Orthodox church law

Contents Preface to the Russian edition. Introduction. General principles of church law. § 2. Church in the field of law § 4. Church law in the general system of law § 5. The science of church law. § 6. Method of presentation of church law § 7. Auxiliary sciences of church law § 8. System of church law. § 9. Literature of Orthodox church law. St. Petersburg. June 10, 1897. Senior Censor, Archimandrite Clement. St. Petersburg Theological Academy dedicates his work to translation Preface to the Russian edition. The proposed translation from the Serbian language of the learned work (now available in German translation) of the Right Reverend Nicodemus, Bishop of Dalmatia, whose name is already quite well known in theological science, represents some deviations from the original, made by the translator with the permission of the Right Reverend author. After 1890, when “Orthodox Church Law” was published, theological literature was enriched with new works on Orthodox Church law, which, at the direction of the Reverend. the author and included in the literature review in § 9. Then, after the publication of the said work, new laws were promulgated in some local autocephalous churches that more or less changed the structure of local rights. churches, which in turn required some changes or additions to the content of this translation. As a result, the paragraphs concerning the modern structure of the churches: Bulgarian (§ 32) and Serbian (§ 34) were drawn up again on the basis of new laws, the Serbian of April 27, 1890 and the new Bulgarian exarchical charter of January 13, 1895; In addition, on the basis of the same laws, we have made corresponding changes in other paragraphs, which contain information concerning the modern structure of the Serbian and Bulgarian churches. And in the paragraph on the structure of the Romanian Church (§ 35), the necessary corresponding additions were made on the basis of the law of May 23, 1893. In all other parts, the work of the Right Reverend Nicodemus was left in all its completeness and inviolability. May 22, 1897 St. Petersburg. Milan Petrovich, fourth year student at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. I indicated the literature of Orthodox church law in the corresponding paragraph (§ 9) of this book and there I noted the fact that to this day there is no book in any language that would detail the law currently in force in the Orthodox Church, that is, in which the laws would be systematically set out, both mandatory for the entire Orthodox Church and those in force in private, currently existing churches that have their own independent government. The lack of such a book is noticeably felt everywhere and is especially noticeable for those teaching the science of Orthodox church law in educational institutions. Trying, within the limits of the possible, to satisfy this need, I published this book. As a first attempt, my work is not without shortcomings, mainly because among the existing autocephalous churches there are few that have all the positive provisions of the law codified, and in some of these churches there are absolutely no printed laws, and their canonical practice can only be judged by statistical information and notes from travelers. Having applied all my knowledge and strength, I did everything I could, and I hope they will believe me that I spared no effort in order to present the legal institutions of the Orthodox Church as fully and accurately as possible. Anyone else who will undertake the development of this subject will probably write a better book than mine, but I will console myself with the fact that the first one paved the way for so difficult and intricate a matter. How the subject is presented and in what system, all this is explained in detail in the book itself (§§ 5, 6 and 8). My general desire was to present Orthodox church law as it is. Some issues presented in my book do not agree with the general opinion established by custom in various places regarding private legal relations and institutions. But I had to speak this way and not otherwise, because I was prompted to do so by the general ecclesiastical legal sources and the legal practice of the church at that time, when its life represented the best harmony and when it was governed exclusively according to the instructions of its Founder and His first followers. I indicated general church-legal sources (by which I was guided) in the notes, where it was only necessary to confirm what I said in the text, and also noted all the private legal sources that I had at hand. Therefore, anyone can easily check from the sources what I said in the text, and on the other hand, you can see from them that in the text I say only what the sources pointed me to. I mention in this book (pp. 28 and 29) the names of four scientists who have rendered great services to the science of Orthodox church law, who have excellently and comprehensively developed some departments of this law. I made extensive use of their works, which provided me with great relief in my work. Duty prompts me to express my warmest gratitude to those who, with their letters, helped me in this work, and in particular: the former professor at the University of Vienna, and now the manager of the imperial library in Vienna, Dr. I. Chizhov and the professor at Moscow University, Dr. A. Pavlov; They introduced me to many sources of modern church law in private autocephalous churches, told me their enlightened views on some church legal institutions and gave their scientific advice regarding the systematization of the subject itself. Equally, I am obliged to express gratitude to the professor of Kazan University I. Berdnikov, who introduced me to Russian church-legal literature; Patriarchal and People's Secretary I. Chirich, who explained to me many questions about the newest church institutions in the Karlovac Metropolis; the Serbian ambassador to the Ottoman court S. Novakovic and the protopresbyter of the Serbian church in Constantinople V. Gregovich, who introduced me to the structure and management of the eastern autocephalous churches, as well as to the professor of the University of Athens, Dr. N. Damalas, who provided me with the same service regarding the church of the Greek kingdom. I owe the greatest gratitude to these individuals, because without their noble help, my real book would hardly have seen the light of day. Religion, revealed by God to the first people, lost its primitive appearance over the centuries and turned into a wide variety of popular and state beliefs. By the time of the advent of Christianity, each nation had its own gods, its own worship, and religion, instead of being a force that mutually binds people and unites them with God, 1 in the world of that time separated people, making peoples alien to each other. This separation of people in faith necessarily influenced popular morality, which is why the former love between people, respect in every person for the image of God, and hence the consciousness of the equality of all people, was lured by that selfish morality, the sad picture of which the life of mankind of that time presents to us 2 . This unnatural state in which the world was then was recognized by everyone and oppressed all layers of the then society; Everywhere it was felt that this order of things could not last long, everywhere the need for some new force was recognized that would revive humanity, directing it from the false path along which it had been walking until then to the true path. And this regenerating power appeared when the “fullness of time” came, when, according to the eternal predestination of Providence, the disorder that had reigned in the world until then should have ceased, when love, which had the purpose of uniting all peoples into one family to jointly serve the common good and to achieve the goal destined for man by nature and God, should have taken the place of selfish morality. Christianity appeared, which, condemning the separation of people hitherto legalized by religion and sealed with its seal, proclaiming the equality of all before God and eternal truth and teaching what should be the relationship of people to God, to themselves and to their neighbors, proclaimed itself a universal religion, having in itself the power to spread everywhere, to embrace the entire nature of man, satisfying all the legitimate (real) needs of the human spirit. This Christian religion was announced to people by God Himself and He Himself established it as the kingdom of God on earth, as the church of all mankind (Matt. 16:18; Mark 10:15), and, as such, this church must be perfect, for it is the institution of God on earth. The eternal law, inscribed by God to people for their mutual relations and with ultimate goals in mind, was obscured by human will, and over the centuries a deep abyss formed between it and this will. No earthly force was able to destroy the latter; For this, divine power was needed, which would bring the human will into relation with the divine law, forcing it to voluntarily submit to it. This divine power is the Christian Church, which therefore has its first and main task to direct the human will in accordance with the will of God, and the will of God is that people honor their Creator, that mutual love reigns among them on earth, that everyone, being the image of God, mutually respects each other, works together for the common good and prepares with their lives on earth to achieve eternal good. This is the general and ultimate task of the Christian church. And the church began to fulfill this task immediately after its appearance in the world and carried it out throughout the centuries, revealing its beneficial and regenerating influence on human society and on all its institutions 3 . The Church is the kingdom of God on earth. This is what the founder of the church, Jesus Christ, called the church. In addition, during His earthly life He once used the word church (ἐκκλησ ί α) in a sense completely different from the above. Speaking about the fact that a brother who has sinned must first be convicted in private, and if he does not listen, then before witnesses, and if he does not listen to them either, Christ added: “Tell the church; But if the church does not listen, then let him be to you as a pagan and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15–17). Here the church is already pointed out as a society of believers as opposed to non-believers. Both of these meanings, communicated to the church by Christ, complement each other and indicate its general meaning. On the basis of the last words of Holy Scripture, church law is established, which, recognizing the church, in view of the first place of Holy Scripture (Matt. 16:18), the establishment (kingdom) of God on earth, and, in addition, having assimilated other distinctive features, he considers it a society of people who believe in Jesus Christ, united among themselves in one common spiritual union by the unity of the universal confession, receiving through St. the mysteries are sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit and spiritually guided by those who inherited power from the apostles, under the invisible headship of Christ, to achieve eternal salvation 4. As a society of people on earth with its own specific purpose, as a social organism, the church must also have its own precisely defined laws, according to which this organism develops and lives and by which relations between its members are established. The basic laws were given by Jesus Christ, while others, on the basis of these, were issued by the church itself by virtue of the power that it received from Him. Due to the relationship of the church, as a social organism, to the inner life of each individual member of this organism and then in view of the very task of the church in the world, its laws differ both from moral and from all earthly social laws. The regulations that determine the external activities of the members of any social body and establish the relations of these members among themselves and to the whole society are called legal laws, and when applied to the church, ecclesiastical laws and, as such, differ significantly from moral laws both in subject, volume, and sanction. In terms of subject matter, legal law, which aims to normalize the necessary order in a known society, concerns only external actions, that is, such actions of free human will that manifest themselves outside, since only these actions can have their consequences for the existing social order. The moral law, on the contrary, concerns all the internal mental movements of a person, his aspirations, his intentions; and since these internal aspirations and intentions, no matter how bad they may be in themselves, until they manifest themselves in any external action, do not yet encroach on the rights of others, they cannot be subject to the court of legal law. In terms of scope, the scope of the moral law includes all human activity, both his internal intentions and external actions, for the latter in themselves are nothing more than the expression of what originates in a person, the implementation of his intentions, and therefore the moral law subjects to its judgment the intentions of a person to commit this or that act. Legal law cannot penetrate into the depth of intentions expressed in a certain action; he judges only on the basis of what a person has done as a member of a known society. Bearing in mind the extent to which a person by his actions violated the rights of others or sinned against general social institutions, the legal law condemns him. As for sanctions, 5 then if the legal law, in accordance with the established purpose, must protect and maintain the existing external order in society, it has the right and duty not only to ensure that this order is maintained and that everyone respects it, but also to use coercive force so that everyone obeys this order, being responsible for its violation. Fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the moral law, on the contrary, is subject to the judgment of conscience and appears to the free will of man, who is responsible only before God for violating this law 6 . Coercive force constitutes the main difference between moral and legal law, and it is an indispensable condition of any legal law, as well as ecclesiastical legal law. The difference lies only in the nature of the enforcement of this law in the church and in the state. The Church, by its basic structure, cannot use physical force, as the state does, but it also has the power to punish each of its members who does not obey its regulations and violates the order established in it, which has a strictly legal meaning. The coercion that the church resorts to does not at all contradict the basic Christian dogmas about free will. The Church does not force anyone to enter into an alliance with it, but once someone has already entered into it and belongs to it, if they wish to enjoy the benefits offered to them by the Church, they are obliged to obey its laws, which are based on the divine will. The coercive power of church-legal decrees exists not for the sake of the church itself, but for the achievement of a certain goal by those who, by free will, entered into an alliance with it and who, by the same free will, can leave it. The Church applies coercive force, according to its character, through spiritual means; therefore, all its actions in this regard can never be of a physically coercive nature, for, on the one hand, it is impossible to act on the heart of a person with measures of physical coercion so that he strives for the highest Christian goals, and on the other hand, the church is primarily the kingdom of freedom. According to the very task of the church in the world, its laws differ from the laws of all earthly societies and, in particular, from state laws. This difference, on the one hand, follows from the very essence of the church, and on the other, from the essence of all other earthly societies, and especially the state. By the very task of the church, indicated to it by God, it has the character of necessity, while no state in the world has this property, and, as such, the church retains a completely independent significance; in a state this meaning can only be relative. The Church is not limited to either time or place, and its existence does not depend on certain local conditions; it can and should exist everywhere and at all times; states are determined in everything by local circumstances, and their existence depends on these latter. The Church has a structure given to it by God, which it must unconditionally always preserve; states, on the contrary, receive their structure depending on popular desires and local circumstances and change it, depending on the changes in the latter. The Church has the task of making man happy on earth and preparing him for a blessed eternity; Meanwhile, states limit themselves only to ensuring the earthly well-being of their members, without caring about their fate after death. Due to this significance of the church and its task, which is different from the task and significance of states and earthly societies, church laws are fundamentally different from state and social laws: the former are unchanged, the latter change; those are based on the divine will, these on the human; the source of church laws is the eternal law, the source of all others is the temporal law; Church laws operate with the help of spiritual and moral means, state and social laws - with the help of physically coercive means; Those are aimed at making a person happy both in the present century and in the future, while the latter are aimed at ensuring peace and good order only in the present. This feature of the laws of the church as a social organism, along with moral laws and state laws, determines in itself the position that the church occupies in the field of law. The Church has its own special structure, has its own special means and has its own special goal. The structure of the church is established by God; God also determined for her the goal that she must achieve on earth; the means by which it can achieve this goal are also indicated. Therefore, its structure is independent and completely independent of all the accidents of human will and, as a God-established structure, it must be preserved in complete integrity through all times. But in order for it to be preserved, the relationship between the members of the church and the church itself in its entirety, and then the relationship between the members of the church themselves, must first be precisely defined. For this purpose, a certain authority has been established in the church, which, in accordance with the internal essence of the church, strives for the correct settlement of these relations, for the protection of good order in everything. Further, due to the fact that the church has as its task to spread throughout the whole world and bring all nations to Christianity - which it has not yet managed to do, because there are whole millions of people outside it - it must be in certain relations, determined by the nature of its universality, with those who do not belong to it, but adhere to various other faiths. Finally, the church, spreading to different parts of the world, must come into contact with the states within which it is located, and from here again new relations arise between its power and the state power, which cannot but be precisely established. All these various relations concerning the external life of the church must be determined by precise legal laws in relation to its internal character. From the point of view of these various relations of the church, it enters into the realm of law, first as a social organism, having its own legal institutions, and then as a social unit, standing in relation to states and to various religious societies. We have seen that the church has its own strictly defined structure and its own laws, with which it protects this structure, in accordance with the purpose indicated to it by God; They saw, then, that the church is independent and independent in its existence, and its significance cannot be determined by the circumstances of time and place. From this the necessity of the existence of church law naturally follows. Church law, like any other law, is understood in a subjective and objective sense. In a subjective sense, it is the totality of those distinctive properties of the law that completely embrace the members of the church, according to the position they occupy in it, as a social organism, or the legal entities that may exist in it. As can be seen, here we are making the subject of law not the church itself as a whole, but its known members or legal individuals who are recognized as such by the legal authority. We do this due to the fact that the church itself cannot be any legal individual, as the latter is defined by the philosophy of law, and that the church is not any corporation having its origin in the agreement of several persons interested in a certain subject 7. In an objective sense, church law is represented by all the provisions of the law that determine the external life of the church as a social organism 8. Church law is also called canon law. In Greek schools it is now generally called κανονικὸν δίκαιον. This ancient name is taken from the word κανών 9, which at the beginning of the existence of the church denoted both individual and all precepts taken together concerning the faith and Christian life. Later, when the legislative activity of the church began to develop more widely, written decrees began to be called canons, which were supposed to have the meaning of positive and generally binding laws in the church 10. As such, the canons differed from the faithful Church Custom (ἐκκλησιαστικὴ συνήθεια) 11 and from the civil laws (πολιτικοὶ νόμοι) 12. Currently, it is customary to call canons those church laws that are contained in the Orthodox Church in the canonical collection, finally formed in the last quarter of the 9th century, and in the Roman Catholic Church - in the Corpus juris canonici. The name canon law could therefore only be adopted if it dealt exclusively with the canons, i.e. ecclesiastical laws issued before the 9th century in the East, or before the conclusion of the Corpus juris canonici in the West. But since the area of ​​current church law also includes many other laws of later times, which were not included in the canonical collections, but were issued by the church itself or for it by state authority, and which do not bear the name of canons, although they also have binding force in the church, the name church law is adopted to designate the law now in force in the church. From this point of view, church law is more extensive in material than canonical law, so that the latter can be considered a part of the former, although such a fundamental part on which the former is entirely based. According to sources, in relation to their value, time, etc., church law is divided into: 1) written (ἔγγραφον, scriptam), when known laws were issued, approved and set out in writing by the underlying legislative authority, and unwritten (ἄγραφον, nonscriptum), if it was preserved in the church by tradition and custom. The first is considered precise, strict (τὰ τῆς ἀκριβείας, jus scriptum), and the second is considered ordinary (τὰ τῆς σονηθείας, per consuetudinem); 2) divine (θεῖον, divinum) or natural φυσικόν, naturale), which arose along with the emergence of the church itself and is based on a clearly expressed divine will, and positive (θετικόν, positivum) or ecclesiastical ( ἐκκλησιαστικόν, ecclesiasticum), established on the precisely established laws of the church; 3) general (κοινόν γενικόν, commune), which is based on general fundamental laws issued for the entire Christian church, and particular (τοπικόν, ἰδικόν, μερικόν, particulare), which constitute laws, published on private occasions only for one or another local church 13; 4) ancient (ἀρχαῖον, vetus), which consists of laws issued in the time preceding the division of churches, and new, which includes laws issued by the church after this time; 5) internal (ἐσωτερικόν, internum), which includes laws that define the internal legal relations of the church, and external (ἐξωτερικόν, externum), which embraces laws that determine the relations of the church as a whole, to the state and to those that do not belong to it. In addition, law is divided into administrative, judicial, criminal, etc. If the church is an independent institution and independent of anything earthly, then its law should be equally independent in the general system of law. A person develops his activity externally either as an individual or as a member of the state, from which certain legal relations arise, constituting two separate areas of law: private law (ἰδιωτικὸν δίκακον, jus privatum) and public law (δημόσιον δίκαιοον, publicum jus). But this does not exhaust all aspects of human existence. By nature, man strives for union with God 14. Neither private, nor public, nor any other human right can satisfy this natural desire. A person finds his satisfaction in union with other people imbued with this desire, in unity with all those who feel the need to ascend from the earthly to the heavenly and unite with God. This unity of people with such goals has always existed in the world and will always exist, for such is human nature. In ancient times, religion was identified with national and political interests, and all religions that existed then were either national or state, limited to one or another people, one or another state. Therefore, the law relating to this or that religion could not be different or independent from the popular or state law itself of the area where the known religion existed. Jus sacrum with the ancient Romans was part of the juris publici, but with the Jews it was almost the same jus publicum. Christianity made a radical change in this. It is not bound by any particular people, much less by any particular state. The Christian faith is intended for one and all, without distinction of nationality or state structure, and as such, it cannot be fundamentally subordinated to any right that is determined by the national character of a certain people or the political structure of this or that state. Those who profess the Christian religion 15 are united among themselves into one whole, which, in the essence of Christianity, cannot depend on any particular national or state feature and therefore must be independent. If this is so, and it cannot be otherwise, then the Christian Church, which represents this religious whole on earth, cannot be dependent on either national or state characteristics and therefore must be independent and have its own special right - church law. Church law is therefore based on its positive, original sources, originating not from any earthly power, but from the power of Him who came from heaven to establish His kingdom on earth, to found the church: “has been given to me,” Christ says to His disciples, “all power in heaven and on earth. And so go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18–20). He transferred this power to His disciples, the apostles, who used it in His name. “Give me this power also” (ἐξουσίαν ταύτην), Simon turned to the apostles, seeing that they alone had it (Acts 8:19). From the apostles this power passed to the church, and it used it at all times as freely and independently as the Founder of the church. By the power of this single and no other power, the structure of the church was established in the image outlined in the Gospel, divine services were established in it, its administration was determined, the way of life in it was indicated, in a word, all laws relating to church institutions and constituting church law were issued. This originality of the source of church law and, consequently, of law itself is proved to us in the most obvious way by its history. From it we see that this very right independently existed and developed over three whole centuries - the first three centuries of Christianity, when the state not only did not help the church, but also did not recognize its legal existence. When, then, the state entered into an alliance with the church, church law not only lost nothing of its originality, but, continuing to develop on its already established foundations, even influenced state and civil law and contributed to the transformation of both, as well as the entire social life of the then world 16. From what has been said, it is clear that since there are various legal relations in which a person can be either as an individual in himself, or as a member of the state, or as a member of the church - and these relations individually are essentially different from each other - then there must be three separate areas of these legal relations, hence the law itself must be divided into private law, public law and church law and, therefore, the position of church law in the general system of law is as independent as private law and public law are independent in themselves 17 . From the very position of the church and the meaning of its law, it follows that it is necessary to present this law in such a way that its organic unity and the basic thought that animates it are visible. The most accurate presentation of the legal regulations that constitute this right in relation to the importance of the source or the order of the time of their publication, the most complete interpretation of these regulations, according to this order, the most thorough explanation of their meaning - all this and other similar works would bring, as in fact they did, a lot of benefit for the understanding of these same regulations. But at the same time it would still be impossible to penetrate into the spirit of law itself; the entire harmony that reigns in it would remain incomprehensible, and, what is especially important, the internal meaning and guiding principle of law would not be clear. As a result of this and in view of the high importance of the institutions to which this right concerns, it is necessary that all the material composing it be subjected to scientific processing and presented in such a way that everything contained in it is presented fully, clearly and in such a connection that the basis of everything is visible and how everything flows from one basic principle and everything is directed towards one specific goal. Such a systematic presentation of everything that church law contains constitutes the science of church law. The positive character of the church itself already determines the positive character of the science of church law, which, as a result, excludes any subjective speculation, which, in addition to inspiring distrust in itself, is also inappropriate when we mean the presentation of precisely defined and established laws. In the second half of the 18th century in the West, attempts were made to apply a rationalistic method to church law in order, regardless of the positive instructions of the church, to present this law according to the laws of reason - human reason was the judge of church institutions, which are dealt with by church law 18. How unnatural this is in itself and how, finally, it should destroy the legal building of the church, even the church itself, it is unnecessary to talk about it. This philosophical or natural ecclesiastical law, as defined by some, was overthrown not only by the Roman Catholics, but also by the Protestant canonists, 19 and no serious writer now begins the former attempts to compose such a law. From the concept of the science of church law, the very task of this science becomes clear. It must show the origin and development of church law, indicate what constitutes its unchanging basis, in order, through legal logic and the laws of history, to establish a criterion for judging how much something existing in the church structure can, depending on local circumstances, change; then, it must provide a solid basis for criticizing local church law and indicate in what relation it stands to the basic institutions of church life and, finally, teach how the church should be governed in relation to its very purpose 20. The science of church law can achieve the proper fulfillment of this task only when it sets out what constitutes its essential content as a legal science, while continuing to maintain its independence, both in relation to theological and other legal sciences. We have seen what the general task of the church is (§1). If we look in particular at this general task of the church, we will see two sides in it, which, although closely related to each other and inseparable, nevertheless, from the outside, are mutually different. One defines the position in which a person must always remain in relation to God in order to become a participant in the good revealed to him by the gospel. The other indicates the position that a person, as a member of the church, must maintain in relation to the church itself in general and to each member of it in particular. In the first case, the church has grace-filled means that reconcile a person with God and lead him to the achievement of eternal good, and therefore is called in the gospel “a kingdom that is not of this world”; in the second case, it represents a society of people on earth, which has its own specific goal, a social organism that lives and develops according to its own specific laws. In this latter case, the church is the subject of the science of church law, while in the first respect it is dealt with by theological sciences. So, if the science of church law wants to essentially exhaust its subject and show in its entirety the organism of the church as it is; if it wants to be an original science with its own specific goal - to systematically expound legal relations in the church, it must have in mind only what concerns these legal relations, removing from its scope everything that does not directly belong to it. Church law, in its ultimate basis, concerns both faith and morality, but it would fall into error if it undertook to expound both this faith and this morality together with the law of the church, for then such a confusion would result that hardly anyone could understand it, and law itself would cease to be what it by its nature should be - it would cease to be a legal science. We have already said what the task of the science of church law is. For this task, the science of church law must divide all the institutions that exist in the church into those that have legal significance and those that do not, and then deal only with the former, leaving the others to other sciences. For example, among the seven sacraments listed by dogmatic theology, there is also consecration of oil (τὸ ἐοχέλαιον). The latter is a divine institution and is useful for the salvation of people; nevertheless, the science of church law will not deal with it separately, since there is no legal regulation for the acceptance of this sacrament, and its very acceptance or non-acceptance will not entail any legal consequences in the church. Likewise, in certain church institutions that have both religious and legal significance, the science of church law will have to strictly distinguish between the first and the second and, leaving the religious side of a known institution to other sciences, will itself deal only with the second, legal side. For example, baptism, according to Christian teaching, frees a person from original sin and reconciles him with God. This religious side of the sacrament of baptism is of secondary importance for law, since for him the main thing in this sacrament is that a person through baptism receives ecclesiastical legal capacity; therefore, law pays attention only to whether the provisions of the law regarding the acceptance of this sacrament have been preserved and whether through it a person has become an essentially full member of the church. If the science of church law does not strictly distinguish the legal side of well-known church institutions from the religious, if it does not pay its attention exclusively to the first, leaving the second to theological sciences, it will never meet its own task and will not become an original legal science. The scientific presentation of church law has been and can be varied, depending on how one understands this law and what goal it strives for. Encyclopedias of law mention several methods of presentation: empirical, historical, philosophical, historical-philosophical and historical-dogmatic. The first three - if our science wanted to present its subject exclusively on one or one of them - in themselves cannot satisfy the task of the science of church law indicated by us (§ 5). With the empirical method, a person must exclusively pay attention to the external side of the law and concern only the existing law, without going into any research regarding its origin and the basis of the guiding principle. The historical method in itself is satisfactory, but in order to be useful for science, it must be combined with others, otherwise, sticking to it alone, we cannot understand the inner strength of law itself and, instead of asserting anything dogmatically about the latter, we will have to judge it on the basis of historical necessity. The philosophical method itself is one-sided, because, following it, we cannot achieve true knowledge of either the origin and development of law, or its positive meaning; but, what is especially important, it can easily lead to subjectivity in judgments and create some kind of “philosophical” or natural church law (§ 5). The fourth, historical-philosophical method, was more or less justified in practice, although the philosophical element in this method must be handled very carefully so that one can stay on solid ground and not change the dogma of law. It seems to us that of all the methods mentioned, the most reliable is the last one, namely the historical-dogmatic method; its justification can be seen from the indicated task, which, in our understanding, should be satisfied by the science of church law 21. Due to the practical nature with which our science should be predominantly distinguished, and due to the fact that we are not limited to the local church alone, but embrace everything, and each of these churches, in addition to the general canonical law that serves as the basis for it, also has its own separate law - as a result of all this, after the general positive teaching about individual church-legal institutions, we will turn our attention to the church-legal regulations that, in addition to the general law, are now in force in individual local churches. These private instructions do not concern fundamental legal grounds, but mostly the administrative side of church life and are in many ways similar to each other; Therefore, we will not cite all of them in detail for every question, but will do this only in those cases where the known instructions concerning a given issue present a little more difference from each other, and when a peculiarity is more clearly seen in the external structure of one or another local church. The science of church law draws its content from its sources, but by its nature and subject it stands in connection with other individual sciences that serve it as auxiliary sciences. This includes well-known theological, historical and legal sciences. 1. Of the theological sciences 22 auxiliary for church law are: a) exegesis of the Old and New Testaments 23; b) dogmatics 24; c) moral theology 25; d) church history 26 and e) pastoral theology 27. 2. Historical sciences: a) archeology 28; b) diplomacy 29; c) chronology 30 and d) geography and statistics 31. 3. Legal Sciences. If the theological and historical sciences greatly contribute to the science of church law, then the legal sciences are all the more important for it, with which it is in close connection and through which a correct understanding of its meaning and presentation of it as an independent legal science is achieved. Without a thorough knowledge of well-known legal sciences and without good legal training, it will be possible to study church law only from its practical side, but not from its scientific side. As a result, the following comes to the fore: a) philosophy of law, which gives the concept of the highest principles of law 32. b) Roman law, with which church law is inseparably linked. At the beginning of the church, when the emperors were not yet Christians, the members of the church, as Roman citizens, already had to follow the well-known instructions of the emperors in certain matters. After the latter adopted Christianity, Roman, or more precisely, Greco-Roman law acquired greater importance in the church. In all legal matters on which the church did not yet have its own decrees, it followed the prescriptions of civil law, and in this law we find many decrees on various issues of church life. Let us at least open the Codex of Theodosius, and we will find a whole book (XVI) presenting the laws: de fide catholica, de episcopis, ecclesiis et clericis, de monachis, de his, qui de religione contendunt, de haereticis, ne s. baptisma iteretur de apostatis, de judaeis, coelicolis et samaritanis, de paganis sacrificiis et templis, de religione. Let us take the Code of Justinian (repetitae praelectionis) and in the first book we will find as many as thirteen chapters (tituli), which exclusively contain laws on the objects of the Christian faith and the church: de summa trinitate, de sacrosanctis ecclesiis, de episcopis et clericis et orphanotrophis etc., de episcopali audientia, de haereticis, ne sanctum baptisma iteretur, de apostatis, etc. If we take the short stories (novellae constitutiones) of Justinian, we will see among them many that deal with the same issues: the third - about the clergy of Costaninople and other churches, the fifth - about monasteries, the sixth - about bishops, presbyters and deacons, the seventh - about the management of church property, etc. We find the same in the short stories of emperors after Justinian: Justina, Tiberius, Heraclius, etc. And most of these laws of state power were included in canonical collections, becoming, as they said, leges canonisatae. Almost half of the Slavic Helmsman contains precisely the laws by which the church was governed. These laws were distinguished by their competence in all matters of church government, regarding which precise laws were not issued by the church authorities, as can be seen from many examples of both ancient and later times. In addition, church law itself was developed by famous canonists on the basis of Greco-Roman law. Roman institutions (institutiones) served as a model for cantonists even until modern times. Commentators on the canons in their works already paid attention to the pandectas (pandectarum seu digestorum libri) in Roman law, and the most important of the eastern commentators on the canons, Balsamon, in his work focused exclusively on the great compilation of Greco-Roman law, published under the name “basil” (Basilicorum libri LX). After all this, it seems completely clear to us how important Roman law should be for church law, as an auxiliary science 33. c) Jewish law for the church is also of great importance, since many of the prescriptions of the Mosaic legislation passed into the Christian church, and since the Founder of the church himself tells us that he did not come to destroy the ancient law, but to fulfill (Matthew 6:17) 34. d) Slavic law can serve as an auxiliary science for church law among the Slavs, at least to the extent that it can explain some features in the life of the Slavic Orthodox Church - features that, for example, the Greek Church does not have 35. Finally, e) the law of individual states in which the Orthodox Church exists. In addition to these sciences, knowledge of languages, especially Greek of the Middle Ages, is certainly necessary for the study and presentation of church law 36. One of the most difficult questions is the question: in what order to present all the material of church law in order to satisfy the requirements and objectives of the science of church law. It is enough just to look at the severity of criticism of certain canonist theorists when they talk about various systems of our science with which they disagree, and at the almost partiality in defending their system, to see how difficult this question about the system is. This depends on the absence of one specific system, as a result of which everyone arranges the material according to his own discretion and understanding, thinking that this arrangement best suits the task of science itself. Only in modern times has it become noticeable in this case that there seems to be an approach to some kind of unity, at least in the main division. The first works on church law consisted of presenting the provisions of the law in chronological order and grouping them either according to the meaning of their sources, or according to the subjects on which they treat. But since there was no internal organic unity in works of this kind, it is natural that these works could not have scientific significance. The semblance of a system first appeared in the 12th century in the West, when Bernard of Pavia published his canonical collection, dividing it into five main sections, designated by five special expressions: judge, court, clergy, marriage and crime 37. The first section sets out the doctrine of the bearers of church authority, the second - about legal proceedings, the third - about the rights and duties of the clergy, the fourth - about marriage and the fifth - about church crimes and punishments. Strictly speaking, there was no system here, since no internal connection was visible that could have been used to understand how these individual parts flow from one another, and what the main guiding thought connecting them is. However, in the West, church law was taught according to this system for several centuries. Along with this system, a new system arose in the West, borrowed from the institutions of Justinian, according to which church law began to be divided into three sections: persons, objects and actions 38. The first section outlined personal law that concerned specifically the clergy; the second dealt with objects of worship and property law, and the third dealt with civil and criminal proceedings. This division was proposed in his work on church law in the Χ 5th century by Paul Lancelot 39 . In itself, this system is much better than the first, because the main points of church law concern precisely those three subjects in relation to which this system is divided, only it can be carried out with difficulty and therefore is now completely abandoned. Our century has taken a new path. Having condemned both of these systems, instead of them, he put forward those developed by himself. The only pity is that he did not establish one specific system that could really be authoritative for everyone; Then there would not be that boring variety that new works on church law present to us, since we can safely say that now there are as many systems for presenting the science of church law as there are people who have been engaged in the presentation of this science. So, the question of the system of science of church law has not yet been resolved; its solution is left to future times and depends on the understanding of the subject of our science by the famous writer. We have followed with due attention no small number of the best systematic works on church law of modern times, 40 but, nevertheless, we could not decide to follow exclusively any of these systems or even to assimilate all the divisions they represent. We adopted such a system, which, in our understanding, seemed to us the most natural and completely exhaustive of its subject - namely, in accordance with our goal, we turned our attention to the whole organism of the church and posed the question of how this organism is adapted, what holds it together and what is the life that animates it. Analysis of existing systems showed us three aspects to which the science of church law, in particular, should pay its attention, namely: church structure, church government and church life. And since knowledge of the entire body of the church is based on positive laws that determine both the structure and management, and the life of the church, this implies the need to speak in the introductory section about the sources from which these laws arose, and about the collections in which these sources are collected. In the final section, it is necessary to indicate the relationship of the church to the state and to those professing other religions - the relationship in which it stands towards them as an independent legal unit. We find it appropriate to talk about this issue, which most canonists treat at the very beginning, in the introductory section, at the end, because it deeply penetrates the legal life of the Eastern Church and can be completely understandable only when the very body of the church is comprehensively studied. That is why we divide our science into five sections, namely: I. sources of church law and the collections in which they are contained, II. structure of the church, III. church administration, IV. the life of the church, and V. the relationship of the church to the state and to those who do not belong to it. To this day, there is no book in any language in which the law currently in force in the Orthodox Church would be set out in proper completeness. There are, however, several books, but all of them are incomplete, since either they are not finished, or they deal only with the law of the local church. On this basis we must say that the science of Orthodox church law has not yet been developed and is only in its infancy. But if we say this regarding the complete systems of Orthodox church law - and we must say, for this is indeed the case - then we cannot say this regarding the private departments of this law, since many of them have already been carefully developed. Therefore, if someone now wanted to set about presenting the complete science of Orthodox church law, he would not find the need to work much on these sections, since all that remains is to take them ready-made and incorporate them into his system. Here, in the first place are the works of Russian canonists, published either in separate books, or printed in various academic periodicals, such as. eg the works of the late Archimandrite John (later Bishop of Smolensk), who can be called the father of the new science of Orthodox church law; then, the works of Moscow University professor A. S. Pavlov and some others. Some particular branches of our science were also developed in the West, and in this case we have several canonical works, based on primary sources and so objective that they can be considered a precious addition to the system of Orthodox church law: such are the works of the famous Byzantine scholar Zechariah of Lingenthal, then the work of a former professor at the University of Vienna, and now the manager of the imperial library in Vienna, Dr. Joseph Chizhman and some others. Leaving aside all this multitude of articles and canonical treatises published in various academic journals, we will indicate here in order the works on Orthodox church law known to us, published in separate publications, and in general everything that concerns this law. I. Essays on the history of law, its sources, discipline, etc. F. A. Biener, De collectionibus canonum ecclesiae graecae. Verol., 1837. F. A. Biener, Das kanonische Recht der griechischcn Kirche. Dresden, 1833. F. A. Biener, Geschichte der Novellen Justinian's. Berlin, 1824. C. E. Zachariae, Historiae juris graeco-romani delineatio. Cum appendice ineditorum. Heidelbergae, 1839. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Die griechischen Nomokanones. St. Petersburg, 1877. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Die Handbücher des geístlichen Rechts aus den Zeiten des untergehenden byzantiniseben Reiches und der türkischen Herrschaft. St. Petersburg, 1881. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Ueber der Verfasser und die Quellen des (Pseudo-Photinianischen) Nomocanon in XIV Titeln. St. Petersburg, 1885. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Rechts. II Aufl., Berlin, 1877. J. S. Drey, Neue Untersuchungen über die Coustitutionen und Kanones der Apostel. Tubingen, 1832. P. de Marca, Dissertatio de veteribus collectionibus canonum (Andr. Gallandi, De vetustis canonum collectionibus dissertationum sylloge. Venet., 1778). Petr. et Hieron. Ballerini, De antiquis tum editis, tum ineditis collectionibus et collectoribus canonum (ibid). Z. Bern. van. Espen, De antiquis canonum codicibus (Comment. in canones. Colon. Agripp., 1775). J. Krabbe, De codice canonum, qui apostolorum nomine circumferuntur. Gott., 1829. J. B. Pitra, Des canons et des collections canoniques de ľeglise grecque. Paris. 1858. J. A. B. Mortreuil, Histoire du droit byzantin. 3 vols. Paris, 1843–46. C. W. E. Heimbach, Griechisch-römisches Recht (Ersch u. Gruber, Allgem. Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste. I Sect., Bd. 86 und 87). J. W. Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts. I Band. Giessen, 1843. F. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Litteratur des canon. Rechts. I Band. Gratz, 1870. L. F. Spittler, Geschichte des kanonischcn Rechts bis auf die Zeiten des falschen Isidorus. Halle, 1778. J. Doujat, Praenotionum canonicarum libri quinque, quibus sacri juris atque universi studii ecclesiastici principia et adminicula enucleantur. Vcnet., 1717. C. J. Hefele, Conciliengeschichtc. II Aufl. Freiburg im Breisg., 1873–87, 8 Bd. L. Ellies du Pin, De antiqua ecclesiae dissertationes historicae. Colon. Agripp., 1691. P. de Marca, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii. Paris, 1704. L. Thomassin, Vetus et nova ecclesiae disciplina circa beneficia et beneficiarios. 9 vol. Magont, 1787. Dr. H. Achelis, Die ältesten Quellen des orientalischen Kirchenrechts. Leipzig, 1891. Prof. Malnory, La collection canonique des Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua. Paris, 1891. Fr. X. Funk, Die apostol. Constitutionen. Roffenburg, 1891. Fr. X. Funk, Das achte Buch der apostol. Constitutionen und die verwandten Schriften. Tubingen, 1893. Dr. Friedr. Lauchert, Die Kanones der wichtigsten altkirchlichen Concilien nebst den apostol. Kanones. Leipzig, 1896. K. A. Nevolin, On meetings and scientific processing of church laws in Greece and Russia (Complete Works, Volume VI, St. Petersburg, 1859). B. Rosenkampf, Review of the Helmsman's Book. St. Petersburg, 1839. A. Pavlov, Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik. Odessa, 1872. Al. A. Tyazhelov, Laws of the Greek emperors in relation to the church after Justinian. Moscow. 1876–77. N. Zaozersky, Historical. review of the sources of law of the Orthodox Church. Moscow, 1891. N. Zaozersky, Law of the Orthodox Church as a subject of special legal science. Moscow, 1888. N. Ilyinsky, Syntagma of Matthew Vlastar. Moscow, 1892. M. Krasnozhen, Interpreters of can. rights of the Eastern Church. Moscow. 1892. M. Πότλης , Εἰσαγωγικὸν μάθημα εἰς τὸ ἐκκλησιαστικὸν δίκαιον τῆς ἀνατολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. Ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1856. Const. Popovicii jun. Fôntânele si Codicii dreptului bisericescu ortodoxu. Cernauti. 1886. N. Milash, About the canonicals of the Orthodox Church. Novi Sad. 1886. N. Milash, Savinska Kpmchija. Zadar, 1884. N. Milash, Codex canonum ecclesiae africanae. Zadar, 1881. II. Systematic essays. Evfimy Ioannovich, The beginnings of ecclesiastical law of the ancient Eastern Church according to the book of helmsmen. Book I. Novi Sad, 1841. Book II, 1847 (Principia juris ecclesiastici veteris orthodoxae orientalis ecclesiae secundum comune Directorium). Archim. John, Experience of a course in church jurisprudence, volume I. two editions. St. Petersburg, 1851. Prot. Skvortsov, Notes on Church Law, ed. II. Kiev, 1857. N.K. Sokolov, From lectures on church law, two editions. Moscow, 1875. A. Albov, A short course of lectures on church law. St. Petersburg 1882. M. I. Bogoslovsky, Course of general church law. Lessons taught to students of the Imperial School of Law. Moscow. 1885. P. Lashkarev, Church law in its foundations, types and sources. Kyiv. 1886. I. S. Berdnikov, A short course in church law of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church. Kazan, 1888 and Supplement to the course. Kazan. 1889. N. S. Suvorov, Course of Church Law, 2 volumes, Yaroslavl, 1889–90. V. G. Pevtsov, Church Law. St. Petersburg, 1892. M. A. Ostroumov, Essay on Orthodox Church Law (introduction). Kharkov, 1893. Andr. von Schaguna, Compendium des kanonischen Rechtes der einen heiligen, allgemeinen uud apostolischen Kirche. Aus dem Romanischen übersetzt von Dr. Alois Sentz. Hermannstadt, 1868 (Russian translation: Brief summary of canon law. St. Petersburg, 1872. Serbian translation with some changes in the Belgrade spiritual magazine with “Orthodoxy” for 1871 and 1872). N. Ruzhichiħ, Nomocanon of the Srpske Church. Book I. The theory of canon law. Beograd. 1882. Ἰ. Παππαλουκα Ἐὐταξίου τοῦ κανονικοῦ δίκαιου τῆς ὀρθοδόξου ἀνατολικῆς ἐκκλησίας τὰ περὶ ἱερατικῆς ἐξουσίας . Τεῦχ. Ι. Ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1872. Of the Western writers, we know four, of which three, in their systems of law, speak in well-known sections about Orthodox church law, and one, in a separate book, presents the structure and latest state of churches in the East. Fred. Walter, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts aller christliehen Confessionen. XIV Ausgahe besorgt vom Herm. Gerlach. Bonn, 1871. Dr. Fried. H. Vehring, Lehrbuch des katholischert, orientalischen und protestantischen Kirchenrecbts. III Auflage. Freib. im Breisg., 1893. Fr. Kunstmann, Grundzüge eines vergleichenden Kirchenrechtes der christlichen Confessionen. Munich. 1867. Dr. Isidor Silbernagl, Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand sämmtlicher Kirchen des Orients. Eine canonistisch-statistische Abhandlung. Landsbut. 1865. III. Essays concerning the law of individual local churches. F. Kurganov, Management structure in the Church of the Kingdom of Greece. Kazan. 1871. A. Pavlov, The original Slavic-Russian nomocanon. Kazan. 1869. A. Pavlov, Legal books. St. Petersburg, 1885. P. Zagovorsky, On divorce under Russian law. Kharkov. 1884. A. D. Sposobin, About divorce in Russia. Moscow. 1881. N. Kalachov, On the significance of the Helmsman in the system of ancient Russian law. Moscow, 1850. T. Barsov, Synod in its past. St. Petersburg, 1896. Metropolitan Michael, Orthodox Church of Srbia in the Principality of Srbia. Beograd. 1874. Teofan Živkoviħ, Srbska narodna tsrkva na canonical-historical temelyu svom. Temisvar, 1868. Ev. Ioannovich, About the judges of the holy eastern conciliar and apostolic churches, even in the Austrian powers. Karlstadt, 1844. (Jos. Jireček) Actenmässige Darstellung der Verhältnisse der griechisch n. u. Hierarchie in Oestcrreich. Wien, 1861. J. Helfer, Die Rechte und Verfassung der Akatkoliken in Oesterreich. Wien, 1827. Dr. Radoslav von Radić , Die Verfassung der orthodox-katholischen Kirche bei den Serben in Oesterreich-Ungarn. I Theil. Das oberste Kirchenregiment. Werschetz, 1877. Magister Emilian Edler von Radić, Die Verfassung der orthodox-serbischen u. orthodox-rumänischen Particular-Kirchen in Oesterreich-Ungarn, Serbien und Rumänian. I Buch. Die Verfassung der ortkodox-serbischen Particular-Kirche von Karlovitz. Prag, 1880. Dr. Emilian Edler von Radić, Die orthodox-orientalischen Particularkirchen in den Ländern der ungarischen Krone. Eine rechtwissenschaftliche Abhandlung. Budapest, 1886. Vlad. Girgas, Rights of Christians in the East under Muslim Laws. St. Petersburg, 1865. N. Suvorov, Traces of Western Catholic law in the monuments of ancient Russian law. Yaroslavl, 1888 and 1893. A. Pavlov, Unpublished monument of Russian church law. St. Petersburg, 1890. A. Pavlov, Imaginary traces of Catholicism. influence in ancient monuments of the South Slavs. and Russian church law. Moscow, 1892. N. Milasch, Synodal-Statut der gr.-or. Metropolie der Bukowina und Dalmatien vom 24 August 1884. Mit Erläuterungen. Mainz, 1885. IV. Essays on private sections of church law. Curopalatae, De officialibus palatii Constantinopolitani et officiis magnae ecclesiae. Lugdun., 1587. Dr. Jos. Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orientalischen Kirche. Wien, 1864. Dr. Jos. Zhishman, Die Synoden und die Episcopal-Aemter in der morgenländischen Kirche. Wien, 1867. Dr. J. Zhishman, Das Stifterrecht in der morgenländischen Kirche. Wien, 1888. Dr. Js. Silbernagl, Das Eherecht nach den Gcsctzen der griechischen Kirche. Habil.-Schr. Munich, 1862. Klein de Szád, Dissertatio canonica de matrimonio juxta disciplinam graecae orientalis ecclesiae. Vindob., 1781. Theod. Mandics, Dissertatio de causis connubinm discindentibus secundum canones ecclesiae orientalis et leges imperiales byzantinas. Leipzig, 1849. Joan. Hadschits, Dissertatio de causis matrimonium dissociantibus juxta disciplinam orthodoxae ecclesiae Christi orientalis. Budae, 1826. E. Moy de Sons, Das Eherecht der Christen in der morgenländischen und abendländischen Kirche bis zur Zeit Carls des Grossen. Regensburg, 1833. K. Kuzmány, Handbnch des allgemeinen und österreichischen evangelisch-protestantischen Eherechtes mit durchgängiger Berücksichtigung des Eherechtes anderer christlichen Confessionen. Wien, 1860. P. De Smedt, Ľorganisation des églises chrétiennes jusq'au milieu du III sieclc. Paris, 1891. K. Ῥ άλλη, Περὶ ἀπαλλοτριώσεως τῆς ἐκκλησιαστκῆς περιουσίας κατά τὸ δίκαιον τῆς ὀρθοδόξου ἀνατολικῆς ἐκκλησίας . Ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1893. N. Zaozersky, On sacred and governmental power and on the forms of organization of the Orthodox Church. Moscow, 1891. I. Berdnikov, About adoption at baptism and about spiritual kinship as an obstacle to marriage. Kazan, 1892. A. Pavlov, About succession and spiritual kinship. Moscow, 1893. A. Zavyalov, About marriage and divorce. St. Petersburg, 1892. N. fears, Marriage, considered in its nature and from the form of its conclusion. Kharkov, 1893. P. Krimenetsky, Christian doctrine of royal power. Thoughts Metropolitan. Moscow Filaret. Moscow, 1888. Alexy, Archbishop Lithuanian, Proposed reform of the ecclesiastical court. 2 issues, St. Petersburg, 1873. V. O. Kiparisov, On freedoms of conscience. Moscow, 1883. T. Alaīħ, About the marriage of the uzrotsim. Capajebo, 1892. ἱεραπκῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βαθμῶν . Ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1835. II. G. συγγενειῶν τῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν κεκωλυμένων καὶ ἀκωλύτων συγγενειῶν. Ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1842. Γ. Ἀ. Μαυροκορδάτου, Περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ γάμου. Ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1857. I. Berdnikov, State position of religion in the Roman-Byzantine Empire, volume I, Kazan, 1881. A. Pavlov, On the participation of the laity in church affairs. Kazan, 1866. M. Moroshkin, Elective principle in the clergy. St. Petersburg, 1870. Orthodox layman, The truth about the elective principle in the clergy. St. Petersburg, 1871. N. A. Zaozersky, Church court in the first three centuries of Christianity. Kostroma, 1878. N. Suvorov, On church punishments. St. Petersburg, 1876. N. Suvorov, Scope of the disciplinary court and the jurisdiction of the church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils. Yaroslavl, 1884. (Prot. A.V. Gorsky) About the rank of bishop in relation to monasticism in the Eastern Church. Moscow, 1862. I. Lyubimov, Review of methods of maintaining the Christian clergy from apostolic times to the 18th century. St. Petersburg 1851. M. Gorchakov, About the secret of marriage. St. Petersburg, 1880. A. Pavlov, chapter 50 of the Helmsman’s Book. Moscow, 1887. N. Suvorov, On civil marriage. Yaroslavl, 1887. I. Berdnikov, The form of marriage among European peoples in its historical development. Kazan, 1887. I. Berdnikov, The New State in Its Relation to Religion. Kazan, 1888. Dr. Emil. pl. Radiħ, About the divorce of the Orthodox Church. Novi Sad, 1884. Ladies. Bryankoviħ, About the affinity in blood and milk of marriage. Novi Sad, 1888. N. Ruzhichiħ, Nomocanon on marriage. Beograd, 1880. N. Ruzicic, Table of different examples of affinity. Beograd, 1886. I. Vasiħ, Charter on the degree of affinity. Beograd, 1870. Nick. Dučiħ, Stepennk iz Kormčje preveo sa slaveno-ruskog jezika i iz srbulakh. Cetinje, 1876. N. M. Trifugoviħ, Companion to the degree of marriage law in Beograd, 1888. Bishop Teofan Zivkoviħ, Opinion about zhepidbi udovog sveshtenstvo. Pancevo, 1877. Bishop Teofan Zhivkovic, On the ordination of a candidate for the rank of Sveshtenich. Zagreb, 1887. P. Loshkarev, On the relationship of the ancient Christian church to the Roman state. Kiev, 1873. F. Kurganov, Relations between church and civil authorities. Kazan, 1881. Jerome. Paul, On the offices and institutions of church government in the ancient Eastern Church. St. Petersburg, 1857. N. Milash, Virtues of the Orthodox Church. Pancevo, 1879. V. Works on ecclesiastical legal practice. A. Pavrov, Practical presentation of church and civil decrees for guidance to priests in cases of fulfilling the most important church requirements. IV edition, St. Petersburg, 1870. N. Silchenkov, Practical guidance for sending parish requests. III edition, Voronezh, 1879. P. P. Zabelin, Rights and responsibilities of elders according to the basic laws of the Christian Church. 2 books. Kiev, 1884–85. P. Nechaev, Practical guidance for clergy, or a systematic presentation of the full range of their duties and rights. II edition, St. Petersburg, 1887. I. Chizhevsky, Church writing. A collection of rules, regulations and forms for the correct administration thereof. II edition, Kharkov, 1881. A. Serafimov, Rules and practice of the church regarding the accession of non-Orthodox Christians to Orthodoxy. Historical and canonical research. II edition, Kostroma, 1882. Dr. Jos. Helfert, Anleitung zum geistlichen Geschäftsstyl. Bearbeitet von Dr. Th. Wiedemann. X Aufl., Prag, 1879. VI. Periodicals. Θεμις ἢ ἐπιθώρησίς τῆς ἑλληνικῆς . . . νομοθεσίας. . ἐκδιδομένη παρὰ τοῦ Δεωνίδου Δ. Σγοῦτα. Ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1846, κτλ. Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια, Σύγγραμμα περιοδικὸν ἐκδίδομένον δις τοῦ μηνός. Περίοδος δεύτερα. 1885 . Ἐκδιδ o μένη ἅ παξ τῆς ἑβδόμαδος, 1887, κτλ. Orthodox interlocutor, publication of the Kazan Theological Academy, Kazan. 1858 et seq. Christian reading, published at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. St. Petersburg, 1822 et seq. Readings in a society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. Scientific and literary magazine. Moscow. 1878 et seq. Additions to the edition of the works of St. fathers. Moscow. 1846 et seq. Orthodox Review, scientific and literary magazine. Moscow. 1859 et seq. Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht. Herausgegeben von E. Mou de Sons, Innsbruck, 1857–61 und von Dr. Fr. H. Vering, Mainz, 1862 ff. Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht. Herausgegeben von Dr. Rich. Dove and Dr. Em. Friedberg. Organ der Gesellschaft für Kirchenrechts-wissenschaft in Göttingen. Freiburgim. B., 1861, ff. On the meaning of religion in this sense, see Ave. Macarius, Introduction to the Orthodox Theologian, § 11, St. Petersburg, 1871, pp. 24–25. The Latin word “religio” means the same thing according to the teachings of the Western fathers and teachers of the church Lactantius (Jnatit. div., IV, 28) and Augustine (Retract., I, 13. De vera relig., pp. 41, 55). See I. Cheltsov, History of Christ. Churches, I, pp. 1–30, St. Petersburg, 1861. Phil. and S. Ternovsky Three first centuries of Christianity, Kyiv, 1878, pp. 3–28. Ign. Dollinger. Paganisme et Judaisme, ou Introduction à ľhistoire du Christianisme (trad, de ľallemand), Bruxelles, 1858, 4 vol. All this is important for resolving the issue in question, and for the main conclusions see IV, 109, 276. Speaking about this, we cannot help but quote the words of one learned Englishman about the influence of the Christian Church on humanity: “she (i.e. the church) weakened the thunderstorms of wars, eased the fate of prisoners, softened the despotic government of rulers, destroyed polygamy, condemned the destruction of the fetus and the killing of slaves; condemned gladiatorial fights and shameless pagan rituals; if she could not destroy unnatural vices, then she clearly pointed out them and exposed those who indulged in them; improved the welfare of the working classes, who form the large majority of the whole society, by establishing one day a week for rest; wherever she appeared, countless institutions arose to provide assistance to the sick, orphans and abandoned children. "... Will Paley, A view of the evidence of Christianity. Edimb. 1875, p. 219. In particular, on the influence of Christianity on states, see Am. Thierry, Tableau de ľempire romain, Paris, 1872, p. 344, 359, etc., to the right - M. Troplong. Do ľinfluence du chistianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, Paris 1868, p. 147, aq., and in general – Chateaubriand, Le Génie du Christianisme, Paris 1864, 2 vol., and mainly that chapter in which the author exclaims: “what would happen to human society now if Christianity had not come into the world!”, II, pp. 262-280. Archim. John, Course of Church Jurisprudence, St. Petersburg, 1851, I, 3. The word sanctio is derived from sanctum, sanctitas. In the Digest (lib. I, tit. VIII, 8) we read: “sanetnm est, quod ab injnria hominum defeosum atque munitum est. Sanctum autem dictum est a sagminibus. Sunt autem sagmina quaedam herbae, quas legati populi romani ferre solent, ne quis eos violaret, sicuti legati Graecorum fuerunt ea, quae vocantur cerycia.” Ed. Dion. Gothofredi, Corpus juris civilis, Francof ad Moen, 1688, tom. I, col. 22. Cp. Basilicorum libri LX, lib. XLVI, tit. III, 6 (ed. Car. G. E. Heimbach, Lipsiae, 1833–1870, vol. IV, pag. 561–562). Sanction, when applied to laws, means ensuring the force of the law by establishing punishment for violators. Wed. G.F. Puchta, Cursus der Institutionen, Leipzig, 1856, I, 291. Church sanction occurs when a certain law is provided with punishment of an ecclesiastical, spiritual nature. On religious sanction see A. Prosmini-Serbati, Filosofia del diritto, Intra, 1865, I, 117. For the relationship between these laws, see Archim. John, Or. cit., I, 8–9. It is surprising that even among Roman Catholic canonists some look at the church in its entirety, as a subject of law, for example. Dr. Jos. A. Ginzel, Handbuch des neuesteu in Oesterreieh geltenden Kirchenrechtes. Wien, 1857, which definitely says: “Dass die Kirche ein Rechts Subject sei, legt sich aus ihretn Begriffe aufʼs Unwidersprechlichste dar” (Bd. I, S. 19). See Th. for the correct Roman Catholic view of this. Pachmann, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechtes, Wien, 1863, Bd. 1, 8. 52–53. Archim. John (1. c. I, 7) defines it as follows: “all together (revealed laws and church canons) generally constitute the law of the church, which determines how it is proper to live in the house of God, even if the church of God is alive.” The word itself means a certain tool used in cutting and grinding stone or wood, and the church fathers, according to M. Vlastar, used it in order to metaphorically designate church regulations. See Σύνταγμα κατὰ στοιχεῖον, Προθεωρία in the synodal edition of G. Ἀ. Ῥ άλη καὶ Μ . , 1852–1859, τόμος ἔκτος, σελ. 5–6. Cp. Joh. Suiceri, Thesaurus ecclesiasticue. Amstelaed, 1682, vol. II, co!. 37. The word canon also meant what we call church law (see Canon 2 of the First Ecumenical Council); The epistles of bishops, which dealt with some important church subjects, are also called canonical, as well as the letters that bishops gave to certain persons of the holy order when the latter left for another diocese. In Roman Catholic church law, as well as in Orthodox church law, every positive church law “Ecclesiastica constitutio canonis nomine censtetur” is called a canon. Gratianus ad D. III, in princ. § 1. Vide Corpus juris canonici, ed. Aem. Lud. Richter, Lips., 1839, I, 4. Kan. 18 I Universe cathedral Athenian Syntagma, II, 154. Justinian 137 short story in the preface: Civiles leges and sacri canones. Corpus juris civilis, ed. cit. III, 291. The special advantage that one individual or legal entity can receive in the church is called προνόμοιον, privtlfgium. Balsamon also mentions special canons, προσωπικὸς κανών, (interpretation of canon 88 of the Council of Carthage in Athens syn., III, 518). But these canons, according to the remark of Balsamon himself in the interpretation of the message of III Om. Council (Ath. synt., II, 214), cannot have a general meaning and, therefore, cannot be considered the basis of law. In his classic work on state law, J. S. Bluntschli expresses himself on this subject: “Die Religion ist, wie nicht das Product des States, so auch in ihrem Wesen von dem State unabhängig. Die Religion erfullt das Individuum mit gottlichem Geiste, und verbindet die unsterbliche Seele mit Gott. Sie ist daher überall kein Verhältniss des menschlichen Recbtes "..., Allgemeines Statsrecht, Stuttgart, 1876, II, 367. Religious differences in the Christian church matter here, so to speak, in passing. Some scientists in the West disputed the independence of church law, which supposedly fell into the realm of private or public, and especially state law (Falk, Encyklopädie des Rechtes. Warnkonig, Jurist. Encyklopadie. Mohl, Encyklopadie der Staatswissenschaft). The correct view of this was expressed by F. S. Savigny in his work System des hentigan rom. Rechtes (8 Bd., Berlin, 1840–49) and G F Puchta in their Cursus der Institutionen (3 Bd., Leipzig, 1856–1857) We first formulate our conclusion about this as follows: “Daher ist uns das Kirchenrecht ein fur sich bestehendes Rech tsgebiet, dass weder dem offentlichem, noch dem Privatrecht untergeordnet werdend darf” (Bd. I, S. 28); and Pukhta is even clearer: “Wenn die Romer das jus sacrum nur ais einen Theil des jus publicum betrachteten, so war dies der Beschaffenheit ihrer Religion vollkomen angenessen.” Das Recht der christlichen Kirche dagegen tritt wesentlich ais ein dritter Zweig des Rechts neben das Privatrecht und das offentliche” (Bd I, S. 75). See eg. Schmalz, Natürliches Kirchenrecht, Königsberg, 1795. Krug, Kirchenrecht nach den Grundsätzen der Vernunft, Leipzig, 1826. Eg. from the Roman Catholics: G Phillips, Du droit ecclesiastique dans ses principes généraux (trad, de ľallemand), Paris, 1855, I, 23. Ferd. Walter Lehrbuch des Kïrchenrechts. XIV Ausg. Bonn, 1871, § 6; from Protestant: Aem. L. Richter, Lehrhuch des kath. und evan. Kirchenrechts, VIII Aufl., Leipzig, 1886, S. 11. Wasserschleben, Kirchenrechts (Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, Stuttgart, 1857, VII, 671). On the task of church law cf. archim. John, Course, I, 9–11. Wed about the “method” or image of the presentation of church jurisprudence by Archim. John, Course, I, 26–36. R. Scherer adheres to our same method, but calls it “legal-dogmatic” (Handbuch des Kirchenrechts. Graz, 1836, I, 113). In general, about this issue, see Dr. F. I. Buss, Die Methodologie des Kirchenrechts. Freiburg im Breisg., 1842. The best theological encyclopedic work is “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” by St. Macarius. St. Petersburg, 1871, IV edition. Of the Protestant ones, the essay on the encyclopedia by K. R. Hagenbach, Encykiopädie und Methodologie der theoiogischen Wissenschaften, is especially noteworthy. Zehnte Auflage revidirt und herausgegeben von E. Kautzsch, Leipzig, 1880. Filaret, Notes on the Book of Genesis. St. Petersburg, 1835. Interpretations of the Old Testament, published in St. Petersburg. Theological Academy. St. Petersburg, 1879 et seq. Blazh. Theophylact, Archbishop. Bulgarian, Commentaries on New Testament books in Russian. translation. Kazan, 1865 et seq. Ep. Mikhail, Explanatory Gospel, 3 volumes, Moscow, 1884–87. His same, Intelligent Apostle, book. I, Moscow, 1876. Macarius, Orthodox dogma. theology, 2 volumes, St. Petersburg, 1856–67. Metropolitan Filaret Moskovsk., Dogmatic. blessing, compiled by A. Gorodkov, Kazan, 1887. Archbishop Philaret. Chernig., Orthodox dogma, theology, 2 books, St. Petersburg, 1882, III edition. Archim. Sylvester, Legal Experience. dogma. theology (with a historical presentation of dogmas?.); 3 volumes, Kiev, 1884–83, (publication continues in the journal of the Kiev Theological Academy “Trudy”). Prot. P. Solyarsky, Moral Orthodox theology. St. Petersburg, 1875, II edition. Archim. Gabriel, Moral Theology. Tver, 1885. Iv. Cheltsov, History of Christ. Churches, Volume I, St. Petersburg, 1861 (not finished). F. and S. Ternovsky, The first three centuries of Christianity. Kyiv, 1878. Them, the Greek-Eastern Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils. Kyiv, 1883. W. Guettée, Histoire de ľeglise depuis la naissance de X. S. Jesus Christjusqu’à nos jours. Paris, 7 volumes (period up to the 12th century). J. Neale, An history of the holy eastern Church. London, 1850. J. Hasemann, Ceschichte der griechischen Kirche, printed in LXXXIV Theil, I Section (S. 1–290) Allgem. Encyklopädie, herausgegeben von J. S. Ersch and J. F. Gruber. Abbé Fleury. Histoire ecclesiastique, 6 tomes, Paris, 1856. Dr. Aug. Neander, Allgemeine Ceschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche. 9 Bd., Gotha, 1863–65, IV Auflage. We have mentioned here only the most important works on the history of the church at our disposal. Let us mention one more, highly practical work, namely: Archim. Arseny, Chronicle of church events from the Nativity of Christ to 1879. St. Petersburg 1880, new edition. Archim. Kirill, Pastoral Theology. St. Petersburg, 1853. S. Sollertinsky, The Shepherding of Christ the Savior. St. Petersburg, 1881 (see my review of this book in the theological magazine “Truth”) Bingham, The antiquities of the Christian Church. 8 vol, London, 1838. Binterin, Die vorzüglichsten Denkwürdigkeiten der christlichen Kirche. 7 Bd., in 16 Abtheil., Mainz, 1825–33. J. S. W. Augusti, Benkwürdigkeiten aus der christl. Archäologie. 12 Bd., Leipzig, 1817–31 and an extract from the same work entitled: Handbuch der christlichen Archäologie. 3 Bd., Leipzig, 1836–37. F. X. Kraus, Real Encyklopädie der christl. Alerthumer. 2 Bd., Freiburg im Breisg., 1882–86. Ed. Brinkmeier, Glossarium diplomaticum. 2 Bd., Gotha, 1852–63. Waltenbach, Anleitung zur griech. Paläographie. Leipzig, 1867. His same, Auleitung zur latein. Paläographie. Leipzig, 1869. Ľart de verifier les dates des faits historiqnes... par un religieux Benedectin. Paris, 1750. Ed. Brinkmeier, Practiaches Handbuch der Chronologic. Leipzig, 1843. Wiggers. Kirchl. Statistic. 2 Bd., Hamburg und Gotha, 1842–43. J. E. Wiltsch, Handbuch der Kirchl. Geographie und Statistik. 2 Bd., Berlin, 1846. Ahrens, Naturrecht oder Philosophie des Rechts und des Staats. 2 Bd., Wien, 1870. A. Rozmini-Serbati, Filosofia del diritto. 2 vol. Intra. 1865. P. Luigi Taparelli, Saggio teoretico di diritto naturale appoggiato sul flatto. 2 vol., Napoli, 1850. Jhering, Geist des römischen Rechts. 3 Thle. Leipzig, 1873–77, III Savigny, Geschichte dea röm. Rechts im Mittelalter. 7 Bd., Heidelberg, 1834–52. II Aufl. Zachariae, Historiae juris graeco-romani delineatio. Heidelberg, 1839. Mortreuil, Histoire du droit byzantin ou du droit romain dans ľempire ďOrient, 3 vol., Paris, 1843–46. Zachariae v. Lingenthal, Geschichte des griechiach röm. Rechts. Berlin, 1877, II Auflage. Puchta, Cursus der Institutionen, herausgegeben von Rudolf. 3 Bd., Leipzig, 1856–57. Savigny, System des heutigen römischen Rechts. 8 Bd., Berlin, 1840–49. Mackeldey, Lehrbuch des heutigen römisch. Rechts. Wien, 1862, XIV Aufl. Arndts von Arensberg, Lehrbuch der Pandekten. Stuttgart, 1874. VIII Aufl. (and with many learned notes published in the Italian translation by Serafini, Trattato delle pandette. 3 vol., Bologna, 1874–75. Volumes 1 and 2 in the II edition). Heimbach, Griechisch-römiaches Recht im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit (Ersch and Gruber, Allgem. Encyklopädie, I Sect., LXXXVI, 191–471; LXXXVII, 1–106). Cp. article “Le droit romain est il un danger pour les sociétés chretiennes?” (Revue catholique des institutions et du droit. Grenoble, Juin, 1889, Nr. 12, page 481. sq.). Saalschütz, Mosaiches Recht. Berlin, 1853, II Aufl. Lopukhin, The Legislation of Moses. St. Petersburg, 1882. Keil, Guide to Biblical Archaeology, 2 parts. Kiev, 1871–74, translation from German. Macieiowky, Slavische Rechtsgeschichte. 4 Bd., Stuttgart, 1835–39 (aus dem polnischen von Buss und Nawrocki). Florinsky, Monuments of the legislative activity of Dusan, king of the Serbs and Greeks. Kyiv, 1888 (see my review of this book in the theological magazine “Truth”, III, 234–238). Dr. N. Kretich, Rasmatrana about Dushanov’s law (Glasnik Srp. Uch. Drushtva, books V Ι and VII. Nevolin, History of Russian civil laws, 3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1857. Suiceri, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus e patribus graecis ordine alphabetico concinnatus. 2 vol., Amsterdam, 1862. C. du Fresne dom. Du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infamae graecitatis. 2 vol., Lugduni, 1688 (new edition 1891, W. Koebner, Breslau). “Judex, judicium, clerus, sponsalia, crimen” (Bernard (Bernardus, praepositus Papiensis, and then bishop in Pavia) called his collection: Breviarium extravagautium. Compare Bernardi Papiensis, Summa decretorum, edit, and Dr. Laspeyres, Ratisb,, 1861. Περὶ πρόσωπα, περὶ πράγματα, περὶ ἀγωράς. E. C. Ferrini, Institutionum graeca paraphrasis Theofilo Antecessori vulgo tributa. Berolini, 1884 pars I, pag. 18 "Omne jus quo utimur, vel ad personas pertinet, vel ad res, vel ad actiones" Institutionum D. Justiniani. Lib. I, tit. II. 12. Ed. cit. Gothofredi. I, 22. Pauli Lancelotti, Institutiones juris canonici. Perus, 1562. This work enjoys authority in the West and has gone through many editions; has even been translated into other languages. According to this system, the work of E. Ioannovich, First Fruits of the Church, should have been compiled. law, in which the first book speaks of “person (de personis).” Novi Sad., 1841. For example, we cite only some of the Western ones: Schulte, (System des allgemein. kathol. Kirchcnrechts. Giessen, 1856), after the introductory section, divides all law into: public law of the church (Hierarchy and the relationship of the church to legal entities outside it) and private law, and in this second section sets out first of all the private law of the church (property law of the church), then private law in the church (entry into the church, rights and responsibilities of the faithful, marriage law, loss of ecclesiastical legal capacity, “patronage” law and church community). Richter (Lehrbuch des kathol. u. evangel. Kirchenrechts, bearbeitet von Dove u. Kahl, Leipzig, 1886, VIII Aufl.) sets out the science (after a short introduction) in six books: 1) history of law, 2) general teaching (sources, foundations of the church structure and the relationship of the church to the state and to other churches), 3) bodies of the legal church, 4) legislation, court and administration, 5) church life and 6) church property. Walter (Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts aller christlichen Confessionen, besorgt von Gerlch, Bonn, 1871. XIV Auflage), after the usual introduction, divides the science into eight books: 1) general principles, 2) sources, 3) structure of the church, 4) administration of the church, 5) ministers of the church, 6) property of the church, 7) church life, 8) influence of the church on secular rights. Permannder ’a (Handbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts mit besonderer Rüchsicht auf Dentschland, bcsoigt von Silbernagl. Landshut, 1865. IV Aufl), six sections: l) the basis of the church, the relationship to the state and Protestant confessions, 2) sources of law, 3) the structure of the church, 4) legislation and court, 5) teaching and priesthood and property rights, 6) the influence of the church on society. Pachmann (Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts mit Berücksichtigung der auf die kirchlichen Verhältnisse Bezug nehmenden osterreichischen Gezetze und Verordnungen. 3 Bd., Wien, 1863–66, III Auflage.) in the introductory section sets out first of all the general church-legal foundations, then indicates the sources and divides all science into two sections: 1) structure (church authority, church titles), 2) management (spiritual affairs, property law, legislation and court, the relationship of the church to the state and to other religions). Aichner (Compendium juris ecclesiastici ad usum cleri, ac praesertim per imperium austriacum in cura animarum laborantis. Brixinae, 1870, ed. III), setting out general concepts in the introduction, divides all science into two sections: general and special; in the first he treats: 1) about the sources of law and 2) about the government of the church (the power of teaching, the power of priesthood and the power of administration). Vering (Lehrbuch des katholischen, orientalischen und protestantischen Kirchenrechts, Freiburg, 1881, II Aufl.), after the introduction, sets out the content of science in five books: 1) sources, 2) structure, 3) court, 4) property law, 5) the law of individuals. Scherer (Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes. Gratz, 1886; we know only the first volume, the publication continues) in the introduction offers a general concept of law and divides the content of the entire science into four books: 1) general foundations, 2) sources, 3) structure and 4) management (the first three headings are contained in Volume I, which we have). Then we leave a list of works of this kind that we have at hand, since from the above we can already see sufficient confirmation of what we said in the text. This is how things are set up in the West; As for the treatises on church law by Orthodox writers, in them we find the same difference in systems. You might be interested in: