptures, much more excellent than that of previous dogmatists, both regarding the abundance of texts and their selection, and especially regarding the disclosure and application to the subject being proven. Following the indication of the existence of dogmas in the Holy Scriptures, it is always given in detail how these same dogmas constantly existed in the tradition of the Universal Church, and there are a whole series of witnesses to this tradition - the Fathers and Teachers of the Church of the first six centuries. For this, for a further explanation of the dogmas, the author calls for help on their history itself, which, due to its importance, has long been a special science in foreign literature, but in our country remained in oblivion, and gives in its dogma a place for the impartial look of common mind on Christian dogmas, while successfully avoiding two shortcomings: the rationalistic and scholastic directions. And, finally, the moral conclusions from the dogmas, which the author contains in each chapter, are everywhere in decent completeness, imbued with Christian feeling, and like a ripe and juicy fruit make you want to taste them with your own taste - through experience” 61. With this approach to the matter, it is clear how frivolous the accusations of Metropolitan Macarius of Catholic borrowing are. There is absolutely no basis for this, either in his theological works or in his life. For example, as Macarius, Archbishop, wrote. Kharkovsky, about the purpose of teaching Theology in secular educational institutions: “Christianity is understood and contained differently by different societies and churches: to prove that it is correctly understood and contained only in the Orthodox Church, which is therefore the only true one” 62. And here is the order of Macarius, Metropolitan of Lithuania: “It has come to my attention that among the indigenous parishioners of the Lithuanian diocese, even in the families of the priestly church and ministers, to this day there are still persons, mostly female, bearing the names of Latin saints. This was allowed during the union. But with the reunification of the Uniates with the Orthodox Church, the use of Latin names when baptizing infants according to the Orthodox rite should no longer take place.… Confirm again to the strictest clergy that when infants are baptized, Latin names should not be given to them under any circumstances” 63. And here is a fragment from the “Monastic Rules” published by Metropolitan Macarius at the Lithuanian See: “The abbot should also ensure that, if possible, there are no persons of the Roman Catholic confession in the monastery for any monastic services” 64. And this despite the fact that most of the flock consisted of people who had reunited with the Orthodox Church from the union! It is noteworthy that fidelity to Church Tradition was the guiding compass for the scientist in his historical works. The desire to see in history not a pile of facts, but the action of God’s Providence is a characteristic feature of his historical research. S.A. Belyaev writes: “In Rus', Metropolitan Macarius had a glorious predecessor - Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev, who in his “Word on Law and Grace” already considered the Russian land and the events on it shortly before he pronounced the “Word” as a manifestation of the Providence of God about it and the mercy of God. The book of Metropolitan Macarius in its internal division and chronology, i.e. in terms of the time under consideration, and in terms of the factual material on which it is built, it is a continuation of the work of Metropolitan Hilarion, but only in relation to our time” 65. Metropolitan Macarius confidently and reasonably confirms the Tradition about the visit of the Apostle Andrew the First-Called to the Kyiv and Novgorod borders, contrary to the established opinion of modern historical science. Having analyzed the sources and the historical situation, Metropolitan Macarius came to the conclusion that Apostle Andrew’s visit not only to the shores of the Black Sea, but also to the borders of Kyiv and Novgorod is a historically quite real event. “Be that as it may,” writes the historian, “only the legend about the gospel of the Holy Apostle Andrew, even in the inner regions of our fatherland, does not contain anything incredible, and there is no reason to reject it unconditionally or accept it as one idea” 66. S.A. Belyaev mentions the vastness of literature on this issue, listing the works of E.E. Golubinsky, V.G. Vasilievsky, S.P. Petrovsky, V.V. Bolotova, A. Sedelnikova, A.L. Pogodina, A.G. Kuzmina, L. Muller, I.S. Chichurova. “The general tendency,” the scientist notes, “prevailing in modern literature, is a complete denial of the reliability of the chronicle legend about the Apostle Andrew’s visit to the Kyiv and Novgorod borders, and, by default, the northern Black Sea region, i.e. Bosporus Kingdom, Chersonesus, Olbia and other ancient cities; sometimes it comes to denying the visit of the Apostle Andrew and Byzantium, the future Constantinople” 67. It is noteworthy that practically no serious argumentation is given. All the arguments presented are summarized by E.E. Golubinsky: 1. the Apostle Andrew visited the northern shore of the Black Sea, which gave the chronicler a reason to continue his journey further north to Kyiv, this was done in order to show that we are no worse than others; 2. such a journey is impossible, for during the time of the Apostle Andrew this land was a complete desert; 3. the path from the Novgorod borders to Rome is incredible, it is based on the ignorance of the author and is designed for the ignorance of the readers. S.A. Belyaev in his work convincingly shows how modern archeology refutes the point of view of E.E. Golubinsky, confirming the position of Metropolitan Macarius. In general, the journey of the apostles was not an exciting cruise in a modern car equipped with a navigator. It pursued completely different goals - the spread of the Christian gospel throughout the face of the earth. Holy Scripture tells us about the incomprehensibility of God's destinies. “Having reached Mysia, they decided to go to Bithynia; but the Spirit did not allow them. Having passed Mysia, they descended into Troas. And Paul had a vision at night: a certain man, a Macedonian, appeared, asking him and saying: come to Macedonia and help us. After this vision, we immediately decided to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel there” (Acts 16:7-10). Church history and hagiography provide many examples when divine grace and the gospel preached reached the most remote and closed areas for the gospel, if there were people there who were able to perceive it. It is enough to mention the biography of St. Procopius of Veliky Ustyug, St. Abraham of Bulgaria, St. Peter, Tsarevich of Ordynsky. Therefore, it would be more correct to speak not about the ignorance of the author and readers, but about the disbelief of E.E. Golubinsky into the almighty Providence of God. This fundamental difference in views on understanding church history especially clearly emphasizes the nobility of the soul of Metropolitan Macarius, who allocated funds for the publication of the works of E.E. Golubinsky! Loyalty to Church Tradition, as well as the deepest scientific erudition and impartiality are characteristic features of Metropolitan Macarius’ research in all areas of church knowledge. S.A. Belyaev notes: “About 130 years have passed since the last edition of the book by Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) of Moscow and Kolomna, “The History of Christianity in Rus' before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir as an Introduction to the History of the Russian Church.” The book has become a bibliographic rarity. But its value lies not only in this, but primarily in the fact that, despite the long - by human standards - period of time that has passed since the last edition, not a single work on this topic has appeared, about which it could be said that it replaced the book of Metropolitan Macarius. Without diminishing the importance of the relevant sections in the works of E.E. Golubinsky, A.V. Kartashev and a number of other publications on the history of the Russian Church, as well as numerous articles that have appeared over the past 130 years, it should be emphasized that they all together cannot replace the works of Metropolitan Macarius" 68. This same characteristic is quite applicable to almost all the studies of Metropolitan Macarius, for the reason that they are based on the indestructible stone of Church Tradition, and not on the changeable and unconvincing wisdom of this age. To conclude our short essay, I would like to share my own observation. The works of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), or rather the attitude towards them, became a touchstone and litmus test for determining the theological views of this or that church researcher. Anyone who gravitates toward relying on patristic thought in its conciliar manifestation, for whom the Orthodox Church and its teachings are dear, cannot help but appreciate the creations of this titan of Russian theological science, and not feel sympathy for his exceptionally noble personality. Those same theologians who imagine themselves as new Columbuses and set off into the sea of ​​theology without any navigational instruments, relying only on their own intelligence and intuition, even if dissolved by considerable erudition, treat both the works of the Moscow saint and his personality with disdain, as well as with open or muted hostility. But history puts everything in its place. One of the younger contemporaries of the Right Reverend Macarius, A. Rozhdestvensky, more than two decades after his death, wrote: “He was a tireless devotee of science, who with his remarkable works made a great and valuable contribution to the treasury of Russian Orthodox theology and church history and at the same time the most benevolent and generous encourager of the scientific works of other figures. His “Theology” is still the best and most complete system of dogma of the entire Orthodox East, on which all the spiritual youth of our Fatherland have been continuously educated for 50 years. His “History of the Russian Church” is not only a scientific monument, but also an artistic one, which still surprises all the best historians. Not a single Russian scientist studying in the field of Orthodox Theology can do without the theological and church-historical works of Metropolitan Macarius” 69. Canonized as locally venerated saints of the Odessa diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 1997. Canonized as locally venerated saints of the Chernigov diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church on April 14, 2009. Saint Philaret told the newly tonsured monks: “Keep above all else the purity of your soul and body: this should be your main difference from other people; if you maintain your purity, the Lord Jesus Christ will dwell in your heart, and then you will need nothing more, nothing will harm you, nothing will burden you. For this, be sober, abstain not only from intoxicating drinks, but also from overeating, observe moderation in everything. Surrender yourself to the will of God, completely surrender. Don't think about exaltations, don't let dreams enter your head; do not be offended if they elevate a person who, in your opinion, is unworthy. Be where they put you; be happy with what you give. Believe that God will never abandon a good monk: this is impossible, impossible! Pray as often as possible, always pray, if possible, have the Lord God in your heart and on your lips, and He will always be with you.” Oglobin, priest. Bachelor of the Kyiv Theological Academy Hieromonk Mikhail Monastyrev. Kyiv, 1861, p. 26–27. A description of the saint’s working environment has been preserved: “Archbishop Macarius, neat and precise in everything, most of all loved cleanliness and neatness in the environment in which he lived. The only exception was his office, where he spent most of his time. The Reverend Macarius always worked while standing at the writing table, writing with a quill pen, which he often dipped into the inkwell, shaking it to the side, which is why the floor and carpet were always splattered with ink. When the learned Archpastor deepened in thought, he quickly walked around the office, tore off pieces of paper from something and scattered them around the room. The entire office, moreover, was littered with books. His Eminence Macarius received many newspapers, magazines and books every day. Books were scattered in disarray on and under tables, on and under sofas. But the Archpastor strictly forbade his cell attendants to put them in order. “Understand, brother,” he said in such cases, “this book is open, folded or pawned: these are all my notes and you don’t dare confuse me.” Gerasimov P. Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow and Kolomna (Bulgakov Mikhail Petrovich; 1816‐1882): Life and theological activity // CD “Classical systems of Russian dogmatic theology. XIX century". St. Petersburg, Aksion estin, 2006. P. 20 Considering the volume of works compiled in this way, it is not difficult to understand that it was hard and tedious work. “I can’t write anymore,” notes Macarius in a letter to his brother, “my hand is almost numb from so much writing and doesn’t move.” Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T. II. K., 1903. P. 353. Krylov I.A. Elephant and Pug (1808). Church Bulletin, 1883, No. 9. Macarius continued to attribute his successes to God’s special providence for himself: “I also consider it a new and special blessing of the Lord that on the day when the Right Reverend Rector visited my class, my lecture was deliberately the best of all... Hey, I attributed it to God and very passionately, upon leaving the class, I prayed to Him.” Church Bulletin, 1883, No. 9. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T. II. K., 1903. P. 361. Titov describes the extremely cramped conditions in which Mikhail Bulgakov found himself while studying at the Belgorod School, when, together with the students of the seminary and the parish school, about 1,200 people were accommodated in three relatively small buildings. Here and during the inspection, the rooms were “very unclean.” “It is not surprising,” the researcher notes, “if already at that time in the head of a child who lived with government-paid students in the most unfavorable conditions and at almost every step encountered obstacles to satisfying his childhood curiosity, dreams could arise about the best possible structure of theological schools - dreams that later found the most beautiful expression for themselves in the well-known vow to give all savings from income for literary works to the benefit of theological schools and education in Russia.” Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 17. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T. II. K., 1903. P. 362. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 37. Archimandrite Dimitri (Muretov), ​​who took office as inspector of the Academy in 1838, characterized student Mikhail Bulgakov as “constant, prudent in his studies and behavior, and noble in his behavior with others”; in April 1840, he also recommended him as a student “noble, frank, studying with zeal.” Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 1. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 216. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. pp. 346–347. Macarius retained this directness and impartiality even as a diocesan bishop. When touring the Kharkov diocese, the local clergy initially greeted their archpastor with welcoming speeches, which were mostly distinguished by verbosity and a flattering tone. The Most Reverend Macarius put an end to this tradition by giving the following sentence to the Kharkov spiritual consistory on July 7, 1859: “During my review of the diocese last June, some priests, without even pre-empting me, made speeches before me that, as usual, contained expressions of flattery. I propose that the consistory make an announcement about the diocese, so that from now on none of the clergy will allow themselves to make any speeches to me when reviewing the diocese.” Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1903. P. 225. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 328. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 2. St. Gregory the Theologian. Homily 38. On Epiphany or on the Nativity of the Savior. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 108. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 84-85. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 82-83. It will be shown below that this remark applies not only to the historical, but also to the theological writings of Metropolitan Macarius. Gerasimov P. Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow and Kolomna (Bulgakov Mikhail Petrovich; 1816–1882): Life and theological activity // CD “Classical systems of Russian dogmatic theology. XIX century". St. Petersburg, Aksion estin, 2006. P. 29. Macarius, meanwhile, listened carefully to the comments of this master of Russian theology. Thus, he took into account his comments when publishing the “History of the Kyiv Academy”; treatises on the truth of the existence of God, the existence and immortality of the human soul were included in “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” under the influence of St. Philaret. In general, from the demonstrated integrity of Metropolitan Macarius, one can judge how unfair and inappropriate the assessment of Archpriest is. G. Florovsky: “Makariy does not have his own views - he is more objective than others, because he has no views at all. It was objectivity from indifference.” Prot. Georgy Florovsky. Paths of Russian Theology. Vilnius, 1991, p. 222. It is noteworthy that even this derogatory description of Florovsky highlights a characteristic feature of the research of Metropolitan Macarius - their objectivity. Prot. Georgy Florovsky also acknowledges the undoubted merit of Metropolitan Macarius in the formation of a stable terminological apparatus, so necessary for the development of theological science. Works of the Holy Fathers, 1886, book. 2, p. 749. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 194. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. pp. 399–403. It is noteworthy that Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia was also a teacher of dogmatic theology at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 154. Petukhov A., priest. The life and theology of St. Demetrius of Rostov // CD “St. Demetrius of Rostov (1651-1709).” St. Petersburg, Aksion estin, 2009. Historical Bulletin, vol. VII, 1882, p. 336. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 113. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 376. Bulletin of Europe, 1872, No. 9, p. 154. A.S. Khomyakov. Letter to A.N. Popov dated October 23. 1848 // Complete. collection Op. T. 8, M. 1900. pp. 188–189. We do not dwell here in detail on the “Critique of Dogmatic Theology” by Count L.N. Tolstoy, written by him after reading the works of Khomyakov, in which he openly blasphemously swears at this great work of the Right Reverend Macarius, and with it the entire Tradition of the Church. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 418. Belyaev S.A. History of Christianity in Rus' before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir and modern historical science // Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Russian history Churches. Book one. The history of Christianity in Rus' before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, as an introduction to the history of the Russian Church. M., 1994. P. 33. http://www.philosoffine.ru/study-285-1.html. Perhaps this extraordinary impetuosity, which sometimes crosses the threshold of what is permitted, was passed on to Khomyaky from his father, who lost more than a million rubles playing cards in a Moscow English club. And here is a fragment of the response from “Notes of the Fatherland” to the publication of “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” by Archimandrite Macarius: “By refuting the errors of the Gentiles, the author avoided in this very delicate matter the usual extreme of ardent, fanatical prejudice against Western churches, which, as is known, is especially harmful to the justice of the cause.” Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 255. Chernigov Diocesan Gazette, 1882, No. 15. Some modern theologians, in replacement of the traditional church teaching about the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts during the Liturgy, have proposed a hypothesis about the Chalcedonian perception of untransubstantiated bread and wine into the Hypostasis of God the Word. (See Meeting, No. 2 (23), pp. 35–45). A number of gross theological errors generated by this hypothesis (erroneous definition of hypostasis: hypostasis is something self-moving, and not glasses or a book, which are called an instance; bread and wine already exist before the Liturgy, and do not receive their existence in the Hypostasis of God the Word; the multi-nature of the Hypostasis of the Savior - deity, humanity, the nature of cereals and wine) testify to the complete inconsistency of such theological “discovery” and application Chalcedonian terminology to describe the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For a more detailed analysis of this error, see the Conclusion of the Synodal Theological Commission on the Joint Statement of the Orthodox-Lutheran Commission on Theological Dialogue “The Mystery of the Church: The Holy Eucharist in the Life of the Church” (Bratislava, 2–9. 11. 2006) http://theolcom.ru/doc/071225/zbr.pdf Asmus V., prot. Theses on the Eucharist. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Orthodox dogmatic theology. T. II. St. Petersburg, 1883. P. 379. Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M., 1992, p. 6–7. Sidorov A.I. A classic work on Orthodox dogmatic theology // Preface to the book: Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow and Kolomna. Orthodox-dogmatic theology". M., 1999. S. IV. See “A brief description of the life of Abba John, abbot of the holy Mount Sinai, nicknamed by the scholastics a truly holy father,” which precedes “The Ladder.” Yes, Rev. G. Florovsky, according to contemporaries, was distinguished by a very difficult character, in the words of A.I. Sidorova, “very boldly and arrogantly,” brings heavy accusations against Metropolitan Macarius: “In his personal tastes, Macarius was rather a “secular” person; he was precisely indifferent to issues of “spiritual life.” Prot. Georgy Florovsky. Paths of Russian Theology. Vilnius, 1991, p. 222. One of Metropolitan Macarius’s close acquaintances said: “In his modesty and moderation in his lifestyle, in his abstinence in food and drink, the saint was an example of a strict monk and surprised those around him with the meagerness and undemanding nature of his meals.” Titov, I, p. 65. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 397. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 255. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 399, 401. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 41-42. How can you not remember the broadcasts of some modern theologians? See archim. Rafail (Karelin). About modern neo-gnosticism (response to A.A. Zaitsev). http://karelin‐r.ru/newstrs/28/1.html Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 42–44. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 44–45. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 45-46. Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Macarius. Orthodox-dogmatic theology". M., 1999. S. 169, 173. See Petukhov A., priest. The life and theology of St. Demetrius of Rostov // CD “St. Demetrius of Rostov (1651–1709).” St. Petersburg, Aksion estin, 2009, pp. 27–30. This is the definition: “Jesus Christ, despite the fact that he was the Son of God and a completely sinless and innocent man, voluntarily suffered and died, so that, having offered Himself to God as a sacrifice for the sins of all people, he would gain pardon and forgiveness for them, and after death he was resurrected, ascending and sitting at the right hand of God the Father, to become an eternal intercessor and representative before Him.” Ep. Sylvester (Malevansky). Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology (with a historical presentation of dogmas). K., 1897. P. 173. Ep. Sylvester considers the Atonement in a broad sense, as the work of the Savior’s whole life: “The work of the redemption of people completed and carried out by our Savior is so great and immense that it would be in vain to try to review it with all its completeness and thoroughness.” Right there. P. 116. It is noteworthy that the Reverend Sylvester was prompted to serious dogmatic research activities, which gave our Church this very useful Dogmatics, by the inspection of the Kyiv Academy conducted by Metropolitan Macarius in 1874, and a very unflattering review regarding his professorial abilities and knowledge in the field of dogmatic theology. See Petukhov A., priest. Bishop Sylvester (Malevansky) of Kanev // CD “Classical systems of Russian dogmatic theology. XIX century". St. Petersburg, Aksion estin, 2006, pp. 3–4. Vvedensky A.I. On the issue of methodological reform of Orthodox dogmatics // Theological Bulletin, 1904, June, p. 180. Wikipedia, a well-known Internet resource, defines the school/tradition of A.I. Vvedensky as Russian neo-Kantianism. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T.I.K., 1895. P. 401. Titov F, priest. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Historical and biographical sketch. T. II. Tambov and Kharkov period of life and activity of Makaria. (1857–1868). K., 1903. P. 345. Titov F., prot. Moscow Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov. T. III. The Lithuanian period in the life of Metropolitan Macarius (1868–1879). K., 1915. P. 37. Titov F., prot. Moscow Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov. T. III. The Lithuanian period in the life of Metropolitan Macarius (1868–1879). K., 1915. P.145. Belyaev S.A. History of Christianity in Rus' before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir and modern historical science // Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. History of the Russian Church. Book one. The history of Christianity in Rus' before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, as an introduction to the history of the Russian Church. M., 1994. P. 35. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. History of the Russian Church. Book one. The history of Christianity in Rus' before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir as an introduction to the history of the Russian Church. M., 1994. P. 97. Belyaev S.A. History of Christianity in Rus' before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir and modern historical science // Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. History of the Russian Church. Book one. The history of Christianity in Rus' before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, as an introduction to the history of the Russian Church. M., 1994. P. 33. Rozhdestvensky A. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow: (According to the memoirs of his clerk) // Strannik, 1909, No. 5–6. P. 705.