Ancient church theological science in the Greek east in its heyday (IV-V centuries)

Ancient church theological science in the Greek east during its heyday (IV-V centuries): its main directions and characteristic features Speech at the annual act of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on February 17, 1910 In the history of the Universal Church, the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century represent a period of extraordinary significance. The radical change in the external position of Christianity in the Greco-Roman Empire had the most favorable consequences for the internal life of the Church, providing Its members with complete opportunity to concentrate all the strength of their spirit on resolving internal church problems. Undistracted by the external struggle for its very existence, the Church began to live a full life. But contrary to the expectation that with the disappearance of the nightmare of persecution the peace and calm flow of church life would be undisturbed, it turned out that the really important and significant struggle was now just beginning, and the time that had come was rightly called the period of great controversy. They were a natural continuation of the previous work of theological thought, and their broad and even acute development was an internal necessity, when the significant and formal disagreements that had gradually developed in the previous period in different areas of the Christian world freely emerged, opened up and collided with each other. The struggle gave rise to an intense, extremely impetuous, lively and powerful movement of theological thought, which revealed a diverse creative activity, outstanding in its productivity and originality. Christian genius manifests itself with extraordinary force in various branches of theological knowledge, focusing primarily on what constitutes the very essence of Christianity. The theological works of this time remain guiding for all subsequent generations of Orthodox Christianity. Their great creators, who truly nourish the believers with their teaching, received the predominant title of “fathers of the Church.” The theological thought of the immediate period was based on the results of their theological work; She lives by them to this day, as if proceeding from the conviction that then all the essential questions that humanity can present to Christianity were posed and resolved. No era in the history of the Church can compare with this period, which has acquired the significance of classical. It is therefore natural to strive to penetrate into the essence of the theological work of this period and, regardless of its undoubtedly important material content, to determine the paths along which theological thought followed, the sources and means it used to achieve such brilliant results, as well as the favorable conditions from which it drew energy for its development. These questions have not only historical, but also deeply vital, practical significance, both due to the exceptional importance of the period, and due to the current situation in our country of the question of theological science and the requirements placed on it. I. General characteristics of church and theological life in the 4th–5th centuries. Church Theological Science in the Pre-Nicene Age. Theological activity of the apologists of the 2nd century. Asia Minor Theology of Saint Irenaeus. The scientific and theological movement in different parts of the Christian World and the development of the need to solve internal church problems. Origen - characteristics of his theological activity and the direction of the Alexandrian school. Currents in the Alexandrian School after Origen. Asia Minor Theology at the beginning of the 4th century: Saint Methodius of Olympia. Antiochian school When looking at the course of events and internal movements of church-historical life in the Greek East in the 4th and 5th centuries, what first strikes the eye is the fact that the great questions of Christian doctrine at that time were the work of the whole Church; Not only bishops and persons in general, who by their position and education were called to solve them, showed a keen interest in them, but also all of modern society down to its lower strata. Not only the centers of modern culture, not only the centers of Christian education and church life, but also minor parishias equally considered their right and duty to take part in the common cause. Numerous councils with a significant number of participants, approving certain formulas of the confession of faith, rejecting others, drawing up new ones, condemning one another, indignation against bishops who accepted this or that symbol, in which the subordinate clergy and laity saw a deviation from the transmitted faith, divisions in parikias due to dogmatic provisions - all this provides sufficient evidence of how theological questions captured Christian society. Everything was in motion, everyone was arguing, everyone was worried... And it is not difficult to notice that in its essence it was a heated struggle between different directions of theological thought, different Theological schools with their specific church and theological-philosophical traditions and scientific methods of revealing and constructing dogmatic positions and their special terminology. It goes without saying that, due to the difficulty of the metaphysical problems on which inquisitive thought was concentrated, only relatively few were able to independently and completely master them, and even fewer were able to develop them literary. Therefore, different theological trends found expression in the literary works of only a few outstanding personalities - their works are the primary source for understanding the gradual development of theological thought. However, it must be remembered that the significance and success of these figures and leaders were determined by the fact that they were exponents of entire trends - behind them stood more or less numerous supporters and like-minded people, whose names emerge completely by chance and mainly at councils. The theological science of the heyday, like the entire church life of that time, was created and developed on the basis of what was done in previous centuries. Now a rich harvest was gathered, for which abundant sowing, although under very unfavorable external conditions, had been carried out earlier. The change in the external position of the Church did not change the essence of Her internal life - it only presented favorable conditions and the opportunity to fully, comprehensively and clearly discover, reveal and in some respects bring to completion those movements that had arisen and lived in it until that time. Therefore, both the entire internal life of the Church and the development of theological thought in the period under review in its various directions and currents can only be understood in connection with the development and results achieved by it in the previous period. The need for theological reflection in relation to the positive content of the Christian faith is given both in the essence of Christianity itself and in the essence of the human spirit. If Christianity is a new beginning of life, a moral-religious force that renews the world, creating new life in humanity, then this new life can actually arise only under the condition of consciousness, consistent with religious experience, of a significant change in man’s relationship with God, the consciousness of the communion with God restored by Christ, which is the focus of the new life. With this consciousness a new light arose for redeemed humanity, the knowledge of truth, which not only expanded and enriched, but also completely transformed the entire previous way of thinking about the Divine and human. This light creates and affirms in man a new consciousness and understanding of truth to the extent that it imparts its saving content to the human spirit. But this is achieved only in such a way that a Christian enters into the content of faith with his own thought, discusses it, explains it, comprehends it. Thus, faith, containing knowledge, serves as an incentive to penetrate deeper into it, not only to confess, but also to know. On the other hand, in the essence of the human spirit lies the need to assimilate everything that constitutes the subject of its representation, perception, experience through reflection and lead to the clarity of more or less accurate knowledge. This universal law is all the more important in relation to Christianity because here we are dealing with the highest and deepest personal interests, where a new life, a new world arises for a person; a Christian can achieve this in no other way than to enter into the content of his faith with his own thought, sort it out into its moments, understand, harmonize the Christian consciousness with his human consciousness, consider the relationship of religious experience to all other experiences, put the content of faith in relation to all his other knowledge - in a word, to give an account of one’s faith. This cannot be seen as simple curiosity, which seeks more than it has, or one’s own uncertainty and inner doubt in the perceived truth - on the contrary, it reflects the firm conviction that Christian teaching, as truly Divine truth, can and should be justified before the knowing spirit. Then faith rises to the level of self-awareness, personal conviction, and this requires not only religious experience, but also thought and research. And the Divine word, if not exclusively, then in any case predominantly addresses the human mind and gives constant stimulation to ever deeper penetration into it 1 . This need and motivation to bring one’s faith to knowledge, even more than for an individual Christian, was presented to the whole Church. She had to realize herself, make the saving thought of God her property in order to truly possess it. The divine treasure entrusted to the Church could not remain a dead treasure: she was called, due to her inherent inner need, to recognize the foundations of her confession. This need was further reinforced by the mission of the Church: it was to call the nations to the foot of the Cross and educate those called to the faith. But the implementation of this mission contained for the Church the task of giving the content of its faith a definite, living expression. The Church not only had to say that She believes, but also what she believes in, what is the meaning and content of the truths of Revelation entrusted to Her, and had to say it in such a way that it would be understandable, tangible and comprehensible both for those entering Her and for Her own members - only in this way is the self-creation of the Church inward and outward possible. Yet this could be achieved through thought, research, science. This provides the basis why human thought has made the content of Christianity the subject of its study from its very appearance, and why the Church, from the time of the Apostles, has not been without Church science. Therefore, Church historical science cannot establish the moment when the beginning was laid and the essential elements of what is commonly called theological science in the proper sense were formed, and how and under what conditions “false knowledge” began to penetrate among Christians. This alone can explain the fact that when, due to the internal necessity of the historical position of the Church, the work of theological thought had to show a significant degree of intensity, it turned out, as far as can be judged from the surviving literary monuments and news about them, that it soon discovered a sufficient versatility of interests and mobility, a variety of tendencies in which various currents in the internal development of church life and theological thought in particular, meeting the practical needs of the time, found expression. The interests of the Christian mission in Greco-Roman society and the latter’s attitude towards Christianity in the very first days of the Church’s existence gave rise to one of the important manifestations of theological thought, which boldly raised the question of the attitude towards pagan philosophy, its concepts and language, as a means of explaining Christian teaching. Christianity, originally preached on the mountains of Judea and on the shores of the Sea of ​​Galilee, by men from the people, Jewish fishermen and artisans, was brought into a world saturated with Greek education. In all the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, in the central points of ancient culture, Christian communities appeared, whose members were not only simpletons and slaves, but also people of every rank and education. Thus, inevitably, the new teaching came into various contacts with the ancient elements of education, which permeated the training and education of the upper classes of society and all social life. It was necessary to find a basis on which it would be possible to establish mutual understanding between educated pagans and adherents of the new religion. The unknown can only be explained through the known. Revelation did not create a new language; it used its existing forms in order to, through them, proclaim new truths and give new principles to moral life. It only gave individual terms and concepts a new, deeper and more complete meaning, illuminating and penetrating them with the light of a new religious worldview. And for a fruitful assimilation of the content of Christian teaching there was no other way: it was necessary to base it on the concepts in circulation and their combinations, on already firmly established terminology. In order to create access for Christian truth into the world of ideas of educated circles, a natural and reliable means for this could only be Greek philosophy, which left its stamp on the entire structure of thoughts of the Greco-Roman society. It was to this very remedy that Christian apologists, led by Saint Justin, turned. The apologists themselves, for the most part, received a pagan education and went through pagan philosophy. They did not find the truth here, but they studied the methods and forms of research in which modern science revolved; They did not recognize the absolute value of the results of scientific research in the ancient world, but at the same time they were able to highlight in them the results of universal human truth. Most importantly, they knew the religious and philosophical needs of a modern educated society, eager to find confirmation and verification of the reality of those provisions about God as a Spiritual Being, the moral law, immortality and reward in the afterlife, which were proposed by the dominant religious philosophy. It is these truths from the general body of Christian teaching that apologists reveal to pagan society in the concepts and forms of thinking of modern education and culture, proving that the Revealed Teaching contains everything that true philosophy seeks 2: it alone is a reliable and useful philosophy, pure and sublime in content and Divine in origin - it alone brings religious liberation and renewal the truth. The basis on which the theology of the apologists developed was the faithful doctrine of faith, as it was preached and preserved in the Church, of the truth of which they were absolutely convinced: they did not seek to reform Christianity, like the Gnostics, nor did they adapt its positive content to the fantastic theories of a peculiar rationalism. Thus, in the works of Christian apologists of the 2nd century, the experience of applying the principles of Hellenic religious philosophy to Christian teaching was given, and this laid the foundation for Church Theology as a science operating with the concepts of classical culture. Apologetic literature in its original form was the product of a passing situation, a struggle that sooner or later had to be resolved, and with this struggle the literary-philosophical form itself found an end; but what was important was that the Church, despite many shortcomings in the theology of the apologists, highly valued their merits and thereby recognized the legitimacy of the principle of their theological activity. However, apologetic literature left open the question of whether Church writing should use the forms of classical literature and philosophy only when addressing the outside world, or when solving internal Church problems. Another direction of theological thought took shape and strengthened in the Church as the struggle against Gnosticism developed, which represented a sharp Hellenization of Christianity, which distorted its essence and deprived it of its historical and soteriological character. For the first time, Gnosticism subjected Christian tradition and written sources of Christian teaching to scientific processing, eliminating from them everything that did not agree with its views and theories. The interests that found expression in the speculations of the Gnostics also fascinated many thoughtful church Christians. This increased the danger of Gnosticism and largely determined the nature of the struggle of church teachers against it. The struggle forced the Church to reveal its heritage and theoretically substantiate it. If, in front of the deep spiritual understanding of Christianity, which Gnosticism claimed, the Church faith seemed meager and limited, then it was necessary to oppose the Gnostic systems with an equivalent theoretical structure. Church theological thought had to clearly and definitely establish the material and formal principles on which Church theological science should be built. The Asia Minor School of Theologians tried to do this. The communities of Asia Minor in the 2nd century formed a spiritually living part of the Church. A number of Asia Minor theologians between 150 and 200 are known who wrote apologetic and anti-heretical works: Melito, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Rodon, Miltiades and others. It is more than likely that they all represented an essentially homogeneous theology, the Asia Minor theological tradition, which has its energetic and most striking exponent in the person of St. Irenaeus of Lyons. On the issue of true Christian teaching, its content, sources of knowledge and criteria of truth, Saint Irenaeus reveals the concept of Church truth. Only the Church possesses the truth: the Church has the Scriptures originating from the Apostles and likewise the oral Tradition traced back to the Apostles, the preservation of which, intact, is guaranteed by the uninterrupted succession of the episcopate. A certain task is established for theological science: it should not change the content of Revelation, but, on the basis of the unchanging rule of faith, carefully examine the thought of what is said in the parables and harmonize it with the content of faith, reveal the Economy of Man’s Salvation, explain the forms of Revelation and the purpose of the Old and New Testaments, prove the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection, establishing itself on the unshakable conviction that the whole Church has the same faith throughout the world, which She received from the Apostles and kept it pure and intact 3. In contrast to the philosophical and theological idealism of the apologists, the Theology of Saint Irenaeus is imbued with a biblical-realistic character; he does not set out to prove Christianity as a true philosophy, and, contrary to the a priori speculations of the Gnostics, is entirely based on the facts of Revelation, which is why his Theology is primarily a “Theology of Facts” and, above all, the central Biblical fact - the Salvation of mankind in Christ. The focal point of Saint Irenaeus’s speculation is not the Logos, as the mediator of God’s relationship to the world, but Christ, the God-man, as the Mediator of Salvation. For him, Christianity is the religion of Redemption, accomplished through the Incarnation of the Logos in Christ. This side of the Theological teaching of Saint Irenaeus subsequently had a strong influence on the development and direction of theological thought. In contrast to the titanic enterprise of the Gnostics, which knows no boundaries of what is humanly cognizable, Saint Irenaeus warns against their arrogant soaring, against attempts with a limited mind to penetrate the unsearchable secrets of Divine life, and proclaims the position that it is better and more useful to remain simple and ignorant and approach God through love, than, considering ourselves knowledgeable and very experienced, to turn out to be blasphemers of our God 4 . But behind Saint Irenaeus there was already the activity of outstanding apologists, and the Gnostics stood against him; from both of them he learned a lot and, in accordance with the needs of the time, felt the need for rational evidence in the fight against opponents, as well as for his own identification and for the approval of the Orthodox. Therefore, even if the direct influence of philosophical systems cannot be found in his Theology, nevertheless, the influence of the philosophical traditions of the time is clearly reflected in it. Saint Irenaeus, like the apologists, was faced with the question of applying the forms of classical literature to the consideration of intra-church problems. But his main work, although intended for Orthodox Christians, is nevertheless caused by the fight against heresy and therefore leaves the question unresolved: is this form of literature intended to be in the Christian Church only a weapon in the fight against enemies, or should it become a means of peaceful work in Her own field? The recently discovered work of St. Irenaeus, "Proof of the Apostolic Sermon," gives reason to assume that St. Irenaeus stood for the former. It is quite natural that contact with Hellenic culture and Gnostic systems, as well as the entry into the Church of educated pagans who sought to give themselves an account of their new beliefs, served as sufficient motivation for the emergence of positive problems. In church circles, the need gradually developed to understand and scientifically develop the content of Church teaching, to firmly establish it historically and exegetically and to substantiate it philosophically, in order to thus satisfy the natural desire of the human spirit to study the revealed truth, to penetrate deeper into it and understand it as an integral worldview; hence the further need - to comprehend the internal connection of individual points of Church teaching, as a system, to compare with the knowledge and ideas to which the natural thought of cultural people was brought without the help of Revelation, to establish a connection with them and, if possible, to reconcile. In this regard, they sometimes went to extremes, and it is not without reason that one can assert that Saint Irenaeus had in mind not only heretical gnosis, but at the same time a direction that simultaneously emerged and was related to it within the Church. How multifaceted were the intra-church interests of that time, this can be evidenced by the list - unfortunately not preserved - of the works of Meliton of Sardinia and a number of scientific works that were then written by churchmen 5 . Thus, already in the 2nd century, on the one hand, experiments were made in applying the concepts and forms of modern philosophy and culture in theological science for apologetic-polemical purposes, on the other hand, the sources and criteria of theological teaching were indicated in the Holy Scriptures and in the rule of faith, in the Apostolic Tradition, the bearer and guardian of which is the Apostolic Church. At the same time, more and more traces of the scientific and theological movement are being discovered in different places in the Christian world. Schools similar to the one that Saint Justin had in Rome and which, one might think, other apologists (for example, Tatian) had, were already common at that time. They were founded in the likeness of philosophical schools. No information has been preserved about the organization and methods of teaching in these schools. But Saint Justin undoubtedly was the same philosopher in school as in his literary activity. There was a strong impulse towards such a setting of Christian schools in the Gnostic schools of the Valentinians, Carpocrats, and Bardesans. In various places we come across entire circles of people imbued with scientific interests. In Asia Minor, the Alogs reveal a desire for critical study of the Holy Scriptures; also, the activities of Meliton of Sardis and Theophilus of Antioch hardly remained without influence in the areas where they served in their church ministry. Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem lays the foundation of the Theological Library in Jerusalem; the surviving fragments of his messages show that along with the language he also adopted the scientific spirit of the times. Next to him stands Theoctistus of Caesarea (in Palestine), as a champion of independent theological science. Origen found refuge with Firmilian of Caesarea (in Cappadocia). It was a circle of churchmen who zealously devoted themselves to scientific aspirations. In Rome at the beginning of the 3rd century there was a scientific school - consisting mainly of people who came there from the East - in which formal exegesis, textual criticism, grammar, logic, mathematics and empirical sciences were developed; Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid and Galen were zealously studied here. The works of Tertullian show that even among the Christians of Carthage there was no shortage of persons who wanted to give scientific aspirations rights in the Church 6 . The gradual growth of intra-church scientific interests and needs naturally first of all and most of all should have been felt in the center of modern pagan spiritual culture - in Alexandria, and the need to satisfy them should have been especially noticeable towards the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century, when the ancient world once again gathered its spiritual forces and, in the union of religion and philosophy - which is Neoplatonism - opposed Christianity to a powerful adversary. If Christianity set itself the task of establishing itself in this new situation, then it had to arm itself with science and philosophy. From here it is completely understandable and cannot be considered unexpected the development of the catechetical school in Alexandria into the theological and philosophical one, as it already was under Panten and Clement. Thus, gradually the work of theological thought within the Church and on internal church issues created Church Theological Science, which embraced more and more specific problems and developed on the basis of Holy Scripture and Tradition with the assistance of the modern scientific apparatus: a combination of the interests of the theological direction, of which Saint Irenaeus was a representative, and the theological techniques of apologists arose. This laid sufficient grounds for the development of a multifaceted and deep theological movement: Church Theological literature, in close connection with the past, preparing the ground for the future, sets itself new tasks, without losing attention to the previous ones, and paves new paths for itself. The very development of theological science in various places takes on its own special character: in some it outweighs the moment of adherence to Church tradition, in others it outweighs scientific goals, which depends primarily on the spiritual direction of the church area in which certain theologians developed their activities. But a significant drawback of all scientific theological works of the period preceding Origen was not only the absence of a Theological system, but also the seeming absence of a clear consciousness of its necessity. Only those points of Church teaching that needed to be advanced or defended were revealed; therefore, Theology has always had a partial, fragmentary character. The synthesis of Church teaching was represented only by symbols, in which believers found in a compressed form everything that they should believe in; outside of these formulas, simple and popular, there were only Gnostic systems. Even Clement, who introduced philosophical principles into the discussion of the very content of Christian teaching, does not reveal an awareness of the need to group individual elements of the teaching into a harmonious system. Origen was the first among Christian thinkers to put forward the idea of ​​theological synthesis and implement it, creating on the basis of Holy Scripture and Church Tradition a philosophical and theological system that embraces the entire content of the Church Faith, established the basic principles of Church scientific Theology and took a decisive step towards the “churchification” of classical science. He resolved the great problem that was persistently presented to Christian thinkers before him - and towards the solution of which significant steps were taken, preparing the ground for the work of Origen. Clement did especially much to develop those essential foundations on which his student Origen became the father of Theological Science in the proper sense of the word and at the same time the founder of that Theology, which reached its development in the 4th and 5th centuries. Origen, on the one hand, understood both the philosophical and biblical foundations of Christian Science more deeply than Clement; on the other hand, he reveals, to an incomparably greater degree than is observed in Clement, sensitivity to Church teaching and a desire for the church correctness of his theology; at the same time, his most sincere and sacred conviction was the internal unity of ancient idealism and the Christian religion. Therefore, he was able to perceive and process the results of Greek idealistic philosophy, as well as to assimilate, develop and combine into a system everything that had been developed by Christian Science before him. He took advantage of the experiences of previous theologians to comprehend the content of Christianity and substantiate it philosophically, and to give the development of Christian Theology an independent meaning, independent of polemical goals. Greek religious philosophy and, in general, the forms and methods of modern science were supposed to serve not only as a means to refute paganism, Gnosticism and heretical movements within the Church itself, but at the same time as a means to create a scientific Christian religious teaching, a scientific system that would not contradict the Church faith, but would rely on it, clarify and elevate it into the spiritual realm. On the unchanging basis of the rule of faith, the organic whole of Christian gnosis must be built - partly through the study of Holy Scripture, partly through logical deductions 7 and thus a system must be created that would embrace the beginnings of all existence and all the mysteries of the world and would resolve them from a Christian point of view. Thus, Origen achieved, at least in appearance, the reconciliation of science with the Christian faith, of higher culture with the Gospel on the basis of Church teaching; in his work Περί αρχών he gave the first experience of a systematic presentation of Theology as a science, where he clearly and correctly established the principles of scientific Theology, which for him are determined by three points: a) Recognition of Holy Scripture as the source of Church Theology, b) Inviolable observance of Church teaching and the unconditional obligation to conform to it, and c) Free development of theological speculation on this basis. The Holy Scriptures for Origen were the primary source of revealed truth; he revered it, studied it tirelessly and strove with all his might to penetrate its true meaning: the interpretation of Holy Scripture for him was the beginning and the end of his Theology. He believed that the task of Theology was to comprehend spiritual Christianity on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and to raise faith to the level of knowledge and contemplation; this is achieved through the allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture, which makes it possible to know the highest Revelation of God and at the same time combine the data of Church teaching with the conclusions of ancient philosophy. Origen was the first to elevate the traditions of the widespread and, one might say, the rights of citizenship in Christian literature of the allegorical-mystical method of explaining the Holy Scriptures into a scientific system 8 . Further, Origen decisively asserts that we must preserve the Church teaching, transmitted from the Apostles through the order of succession and remaining in the Churches even to this day, and that only that truth should be believed that does not deviate in any way from the Church and Apostolic tradition 9. The limits set for speculation by the Holy Scriptures and Church teaching are of absolute importance for Origen and should not be crossed. But Origen’s activity belongs to a time when the dogmas had not yet been precisely defined and formulated by the Church, and although the main points of Church teaching were quite clear, a definite decision had not yet been given in relation to others, hardly unimportant. Origen was clearly aware of this state of affairs and presents a remarkable attempt to indicate the area of ​​\u200b\u200bsubjects about which the holy Apostles, preaching the faith of Christ, what they recognized as necessary, very clearly revealed to everyone - even to those who seemed comparatively less active in the search for Divine knowledge; about other objects the Apostles only said that they exist, but how and why? - they remained silent - of course, in those forms so that the most zealous and loving wisdom from among their successors, that is, those of them who become worthy and capable of perceiving the truth, could have exercise and thus show the fruit of their minds 10. In the field of subjects of Church teaching of the latter kind, where neither Holy Scripture nor the Church gives an absolutely binding definition, Origen considered it completely legitimate to follow the free process of his own thoughts, under the supreme control of the sources and authorities of Church teaching. But for a mind so exalted and imprinted with an outstanding individuality, inspired by an ardent enthusiasm for the truth and an unwavering desire to express it in terms of modern culture, it was difficult to always maintain the established limits of research under the conditions in which it developed the theological and philosophical system of Church teaching. Origen, who correctly established the principles of theological science, did not actually remain a traditionalist faithful to Scripture: his extensive philosophical education determined his theological thought to a greater extent than the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. That is why Origen’s system reveals a serious influence of philosophical elements on it, and all of his dogmatics - especially the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - represents, as it were, two orders of ideas - church-traditional and philosophical. Revolving in areas of questions of extreme importance and difficulty, Origen came to some conclusions that could not be reconciled with the general church consciousness. Among the material shortcomings of Origen's Theological System, we consider it necessary to note here the point that is especially important in the subsequent history of theological thought, namely the uncertainty in the doctrine of the relationship of the Divine Hypostases. Origen oscillates between the doctrine of consubstantiality, to which he was attracted logically, and subordinationism, to which the problem of Creation led him: on the one hand, the doctrine of the unity of the essence of the Divine Hypostases and their equality in Origen is often expressed in expressions characteristic of Orthodox theologians of a later era; on the other hand, he decisively pursues and substantiates such relationships of Divine Persons, which give his Theology a sharp subordinationist character. Undoubtedly, Origen was a direct subordinationist, 11 although his point of view absolutely excluded the Arian teaching. Nevertheless, this duality served as the basis for dividing Origen’s followers into right and left Origenists, defenders of the traditional Church belief in the full Divinity of the Savior and its opponents, both of whom, apparently with equal right, referred to the great Alexandrian teacher. Origen irresistibly influenced his followers with the direction of his Theology, and laid the stamp of his genius on that direction of theological thought, which is known under the name of the Alexandrian Theological School; he established in it the distinctive features of his Theology; idealistic imprint, predominance of speculation and mysticism; here the moment of the ineffable, supersensible and mysterious always outweighs - hence the preference for Platonic philosophy in the form of dominant Neoplatonism. In the explanation of the Holy Scriptures, the allegorical-mystical method was widely used, already in Origen himself it was not alien to extremes, but among his followers it led to harmful hobbies. The influence of the great personality of Origen spread the Alexandrian trend not only in Alexandria, but, one might say, throughout the entire Greek East; Even the West did not remain free from it. At the same time, Origen’s Theology is subject to the common fate of the systems of thinkers of the first rank: it produced a wide and deep impact, but his followers could not accommodate the greatest thing in it - the attraction to an integral religious worldview; what was combined in a living unity in Origen’s system was torn out of connection and considered separately, as independent; individual provisions were assimilated and, in new combinations, acquired an unusual meaning 12 . This explains why Origen became such a controversial figure. People of opposing dogmatic views referred to his theological teaching, rejected some parts of his teaching, holding others, and quite sincerely did not comprehend the contradictions into which they fell from the point of view of Origen’s integral system. Open recognition of the sources and authorities of Church doctrine, anti-heretical polemics, undoubted merits for Church science in the field of textual criticism, sermons and edifying works, a strong impression of a bright personality and a virtuous life, crowned with the glory of a confessor - all this paralyzed the significance of the conciliar condemnations of Origen in Alexandria during his lifetime and revealed to him and his theological views influence on broad church circles. But the preponderance of philosophical elements in his Theology and the accompanying material errors in the Theological teaching aroused a natural need for the “churchization” of Origen himself, and before the beginning of the 4th century, significantly important amendments were made to his system. Origenism in the second half of the 3rd century developed in two directions. In Alexandria, Origen's students continued to lead the catechetical school in the direction that was strengthened in it by Origen himself until the end of the 3rd century: Dionysius, Theognostus and Pierius represented, as far as one can judge from the surviving news about them, the leftist trend of Origen's Theology with its characteristic feature - subordinationism in the doctrine of the mutual relationship of the Divine Hypostases, although with a significant tilt to the side harmonization of the conclusions of theological science with Church teaching. In Palestinian Caesarea this form of Origenism found a serious adherent in the person of Pamphilus, a student of Pierius, who in turn was the teacher of Eusebius of Caesarea. The right movement of Origenism, based on those provisions of the Theological teaching of Origen, which made it possible to affirm the unity of the essence of the Divine Hypostases and Their equality, found its exponent in the person of Gregory the Wonderworker - Origen's most reverent disciple in Caesarea, later the Bishop of Neocaesarea - who established the influence of Origen in Cappadocia. The disciples themselves and the more faithful followers of Origen in both directions considered themselves forced to weaken many of the provisions of his Theology. Meanwhile, a direct desire for ecclesiastical correction of Origen’s Theology was also revealed, primarily in Alexandria itself. Already Dionysius of Alexandria, who carried Origen’s subordinationist positions to the extreme, encountered opposition from the “right-minded” brothers of his Church and was forced to explain the expressions he used in the spirit of Church teaching; and at the very beginning of the 4th century, the Bishop of Alexandria Peter, despite his dependence on Origen in general, nevertheless resolutely rebelled against him in particulars and precisely in those positions that represented a temptation for his church consciousness. True, Saint Peter rejected only individual points of Origen’s Theology, pointing out their source in Hellenic philosophy and recognizing them as strange and alien for those who wish to live piously in Christ, and as if he did not touch the essence of Origen’s views, nevertheless here, as in all attempts to eliminate and refute Origen’s private views, the very foundations of his system were already violated, because his particulars were inextricably linked with the essence that is in them found its expression, the most tangible and accessible to understanding and evaluation from the point of view of general church teaching, even by people who did not stand at the height of Origen’s theological and philosophical views. There is no doubt, of course, that the influence of the anti-philosophical party of the “right-thinkers” affected the relationship of St. Peter to Origen. Thus, in Alexandria, Origen’s Theology was brought into harmony with Church Tradition, and respect for the personality of the great teacher was preserved. Outside Alexandria, Origen's theological direction had even less chance of being preserved in its pure form and would not encounter even more decisive opposition, because other theological traditions were strong there. In Asia Minor, the traditions of Asia Minor Theology continued to live, and the influence of Saint Irenaeus turned out to be strong enough to prevent Origenism from establishing itself everywhere, even in its right wing. Strictly speaking, the Asia Minor theological direction, already due to the conditions of the activity of Saint Irenaeus and his significance in the life of the Church, could not be limited to one church area and in fact became widespread in the East and West: it was most akin to the popular understanding of the general church faith and corresponded to the general spirit and level of ordinary theological thinking. His influence in the West extended to Rome, Gaul and North Africa, and in the East to Antioch; Origen had to take him into account; his principles were reflected in Alexandria and after him, prompting the church to correct his theological teaching. But after, at the beginning of the 3rd century, a living scientific movement was discovered in all areas of the Christian world, which, among other things, prepared the way for the unusually rapid spread of the theological aspirations and ideas of Origen, and after Origen himself had a deep and powerful influence during this century, Asia Minor Theology could not remain in its previous form and had to define its attitude towards science more clearly and more favorably. It could not protect its followers from the influence of Origen. Under the influence of these difficult conditions, a theological direction was formed in Aza Minor, which did not shy away from the use of philosophy, but at the same time sought to firmly preserve the faithful truths of faith in their realistic understanding. Following in the footsteps of Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus, theologians of this type did not despise science, but found the highest truth in the provisions of Church Tradition and therefore did not give the right to philosophical gnosis to rework the provisions of faith, but only to substantiate, connect and clarify them. Naturally, given the nature of their aspirations in the field of Theology, they were opponents of the science of faith cultivated in Alexandria and had to rebel against its father, Origen. The most expressive representative of this theological trend was Methodius of Olympus, who is an interesting example of a theologian who was strongly influenced by Origen and at the same time stands in sharp opposition to his spiritualism. He relies on the ancient traditions of Asia Minor, and the Theology of Irenaeus and Hippolytus for him is a church-devotional teaching. Therefore he sharply rejects the fundamental principles of Origen's Theology and decisively attacks his methods and allegorical explanation of the Holy Scriptures; in relation to Church gnosis, he puts himself in almost the same position as Irenaeus – in relation to the heretical. He contrasts “the pomposity of words” with “solid and sound teaching,” “Theology of rhetoric” with “Theology of facts.” But he himself persistently studied Plato and assimilated his thoughts, so that his views were rooted in the same assumptions of Greek philosophy as the views of Origen. He even uses allegorical explanation with virtuosity, where it is convenient for him. As a result, it turned out that Methodius, on the one hand, in a vigorous polemic against Origen, defended the popular understanding of the general church faith and rejected all Origen’s teachings, which contained a reinterpretation of the devotional teaching; but, on the other hand, he did not move away from Origen’s speculation and even tried, using its premises and methods, to achieve results favorable to faith. And, despite this, the Theology of St. Methodius does not lose the distinctive features of the Asia Minor direction, since he does not strive to merge what was borrowed from Irenaean and Alexandrian Theology, but only to scientifically substantiate the first 13 . The anti-Origen movement - the spokesman of which was Saint Methodius of Olympus - by the beginning of the 4th century had assumed such proportions that Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea - followers and deep admirers of Origen - were forced to write an apology in defense of him from various criticisms. From this apology it is clear that Origen was accused of unorthodoxy by many who were familiar with the content of his teaching only by hearsay; there was no shortage of those who were ready to admire some of his views until they knew the name of their author; but it was enough for them to know that these were the views of Origen, as they recognized them as heretical 14. Obviously, there were people for whom the opinion that Origen was a heretic was beyond doubt. But still, this was not a general conviction, and even outside the circle of students and adherents of Origen’s views, his authority as a Church teacher stood high; This is evidenced by the anonymous dialogue “On Right Faith in God” (Περί τής είς Θεόν όρθής πίστεως) 15, the origin of which is believed to be between 300–310. Its author must be sought in circles close to Saint Methodius: he uses the works of the latter. He is not a student of Origen, since he does not share his basic views; his work does not reveal any influence of Alexandrian Theology on him - rather, the influence of Irenaeus and Hippolytus is felt in it; but at the same time, he does not polemicize with Origen, but presents him (in the person of Adamantius) in a dispute with heretics even as an exponent of the Church point of view. The author reveals an excellent dialectical and theological school; his work is distinguished by conciseness and precision of expression and, to a large extent, philosophy. In him one can see a representative of Asia Minor Theology of a different shade, in comparison with Saint Methodius, alien to hostility towards Origen, so to speak, conciliatory. From Caesarea, Origen's influence spread to neighboring Syria - Antioch and Edessa: but here, too, local traditions were strong, which not only did not give the opportunity to establish pure Origenism, but also caused such an opposition to it, which introduces a new element into theological development and means not only a new direction in the previous Theology, but also a new understanding of theological science itself: we mean a certain appearance of the Antiochian school at the turn of III and the 4th century, connected with the name of the Antiochian presbyter Lucian, who had a very significant influence on the character and direction of theological science of subsequent times, both as an exegete and as a metaphysician. Lucian was influenced by Origen not only in his biblical critical activity, but also in his dogmatic views; nevertheless, the direction in exegesis that he approved little by little revealed itself in complete opposition to the dogmatic-allegorical method of Origen and left a special imprint on the entire character of the Theology of the Antiochian School. Like the Alexandrian school, the Antiochian school strove for a deeper knowledge of the internal connection of the truths of faith, for the presentation of the Revealed teaching with the help of science. But the entire theology of its representatives was of a completely different nature, and the means of achieving the goal were different. The Antiochian Theologians, like those of Alexandria, stood on the basis of Holy Scripture and the Church Faith; the starting point of their difference was the understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and the distinguishing feature was the historical-grammatical method of the Antiochians, as opposed to the allegorical method of the Alexandrians. But in its essence, this opposition had the same foundations on which, during the heyday of Greek philosophy, the opposition between the directions of Plato and Aristotle was established: on the one hand, animated, mystical, allegorical idealism, and on the other, sober, rational, historical realism. Therefore, while the Alexandrian theologians are under the influence of the philosophy of Plato and Neoplatonism, in the Antiochian school the philosophy of Aristotle gradually gains a decisive predominance and a sober, rational direction, logical reflection, and a realistic consideration of the Revealed teaching are established. Accordingly, in dogmatics, the Antiochian theologians emphasize what is in accordance with reason, anthropological, and in accordance with nature, and in Soteriology and the doctrine of grace they persistently put forward the moment of human freedom and independence. Thus, during the period of the emergence of Christian Theological Science, in accordance with the universal laws of the spiritual life of mankind, after the idealistic-allegorical direction had become established in it, the realistic-historical 16 appeared as a reaction. Just as the direction of the Alexandrian school is directly dependent on the nature of the spiritual life of Alexandria and the dominant religious and philosophical currents in it, so the Antiochian direction has its basis in the inner life and aspirations of the Church, in the special local and historical relations of the Syrian communities and the character of the people, in the struggle with the Syrian Jews and Gnostics, who used the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, in antagonism against the revealed consequences of arbitrary allegorism Alexandriytsev. The Antiochene school reached its development in the following period, and the struggle between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools is the basis for the great dogmatic disputes in the following centuries. These were the trends in Church Theological science that developed or were emerging by the beginning of the 4th century. Although in its movement - if we keep in mind the content - there is no harmony and certainty, very significant results were achieved: all the essential questions of Church teaching were raised, the ground was prepared for their resolution, almost all the concepts with which theology operated in the 4th and 5th centuries were established - however, they still lacked complete certainty - passages of Holy Scripture were also outlined, which were especially used in the struggle of the 4th and 5th centuries. The results of scientific work were recognized by the Church: extensions in the sense of scientific theology were adopted into many symbols. Gregory of Nyssa reports that the symbol of Gregory the Wonderworker formed the basis of the instruction of the catechumens in Caesarea before his time, 17 and this symbol reflects the strong influence of Origen's Theology - in the understanding of Gregory the Wonderworker and his terminology. From the activities of the Council of Nicea and the events of the time closest to it, it is clear that other Churches then had symbols that contained the Biblical and theological formulas of Origen; This can be stated with confidence regarding the Jerusalem and Antioch Churches, and perhaps also regarding the Caesarea Church. II. The influence of new conditions of church life on the relationship of theological trends. New Alexandrian School: the nature of the Theology of St. Alexander, St. Athanasius, Didymus, the Cappadocian Fathers, Amphilochius, Apollinaris, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea. Modifications in the method of Alexandrian exegesis. Antiochian school: periods in its history and characteristics of the theological activities of its representatives. Asia Minor Theology in the 4th century. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. Markell of Ankyra. Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus In the first quarter of the 4th century, we enter a new area - the heyday of ancient church theology: the strength of the external position of the Church gave it full opportunity for free and comprehensive development, and the fight against heresies provided abundant material for its work. New generations of church teachers appeared, enriched by the experience of the scientific activities of their predecessors. A distinctive feature of this period should be recognized as councils - Ecumenical - if possible from representatives of all Churches - and local, convened very often, sometimes in several places at once; they are bodies not only of government, but also of religious doctrine, with the highest authority. Councils are also very important in the history of the development of Church Theological Science. The theological trends of the previous time, due to the significant isolation of the internal life of the local Churches, despite the lively exchange of outstanding works of literature, remained the special property of certain localities and districts in whose living conditions they had their roots. Each school was more or less closed, valued its own traditions and appealed to them, considered its direction and methods to be the best guarantee of knowledge of Orthodox teaching and was suspicious of the theological features of other schools. At local councils, and especially Ecumenical councils, different theological trends came into direct contact, entered into struggle with each other, mutually influenced each other, smoothed out their sharp features; In this way, the vitality and compliance with modern church needs of some directions or individual aspects in them and the unsuitability of others became clear, and all together raised energy and contributed to the development of theological science. The powerful spirit of Origen continued to have a strong influence on the course of Theological thought: it can be said that almost all theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries worked more or less with the spiritual heritage of Origen, partly directly adhering to him, partly becoming in opposition to his system and the direction of Theological science created by him, but at the same time inspired by his scientific ideals. Therefore, the various Theological trends of the 4th and 5th centuries are usually determined by their relationship to Origen in one way or another. But if even in the circle of Origen’s closest students and followers it is impossible to talk about the integral influence of his system, then this was all the more possible now, especially in view of the nature of the ensuing struggle. In the present period, with the changed relations between the Church and the state, political and church-political factors also had a significant influence on the course of events in church-historical life; However, the essential drivers in the history of Christian teaching remain religious ideas, certain general views on Christianity and the Christian teaching about Salvation, and therefore external factors could not penetrate into the depths of Church life and influence the internal character and direction of theological thought. The leading role in dogmatic movements until the middle of the 5th century belonged to Alexandrian Theology. But in this school there was no strict unity in direction, and it is necessary to note in it several trends, or at least shades, observed even in Alexandria itself; they are determined by the individual characteristics of theological figures and the nature of their life relationships. Here, in the homeland and main place of development of Origen’s speculation and exegesis, already at the end of the previous period, as indicated, there was a turn towards Biblical realism and Church Tradition. The “righteous” church Christians of the time of Dionysius the Great and Bishop Peter show traces of the gradual strengthening of that direction, which was called New Alexandria. The exponent of this trend in the Alexandrian school at the time of the Council of Nicea was the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, the first energetic denouncer of the Arian error, who immediately correctly and clearly defined its essence and the consequences arising from it. As far as can be judged based on the surviving monuments of his literary activity, he is an undoubted right-wing Origenist, who combined the best aspects of the sublime philosophical system of the Alexandrian theologian with church-traditional teaching. The best characteristic of his theological direction is the remark of the historian Socrates that Saint Alexander φιλοσοφϖν έθεολόγει (Hist. eccl., 1:5). With his forced theological explanations, written in his old age, at the very beginning of the Arian movement, he gives evidence of the theological atmosphere in which the views of his successor, Saint Athanasius, developed under his influence and was an active assistant during his life. But the final imprint on the New Alexandria direction was left by Saint Athanasius. The great father of the Church, the tireless defender of the Orthodox confession of faith, Saint Athanasius was not an original thinker, and pure speculation did not captivate him; he does not stand out for his unique scientific concepts, like Origen. Nevertheless, its immeasurable church-historical significance is based not only on the great feat of life in the fight against Arianism, but also on the decisive reform in the direction and character of scientific Theology 18. This was achieved by a new, original combination of theological ideas and scientific concepts that had already been revealed and used in the theology of his predecessors, and agreement with the essence of the Christian religion and its significance for humanity, which he deeply comprehended. Saint Athanasius is an Origenist of the same direction as Bishop Alexander, and his Theology included, first of all, those essential elements of right Origenism and Alexandrian church traditions, which characterize the Theological teaching of his predecessor; he also mastered the terminology of Origen's Theology. The influence of Origen is especially noticeable in the early works of Saint Athanasius (“Against the Pagans” and “On the Incarnation of the Word”), written before the fight against Arianism and distinguished by their depth of speculation, scientificity and systematicity. Saint Athanasius never addresses Origen with a reproachful word, he even praises him as “much learned” and “hardworking”, calls Theognostus “wonderful and worthy of respect” 19, in a special work he tries to justify Dionysius from accusations of subordinationism and in all the named men he sees ancient witnesses of the Nicene faith 20. Along with the influence of Origen, the philosophy of Plato also had a noticeable impact on the Theology of St. Athanasius. But with these elements established in Alexandrian Theology, Saint Athanasius combined the soteriological teaching of the Asia Minor Theology of Saint Irenaeus: the close kinship and agreement of the soteriological theories of Saint Irenaeus and Athanasius is indisputable. True, Saint Athanasius gave the teaching of Saint Irenaeus a philosophical justification using the concepts of Platonic philosophy; however, Asia Minor Theology produced such a strong influence on the general system of the Theology of St. Athanasius that Origenism itself underwent significant changes, resulting in a real reform of Church-Scientific Theology. He concentrated the entire Christian worldview in the idea of ​​Salvation and established an understanding of the essence of Christianity as a religion of Salvation. This idea was persistently noted by Saint Irenaeus; Saint Athanasius developed it in his essay “On the Incarnation of the Word” and later especially advanced and deepened it in the fight against heresy. All his aspirations are directed towards the knowledge of the Savior and Salvation and the central significance of Christ in Christianity from the point of view of Salvation. In the thought of Salvation, Saint Athanasius, with deep religious feeling, recognized the path that alone leads to the understanding and confirmation of the position of the Church Confession that in the person of Jesus Christ the full and real Divinity appeared on earth. In the great religious principle - the Salvation of Humanity for Divine Life through the God-Man - Christian faith and thought must receive their norms, Theology - its direction. The firmness and consistency with which Saint Athanasius reduced all the tenets of faith to this basic and central idea lies the outstanding greatness and significance of Saint Athanasius for the religious thought and life of Christianity. Although Saint Athanasius, during the long struggle with Arianism - which so deeply captivated him - could not write systematically, with full disclosure and justification of his thoughts, nevertheless, in his polemical works, genuine Christian speculation is based, so that Saint Athanasius did not leave scientific soil throughout his literary activity, he only to a certain extent weakened the metaphysical idealism of Origen's Theology with religious and practical principles and aspirations with a significant bias towards the latter. The Theology of Origen was also placed within this framework. Saint Athanasius limits Origen's desire to combine Christianity and natural knowledge into a universal system of religious philosophy and excludes the purely philosophical problems of the Origenists from Christian teaching, subordinating speculative and cosmological interests to religious and practical goals. Thus, Saint Athanasius introduced a new stream into the theological science of the Alexandrians and thereby gave Church Theology a new imprint and direction, which determined the essential character of all subsequent Church Theological science. By the middle of the 4th century, a very definite scientific upsurge was noticed in Greek Theology, which is associated, on the one hand, with a freer attitude towards ancient education 21, and on the other hand, with a more complete and direct use of the fruits of Origen's learning. And indeed, the time has come for the revival of the true Origen. In Alexandria itself, next to Saint Athanasius, the encyclopedically educated famous “sighted blind man” Didymus, the head of the Alexandrian Catechetical School and a representative of purer Origenistic traditions, develops his scientific and theological activities. Didymus 22 was completely dependent on Origen, although other influences on him are undeniable. The authority of Origen for him was almost equal to the authority of Holy Scripture. He not only assimilated the distinctive points of his teaching, but even defended them, while explaining his trinitarian-Christological deviations in the sense of Orthodox teaching, for which he compiled a short commentary on Περί αρχϖν 23 23. In general, he depended on Origen more than any other theologian of his time. But, on the other hand, it is not without reason that Didymus, borrowing particulars from Origen, does not reveal the penetration of the spirit of his system - he lacks the power of his speculation and even the attraction to it. Didimus' activities and influence were not limited to the close circle of his students; This is evidenced by the well-known fact that his works were quoted not only by Cyril of Alexandria, but also by Ambrose of Milan, and also by the fact that few theologians enjoyed such favor with Nicene-minded Christians of the 4th and 5th centuries as Didymus. The historian Socrates can hardly find enough words to praise him. The fame of Didymus's exceptional learning even reached the hermit Anthony the Great, who stood far from the events and movements of time 24. Didymus was not a systematic thinker. Having submitted to the unconditional influence of Origen, in his dogmatic teaching he stood dependent on the views of Saint Athanasius, which he combined with the latest elements of theological thought; At present, his importance in the development of dogmatic terminology is being persistently put forward, and if it is impossible to indisputably prove his influence on such outstanding theologians as the Cappadocian fathers, then in any case in the history of theological science he stands between them and Saint Athanasius. The new rise of the scientific theological spirit, which Didymus notes with his admiration for Origen, found brilliant expression in the theological activity of the great Cappadocian fathers - Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and his friend Gregory the Theologian. The theology of each of them presents individual characteristics, both in general and in detail, but these are actually only varieties of one theological type 25. In terms of its basic principles and essential elements, it seems very complex. First of all, he was influenced by the influence of Origen, who acted on the Cappadocian fathers all the more irresistibly because the principles of Origen’s Theology were the theological traditions of their native country: a living tradition connected them with the recognized authority of the pre-Nicene era, Gregory the Wonderworker, a direct student of Origen. Memories of him by the time of the Cappadocian fathers, especially in the family of Basil the Great, were still extremely vivid; his theological views were also not yet forgotten: the Cappadocians themselves testify to the influence that the symbol of the Apostle of their country had on their religious education. Traces of significant dependence on him in the theological thought of the Cappadocians are indisputable. But Gregory the Wonderworker led the Cappadocians to Origen himself. They studied Origen carefully, and he fascinated them. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian even compiled a selection of the best passages from Origen’s works - “Philocalia”. The study of Origen's exegetical works was for them a preparatory school for the fight against the Arians. Using the writings of Origen, they gave a strong answer to the objections of the Arians, and when the latter themselves referred to Origen, they proved to them that they misunderstood his dogma 27. If they did not assimilate the erroneous opinions of Origen (except St. Gregory of Nyssa), then they undoubtedly penetrated into the spirit of his Theology. However, Origen's influence affected them to varying degrees: Basil the Great - a man of a more practical direction, a stronger and more positive spirit - was less subject to Origen's influence; it was much more reflected in Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa is a true Origenist: like Origen, he freely theologizes on those issues on which the Church has not expressed a definite judgment; he poses problems about the origin of the soul, about the nature of evil, about free will, about the relationship between spirit and matter, about the properties of the resurrected body, about universal restoration, although he does not always agree with Origen in his conclusions. In any case, it is indisputable that Origen aroused in him a desire for speculation and determined the main direction of his religious philosophy. Thus, Origenism, as interpreted by Gregory the Wonderworker and with those restrictions on its freedom that were gradually made before that time and flowed naturally from the state of Church doctrine, constituted one of the essential assumptions of the theological activity of the Cappadocian fathers. But Origen actually defined the general character and spirit of their Theology, providing at the same time a whole series of concepts and necessary terms. The content of their Theological teaching was based on the Nicene Confession; hence their dependence on the Theology of St. Athanasius naturally follows: they were disciples of St. Athanasius and thereby strengthened their connection with the New Alexandrian Theology, with the essential feature that St. Athanasius noticeably outweighs the tendencies and range of thoughts of the Asia Minor Theology of St. Irenaeus, and the Cappadocian Fathers - the Origenian direction. This preponderance is explained not only by the increased influence of Origen on them, but also by the reinforcement that Origenism found in their broad and deep classical education. Thanks to him, they comprehended the spirit of Hellenic culture and science and stood at the level of their contemporary scientific worldview. When the Cappadocian fathers turned to the Hellenic schools, the times of dominance of one philosophical system and direction had long passed: in the 4th century, syncretism came into its own, and everyone chose their own paths, borrowing from one or another system the necessary data for their own constructions. Therefore, among the Cappadocian fathers we see, on the one hand, the predominance of Platonic and Neoplatonic influences, which were akin to the Origen direction of their theology and reinforced and clarified it; but on the other hand, they turned out to be not alien to Aristotelian views: the fight against Arianism, mainly with Eunomius, who, with the help of Aristotelian philosophy, gave Arian dogmatics a dialectical, scientific-philosophical form, forced the Cappadocians, with all their dislike for Aristotle, to a large extent use the exact concepts of the Aristotelian school, which could not remain without influence on some aspects of their Theological teaching and his terminology Finally, church-historical circumstances and the own aspirations of the Cappadocian fathers in the service of the Church placed them, especially Basil the Great, in close relations with prominent figures of that conservative trend in Theology, which represented the traditions of Asia Minor Theology; in connection with the influence of St. Athanasius, it undoubtedly had its share of influence on the direction and character of their Theology, restraining them from one-sided enthusiasm for metaphysical problems and encouraging them to show attention to practical-religious interests. With such an abundance of essential elements that were organically combined in the Theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, they, for their part, greatly contributed to the development of Church Theological Science: what Saint Athanasius expressed, although in a deeply philosophical spirit, but without proper formal-dialectical processing, more as a Biblical-Church dogma than a strictly philosophical theory, they developed in a scientific-dialectical and philosophical-critical method, translated into the precise language of modern philosophical concepts 28. Therefore, the theological teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers is of great importance in the history of Church Theology. In their theological works, the Trinitarian problem received final resolution, and the understanding they established of the Church teaching about the Holy Trinity and the formulas they created became the precious property of Orthodox Theological dogmatics; but they only interpreted and revealed the Church's teaching, as it was expressed in the Nicene Confession, without changing its essence. The mission of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa was different from that of St. Athanasius: at a critical moment in church life, they were called to give form and precise expression to the teaching that had been observed from the beginning in the Catholic Church and the defense of which St. Athanasius set as the goal of his life. St. Gregory the Theologian presented this teaching with complete clarity and gave it the most perfect expression, making the lofty secrets of the faith accessible to everyone. Basil the Great put it into practice, and Gregory of Nyssa gave it a scientific and philosophical basis. But, having at its core the faithful teaching of faith and resting on the Theological teaching of St. Athanasius, the Theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, depending on its constituent elements and various influences, contains such features in the general spirit of the religious and moral worldview that it represents not only a further stage in the disclosure and substantiation of Church teaching, but, in comparison with St. Athanasius, bears a kind of stamp of a special movement in the Alexandrian school - Cappadocian Theology. An essential aspect of it is the increased scientific interest, which is found both in the general understanding of Christianity in its relation to ancient culture, and in the breadth and depth of the formulation of theological problems. The Cappadocian Fathers seem to be aligning the line of scientific Church Theology, enriching it with the theological experience of Saint Athanasius, and connecting devotion to the religious and practical ideals of the Church with scientific interests. A special variety in the type of Cappadocian Theology is represented by the theological teaching of a church writer who was in close friendship with the Cappadocian fathers, Bishop Amphilochius of Iconia, whose significance in the history of Theological science has only recently received attention 29 . He strenuously defended the theological position of the Cappadocians in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and in Christology - and not only defended, but even promoted a more accurate expression of Church teaching by introducing new terms or combinations of traditional formulas. However, it represents a significant deviation from the character of the Theology of the Cappadocian Fathers; The significant difference between Amphilochius and his friends was that he remained completely untouched by the influence of Origen and did not show any understanding of him; all deep questions of a theoretical and speculative nature lie beyond the horizon of Amphilochius: his Theology rests on simple religious and biblical motives and reveals a noticeable influence of the Asia Minor traditions of St. Irenaeus in their interpretation by St. Athanasius. An even more peculiar theologian of the group under consideration is Apollinaris (the younger), who was a most learned, judicious, very influential and prolific writer; he was respected by both friends and enemies. At first, both in life and in his literary works, Apollinaris was an ardent champion of the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, walked in the same direction with the great fathers and teachers, and was a friend of Saints Athanasius, Basil, Serapion and other prominent figures of that time. His learning and initial relationships gave reason to place great hopes on him and expect special services from him for the benefit of the Church. The educational influences that influenced Apollinaris and the nature of his literary activity and theological views do not allow us to establish with certainty which of the dominant directions of theological thought in the 4th century he belonged to. On the one hand, he is considered 30 committed to the Alexandrian trend and an opponent of the Antiochian theologians, in support of which they first of all point to the Alexandrian origin of his father (Apollinaris the Elder), who undoubtedly must have been under the influence of Saint Athanasius - the name of the latter shone with glory among all those who theologized in the spirit of the Council of Nicaea, and even more so among the Alexandrian family, which did not interrupt relations with their homeland and closely followed the progress of the affairs of the Alexandrian Church; Apollinaris himself was on friendly terms with Saint Athanasius, always spoke about him with a feeling of deep respect and, in agreement with him, saw in his theological views a sure guarantee of their truth. Further, Apollinaris’s belonging to the Alexandrian movement is proved by his connections with all the prominent figures of this movement and the basic nature of his theological views. One cannot ignore the fact that the Christological teaching of Apollinaris met with the most decisive protest from representatives of the Antiochian school. On the other hand, they find 31 that Apollinaris preserved the most brilliant traditions of the Antiochian school. He was a zealous and witty opponent of Origen and, for all his mysticism, a sound Aristotelian and exegete. His syllogistic-dialectical and exegetical method is related to the method of the later Antiochians. Indeed, Apollinaris stood in close relations with the Antiochian church leaders: Laodicea lay near Antioch; Antioch is the place where he developed his activities. The Bishop of Antioch was Eustathius, who held high the banner of the Antiochian school. Thus, Apollinaris, due to the special conditions of his life and work, came into closer contact with the Antiochian school, and accordingly, the initial influence of the Alexandrian school on him weakened. He was an admirer and undoubted follower of Saint Athanasius, but he combined the teachings of the latter with Aristotelian philosophy and dialectics; the influence of the latter caused him to have a negative attitude towards Origen’s theological method and determined the nature of his exegesis. Apollinaris had many followers, whom he attracted not only with his numerous works, but also with his direct personal influence: inspired students gathered around him; his school was distinguished by its strong unity, reverent devotion to the teacher, its vitality and energy, as well as its persistence in striving to carry its views into the Church. It was primarily an exegetical school, a school of theological and philosophical technique in the sense of Aristotelian dialectics 32 . When Apollinaris’s decisive attempt to cut the knot of the Christological problem with a unique theory of the union of two natures in the person of Jesus Christ aroused objections from all sides and church condemnation, the followers of Apollinaris tried by all means to preserve his works from destruction, passing off some of them of early origin as the works of Saint Athanasius, Gregory the Wonderworker, the Roman bishops Julius and Felix, and thus provided the views with terminology Apollinaris's influence on Church Theological science in the subsequent time of Christological disputes 33. A number of the great Church Fathers of this period - who belonged to the Alexandrian school - are concluded by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. His Theology represents an undoubted expression of the tendencies that dominated the Alexandrian Church in the 5th century and which were a direct result of the mysticism that constituted one of the main characteristic features of the representatives of the Alexandrian school. In the fight against Nestorianism, Saint Cyril is an outstanding theologian and strives to scientifically substantiate the right of the Alexandrian point of view in Christology, based on that historical-realistic teaching about Salvation, which was the life ideal of Saint Athanasius and which focused interest on the most perfect solitude of the Divine and human in Christ, ensuring the reality of our salvation. He uses the works of Didymus and the Cappadocian Fathers (mainly St. Gregory the Theologian) and concludes the Christological teaching of the Alexandrians in precise formulas. But the recent persecution of Origen, raised by his uncle Theophilus of Alexandria, did not pass without a trace: in his works one can no longer feel the scientific upsurge that marked the second half of the 4th century, and he can be recognized as an exponent of the spirit of the Alexandrian school in a period when it was clearly inclined to decline. Another current of Origenian Theology - of the left order, with a clearly expressed subordinationism, in the 4th century is found in Alexandria - in Caesarea Palestine and has its representative in the person of Eusebius of Caesarea. It originates from Alexandria through the medium of Pamphilus, a student of the Alexandrian Pierius. Eusebius himself was a student and collaborator of Pamphilus. Together with him, he wrote an apology for Origen (against Methodius), which determines his main dogmatic position. He is completely dependent on Origen. In no point of his teaching was he original; Everywhere you can trace the threads to his teacher - Origen. He never even tried to present his system consistently and firmly; he lacked a guiding idea to connect individual thoughts 34. Eusebius tried to maintain the teacher’s system, adapting and reconciling the contradictions encountered in it, and in this respect he is a representative of the conservative trend, strives to remain with the old and therefore resists the introduction of precise formulas. Unlike Saint Athanasius, Eusebius does not see the action of religious-practical interests: his interest is purely scientific. From the basic subordinationist point of view of Eusebius, his attitude to the Nicene creed and to Arianism naturally followed: he was not an Arian and, however, was suspicious of the confessors of consubstantiality, signed a symbol in Nicaea and in a letter to the flock of Caesarea explains όμοούσιος in the spirit of his views. In his basic views, he, of course, stands closer to the Alexandrians than to Arius; but when it is necessary to make a decisive choice between opposite sides, he joins the one that provides more opportunity to retain Origen’s formulas and subordination in the doctrine of Logos. Eusebius was not alone with such views: at the Council of Nicea there was a whole party of his like-minded people. After the Council, this intermediate direction, which was not developed in dogmatic terms and in church-political terms, had a strong influence on the course of the struggle against the Nicene Creed. After Eusebius, the party was headed by his disciple and successor, Acacius, one of the most influential church politicians among the bishops of the great Eastern mediating party, which under Constantius victoriously opposed the Nicene creed. He developed a wide literary activity and brought the influence of this trend to the 70s of the 4th century. The activities of this party, directed against the defenders of the Orthodox confession, undoubtedly greatly undermined the authority of Origen, on whom it relied. Thus, the Alexandrian school, while always remaining faithful to the essential foundations of its traditions, however, did not present a single, consistently pursued theological direction, and often reflected noticeable traces of such theological and philosophical influences that brought it closer to other trends in theological science, mainly with the Antiochian school. She could not even stand it without very significant restrictions and the mystical-allegorical method that distinguishes her in the explanation of the Holy Scriptures. The conditions of theological activity of the representatives of the Alexandrian school were unfavorable for its consistent and steady application; on the contrary, the state of affairs forced, at least to a certain extent, to abandon allegorism in favor of rational exegesis. The Arians, who in their scientific direction mostly belonged to the Antiochian school, and then the Nestorians, fought not only with the tenets of Aristotelian philosophy, but also with evidence from the Holy Scriptures and were able to find in the Old and New Testaments the places necessary to substantiate their views. In the fight against them it was impossible to find protection behind allegorical interpretations; it was necessary to wrest from them the supports they were looking for in the biblical text using the correct scientific method. Already Saint Athanasius, in his dogmatic-polemical works, thoroughly establishes the literal meaning of the Sacred Texts and expresses the requirement to pay attention to the historical conditions of the origin of the Sacred Books 35 . The question of the right to use allegory even prompted fundamental clarifications from the Cappadocian fathers: Gregory of Hucca defends allegorism against attacks from the church; Gregory the Theologian, in his own words, occupies a middle position, and Basil the Great in a harsh tone rejects allegory in its application even for edifying sermons 36, which is why, according to the method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, he is sometimes considered a representative of the Antiochian principles 37. Even Didymus could not always remain a faithful Alexandrian in this regard. As for Amphilochius, he limits himself to a literal explanation, while Apollinaris has already mastered the method of the Antiochian school. Another theological trend, which during the 4th and 5th centuries had a strong influence on the course of dogmatic movements and the disclosure and justification of Church teaching, found its expression in the Antiochian school, as is known, in its basic character the opposite of the Alexandrian; the struggle between these two directions constitutes a distinctive feature of the church-theological life of this period and continues beyond its borders. The Antiochian direction in its basic principles was carried out more consistently than the Alexandrian one. The Antiochian school has now finally revealed those positive and negative aspects that were revealed in it, in contrast to the Alexandrian school, at its very emergence: a strictly scientific grammatical-historical method in exegesis, a reluctance to pure speculation due to the use of the Aristotelian dialectical method and, in general, the dominance of Aristotelian philosophy; The theologians of the Antiochian trend preferred clarity of understanding in dogmatics to sublimity in theology. But in the history of the Antiochian school during the 4th and 5th centuries it is necessary to distinguish two periods: the first extends a little beyond half of the 4th century, the second falls into the last decades of the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century 38 . In the first period, the Antiochian school produced prominent figures of Arianism and semi-Arianism, whom one memory of their relationship with Lucian bound into a close union, and they gladly called themselves Solukianists (συλλουκιανισταί). These were: first of all, Arius himself, then Eusebius of Nicomedia, Marius of Chalcedon, Theognius of Nicaea, Eudoxius, Numerius and others. In addition to these undoubted disciples of Lucian, perhaps other Arians also belonged here, who adhered to the same exegetical direction, although their attitude towards Lucian cannot be established on reliable historical evidence. Among them we can count Leontius of Antioch, his student Aetius of Antioch, deacon Eunomius of Antioch, a student of Aetius who surpassed his teacher, Theodore of Irakli (in Thrace) and others. The most famous in the history of exegesis of all these opponents of the Nicene creed was Eusebius of Emesa - belonging to Edessa by origin, he acquired a wide knowledge of the philosophical and exact sciences and a high formal education, first in Edessa, famous for Biblical Theology, then in Alexandria, Caesarea (with Eusebius), in Scythopolis (with Patrophilus) and in Antioch. Of Lucian’s disciples, their opponents definitely report that they stood on the basis of Aristotelian philosophy, and the surviving fragments of Aetius’s literary works show in almost every position of the Aristotelian: Aetius surpassed Arius in the application of the principles of Aristotelian philosophy, which is especially clear in his position on the knowability of God. In their dogmatic and religious views they are straightforward and do not hesitate to draw decisive and bold conclusions; they are guided by purely theoretical and scientific interests and do not seem to know religious motives and do not recognize them in their opponents: for them logic is the only scale of religious knowledge. They tirelessly strive to pursue their dogmatic views through pure dialectics and often fall into the extremes of dry rationalism, a repulsive example of which is represented by the Eunomians, who revolve in the field of purely formal logic and dream of measuring the essence of the Divine with the help of simple dialectical operations. But that the Antiochian school, with its historical-grammatical-logical explanation of the Holy Scriptures, did not arise from heretical rationalism and that the principles underlying it did not necessarily lead to alienation from Church teaching and to neglect of church-theological traditions, Orthodox figures belonging to the Antiochian school testify to this already at this stage. According to the main features of exegesis and according to his Christological views, Eustathius of Antioch, one of the first scientific denouncers of Arianism and a literary opponent of Eusebius of Caesarea, should be ranked first of all with the Antiochian school; An adherent of the Antiochian method of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, he rebels against the allegorical method of Origen in the only indisputably authentic surviving work: “The Prophetess (of Endorra) against Origen.” Then follow: Meletius of Antioch, a zealous defender of Orthodoxy, who is important for the Antiochian school not only because of his education, but also as the teacher of St. John Chrysostom, whom he instructed in his home on the religious development of which he had a strong influence, and Flavian of Antioch - the faithful shepherd of the Orthodox part of the Antiochian Christians, the teacher of Dudor, who made him an experienced fighter against Arianism and who gave him, like his other assistants in the church teaching, a large number of evidence and texts from the Holy Scriptures, with which they could easily break the networks of heretics. The second period in the history of the Antiochian school represents its flourishing, corresponding to the scientific revival that was found in the Alexandrian school in the second half of the 5th century. Often only the school of this period is called the Antiochian school itself. The head of the new Antiochian school was Archimandrite Dudor, later Bishop of Tarsus, and its outstanding representatives were: John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, his brother Polychronius, Nestorius, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. Their distinctive feature was comprehensive secular and philosophical education, and, in comparison with the previous period, a characteristic feature of the Antiochian school is, on the one hand, a positive attitude towards the scientific traditions of Origen, although even now in the education of its representatives Aristotelian influence prevails over Plato, on the other hand, devotion to the Nicene Confession, which it energetically defended, acting in this regard in full agreement with the great fathers of Alexandria schools. As for the Christology of the Antiochians, here too even those of the representatives of the Antiochian school who followed the line that led to Nestorianism indicate traces of the Christological traditions of Asia Minor Theology, in the form in which they were reflected earlier in the Christology of Eustathius of Antioch, although fragments of the dogmatic works of Dudor and Theodore of Mopsuestia, preserved by their opponents, only rarely indicate their conscious connection with Christological traditions - for the most part they are based on exegetical and rational arguments. The general direction of the theology of the Antiochian school - which made them dogmatists and religious philosophers of a straightforward method and carried them towards the desire to pursue their dogmatic views through pure dialectics, in connection with the struggle against the Christology of the Eunomians and Apollinaris - little by little formed that opposition to the New Alexandrian Christology, which, after the death of Theodore, found expression in the clash of both directions in the Nestorian dispute. But here, too, the subordination of scientific aspirations to religious interests, the authority of Church tradition and the voice of Church religious consciousness led to purely Orthodox Christological views (for example, those of Blessed Theodoret), which, in harmonious combination with the Christological teaching of representatives of the Alexandrian school, gave a complete, alien to one-sidedness and free from misinterpretation and distortion expression of Church teaching in Religion of the IV Ecumenical Council. During the same period, the Antiochian method of explaining the Holy Scriptures with certain rules for it was finally established, with a decisive refutation of the Origen method not only on one occasion or another when interpreting the Holy Scriptures, but also in individual treatises. The difference between the Alexandrian (actually Origenian) and Antiochian methods is not that the representatives of the latter generally rejected the spiritual meaning; they recognized it, but tried to define it on the basis of its literal meaning, as typical. While the Alexandrians often quite arbitrarily associated a spiritual meaning with passages of Holy Scripture, the Antiochians proceeded from the literal, sought to define it using all the means of sound exegesis, and then showed that this or that narrative is the shadow of things to come, a God-ordained type that found its fulfillment through Jesus Christ. Thus, the typically symbolic meaning (θεορία, and not αλλεγορία) lies not in words, but in the realities, persons and events designated by words 39 . But it goes without saying that this general theoretical position could be implemented in different ways in practice. While Theodore of Mopsuestia brought the rational understanding of the Holy Scriptures to rationalistic extremes, St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret, remaining faithful to the principles of Antiochian exegesis, assimilate the best aspects of the Alexandrian method, giving a legitimate share of meaning to allegorical explanation, and provide examples of scientific commentary, the techniques of which in their essence remain unchanged in Orthodox exegesis 40. Thus, two opposing theological trends, which fought each other for more than a century, by the end of the period under review are reconciled in their church movements, not only in the field of exegesis, but also in dogmatic views. The course of church-historical events of the 4th century, however, cannot be entirely deduced and correctly understood only on the basis of the clashes of the Alexandrian and Antiochian directions. Looking closely at the course and gradual development of the dogmatic movements of this time, it is not difficult to notice that the large group of opponents of the Nicene creed, which was far from homogeneous in its composition, was important in them; the elements included in it, as subsequent history showed, were connected with each other, as in opposition groups in general, only by the opposition itself. When, around the year 356, it achieved a temporary triumph over the Nicaeans and internal decay began within it, the main tendencies of its constituent directions soon began to become definitely clear. Genuine Arianism made its final conclusions in the anomieism of Aetius and Eunomius. Then representatives of left Origenism emerged, remaining faithful to Origen subordinationism, previously supported by Eusebius of Caesarea; under the leadership of Acacius of Caesarea they came to the confession of Omianism (= the Son is like the Father). At the same time, at the Council of Ancyra in 358, a large party of Omiusians (= the Son is subordinate to the Father) was formed - Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea became its leader. This party gradually began to unite with the defenders of the Nicene Symbol and by the time of the Second Ecumenical Council finally merged with them, but first separated itself into a group that received the name pneumatomachians (Dukhobors) or Macedonians. Consequently, some of the Omiusians were not inclined to recognize, along with the consubstantiality of the Son, the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit. If we keep in mind this fact, as well as the philosophical elements in the Omiusian documents (in the acts of the Council of Ancyra in 358), then it will be natural to conclude that among the Omiusians there were representatives of right-wing Origenism, at least some of whom could not renounce Origen’s view of the subordinate position of the Holy Spirit 41 . Finally, the nature of the teaching of the Omiusians, in connection with some data from the previous dogmatic activity of the group that later formed the Omiusian party, gives reason to see in its composition also the exponents of that direction, defined in its essential features, which is represented by the Theology of Saints Irenaeus and Methodius; the latter testified to its vitality just before the beginning of the Arian disputes. It, of course, did not disappear, and the struggle that began forced its representatives, of whom there were a lot, to reveal their participation and influence in the cycle of the Nicene-Arian movements. This was a strictly conservative trend, which did not deny the significance of theological science, but limited its significance, did not allow the philosophical and theological development of its teachings and did not express it in philosophical and theological terms, but considered it necessary to remain with the heritage of the devotee, to profess what church antiquity taught in its symbols. Representatives of this type of theological thought made up a significant part of the members of the first Ecumenical Council; they rejected Arianism as a heresy, but were also suspicious of the new terms and concepts that were supposed to be introduced into the presentation of the faith, considering this a dangerous innovation, a deviation from ancient opinions. They accepted the Nicene Creed, but after the Council they soon found themselves in the ranks of the anti-Niceans, finding the term όμοούσιοϛ seductive and dangerous; They do not consider the Nicene Definition to be the purest expression of faith, corresponding to the true teaching of the Church. The bishops of this theological trend constituted the majority at the Council of Antioch in 341, where, in contrast to the Nicene Creed, they put forward the authority of antiquity, what they first learned to believe; they then become part of the Omiusian Party. All the time, despite the struggle against the Nicene Symbol and its defenders, they stand on the basis of a strictly ecclesiastical Council, when through the theological works of the Cappadocian Fathers it was clarified that “consubstantiality” does not lead to Sabellianism. A typical representative of this theological trend in Church literature is Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. In his catechetical teachings, delivered around the year 348, he does not use the Nicene Symbol and does not use the term όμοούσιοϛ, but bases them on the symbol of the Jerusalem Church, warning his listeners that they are not the work of human hands, and that every word of his can be confirmed by the Holy Scriptures. Concordance with the Holy Scriptures is sufficient. He sharply polemicizes against Sabellius and Marcellus 42, suspected of Sabellianism, and also refutes the Arians, but without a clear indication of them. For certain provisions of the doctrine, he does not refuse to provide reasonable evidence, but he does not give anything that would resemble a system of doctrine, and does not show any desire for it. In his catechetical teachings one cannot find the slightest trace of the influence of any philosophical school - everywhere and everywhere he remains a purely church writer, standing on the basis of Church Tradition. At the council in Seleucia in 359, he found himself in the ranks of the Omiusians, and participated in the Second Ecumenical Council as a fully Orthodox member of it. The teachings of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem are a very valuable document confirming the fact that among the opponents of the Nicene Symbol there were bishops who did not dare to use the Nicene Symbol, not considering it an accurate expression of the Right Faith, although they themselves were undoubtedly Orthodox. In the history of theological science, Marcellus of Ancyra occupied a highly original position. He is completely unaffected by the movement of Church Theological Science that it has made since the time of Irenaeus. Marcellus is free from everything that modern theology has given; he protested against it. He not only corrected Origen, but went back, behind Origen - to Irenaeus and even to Ignatius. Marcellus is armed against all theological methods and sees their main sin in the involvement of Plato and philosophy in general. He consciously wanted to stand on the basis of one Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition and established a purely Biblical terminology. He even rebelled against indiscriminate references to the authority of the fathers 43 . But Marcellus discredited his method with his own heretical teaching, from which his disciple Photinus drew extreme conclusions. The too late views of this unique theological thinker had few adherents and aroused heated objections from Eusebius and Acacius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa and Basil the Great. At the Council of Nicaea, he zealously defended the “consubstantial” and after the Council he occupied a prominent place in the ranks of defenders of his creed; he enjoyed the respect of the Nicene people and therefore, with his errors, caused many difficulties to the Orthodox, confirming their opponents in the idea that the Nicene Confession would inevitably lead to Sabellianism. Until now, we have talked about theological trends that acted in the dogmatic struggle that filled the entire period under consideration, and whose representatives developed theological and literary activity mainly within the framework of issues of time. But the scientific revival of the second half of the 4th century was manifested not only in a deeper and broader formulation of problems caused by modern interests, but also in more general scientific works, in which the desire to create a science on Christian soil in the broadest sense of the word, which, with the help of data from Ancient philosophy, would illuminate all aspects of existence, is clearly visible. Such a desire is undoubtedly among Didymus, Basil the Great, Apollinaris, the Antiochians, and especially among Gregory of Nyssa. Its presence is found in a person whose participation in the modern dogmatic struggle is unknown, namely in Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa (in Phenicia), who wrote the work “On the Nature of Man” (περί φύσεωϛ άνθρωπου) at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century. It is remarkable not so much for its significance in the history of Christian philosophy as for its character and underlying tendency. The work of Nemesius is connected with Ancient philosophy in many ways: in it we find its terminology, teachings and opinions reworked into a coherent system imbued with the Christian spirit. Nemesius takes material for his work from representatives of various movements: Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, Neoplatonists, Galen, giving, however, a clear preference for Plato and Neoplatonism; he borrows from them everything that is useful to him in order to form the truest and most complete view of human nature. But at the same time, he firmly adheres to Christian teaching, strives to harmonize and unite both with each other, coming from the conviction that natural and revealed truth cannot contradict each other. He always remains within the framework of the Christian faith, never transgresses them and does not contradict Christian teaching. Thus, despite the diversity of elements that make up the teachings of Nemesius, the Christian religion brings them into a harmonious combination and provides the basis for the entire system 44. Less successful was the combination of pagan philosophy with Christianity by Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemand. A sincere Christian at heart, he could never bring Christian teaching into agreement with Platonic philosophy: his works are in the nature of syncretism, mixing paganism and Christianity. If we keep in mind that Synesius was not an exceptional phenomenon, then it is necessary to admit that he represents “an interesting example of that accommodation of Neoplatonism and Christianity, when Christian and Neoplatonic views were so mixed up with each other in the consciousness of a person that neither for himself nor for an outside researcher there was almost no possibility of finding the border between them” 45. Scientific endeavors of this kind, with such techniques and with such results of their application, did not have a direct impact on the disclosure of the dogmatic teaching of the Church, however, their influence on the general Christian worldview cannot be doubted. The long struggle with various Arian factions supported theological thought in the most intense state, and its intensified activity produced extremely important results for the clarification, disclosure and establishment of Church truth. But the continuous outbreaks of heretical movements caused alarm and forced them to look for their root. The thought somehow naturally turned to that person whose activities from the very beginning aroused both strong love and no less hatred - the Alexandrian teacher Origen. His name was already associated with the Arian error, especially since the Arians themselves referred to Origen to confirm their teaching; and in fact there was no shortage of points where moderate Arianism comes into contact with Origenism and seems to be a further development of it. Against Origen, as the father of the Arian heresy and the culprit of all modern errors, towards the end of the 4th century, the learned Bishop of Cyprus Epiphanius raised his authoritative voice, being the exponent of a trend that undoubtedly had many representatives among bishops, clergy, monks and laity for a long time and which decisively raised the question of the rights of Theological Science on philosophical grounds and pursued one-sided traditionalism. He did not belong to any theological school, but was simply an Orthodox writer who straightforwardly pursued the aspirations of the extreme right. He was not an original writer and was afraid of originality: Saint Epiphanius strives to establish his scientific thought on an unconditionally correct basis, as if on an anchor, accepts only lasting results and turns away from speculation, which poses and tries to resolve theological problems; he himself often only reproduces the views of Saint Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers. In matters of faith, he does not know any leniency, and does not distinguish between opinion and actual error, between the unconditional followers of Origen and admirers of his science and his fruitful scientific work. The extensive section in the Panaria of Epiphanius against Origen is the first polemical work of church traditionalism, opening the great struggle against theological science in the Church. In essence, here we are not talking about Origen - whom Saint Epiphanius calls a freethinker, who in vain appropriated the name of adamantium, a pitiful and pompous man - but about Hellenic education (έλληνική παιδία), about that direction of Church Theological science, the ancestor of which Origen was rightly considered. “How much harm you yourself have suffered and how many others you have harmed,” Epiphanius exclaims, “How you, bitten by a terrible viper, that is, Hellenic education, have become poison for others!” “You, Origen, having blinded your mind with Hellenic teaching, spewed poison on those who trusted you and became poisonous food for them, harmed many in the same way, which is why you yourself suffered harm” 46. He speaks with undisguised indignation about the audacity with which Origen dared to investigate unsearchable subjects, to seek out heavenly things and to explain the entire Holy Scripture, which led him to a deep fall 47. Saint Epiphanius especially sharply attacks the allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture. But the authority of Origen, who became a symbol of scientific Theology, was too great in the Church: despite the decisive struggle against him by such a famous man as Saint Epiphanius, and his condemnation at the councils of Rome and Alexandria (in 399), his importance in broad church circles remained almost unshaken in the first half of the 5th century, as can be seen from Socrates’ “Ecclesiastical History” 48 . Thus, by the end of the period, only the Alexandrian and Antiochian trends remained clearly expressed in Church Theological Science, both in a softened form, and, as a sign of the future, the one-sided traditional current with its opposition to Theological Science. III. Distinctive features of theological science of the 4th–5th centuries in the use of sources and scientific means: attitude to the Holy Scriptures, Church Tradition and modern philosophy; liveliness of religious consciousness, freedom of research. Final conclusions regarding the conditions of normal development of Theological Science at the present time If we now turn to the content of the works of the most outstanding representatives of Church Theological science itself, we will see, first of all, their amazingly complete and comprehensive use of all sources and means that were required by the essence of Church Theology and its modern needs and tasks, with such an assessment of their comparative significance and in such a harmonious combination, which in many ways constitute the exclusive affiliation of Theological science of this particular period. A distinctive feature of this theological science is its biblical character: theology is based primarily on the Holy Scriptures. The Bible is the inspired Divine word, the only true source of religious knowledge and the highest authority in teaching. The Holy Scripture both edifies and strengthens in the faith, provides reliable material for Christian knowledge and, at the same time, an absolutely reliable criterion for testing any teaching: it measures every theological phenomenon, it refutes every error. All the writers of this period exactly fulfilled Origen’s commandment - to read and reread the Holy Scripture: “... just as Rebecca,” he said, “came daily to the well to draw water, so we must daily rush to the source of the Holy Scripture - the water of the Holy Spirit and always draw from it and always carry a filled vessel to our homes.” 49. In their works they use the Holy Scripture to the widest extent - both in dogmatic-polemical and moral treatises, they cite entire periods from the Holy Scriptures, as if not noticing that they are speaking in the words of the Holy Books, they base their evidence on many quotes, they cite a whole series of parallel passages, so that their erudition in the Holy primary sources is justly surprising - they live and breathe in the Holy Scripture and, most importantly, from it, as from the source of Divine wisdom and saving Revelation, the preached teaching is organically derived and developed. And not only the defenders of the Orthodox Faith, but also heretics, and above all the Arians, cited passages of Holy Scripture as the most convincing basis for their opinions. At the First Ecumenical Council, much effort was spent on expressing in terms of Holy Scripture the doctrine of the Son of God in His relation to God the Father, and “consubstantial” was subject to objections from conservative theologians precisely because it is not literally given in Holy Scripture. writers of the fourth and fifth centuries sometimes express themselves as if, in their opinion, the Holy Scriptures alone are sufficient to teach what ought to be believed. Saint Athanasius says that the Scriptures are Sacred and Divinely inspired, sufficient to determine the truth 50. Eustathius of Antioch writes that only the words of God are reliable for accurate understanding and strength of faith 51. “Do not expect another teacher,” says St. John Chrysostom, “you have the word of God - no one can teach you like it... From ignorance of the Scriptures comes all kinds of evil... It is easy to be saved with the Scriptures, but without them it is impossible” 52. For a testimony to be reliable, it must be supported by Scripture 53 . There is nothing more reliable than Divine Scripture 54. “The most important way by which we find what our duty obliges us to do is by studying the Divinely inspired Scriptures... Whatever one perceives oneself to be insufficient in, by studying the Scriptures, in it, as in a general medical clinic, one finds a cure suitable for one’s ailment” 55 . Blessed Theodoret writes that for him Divine Scripture alone is convincing, 56 and indeed uses it in the widest extent. Due to this significance of the Holy Scriptures, Athanasius of Alexandria recognizes the creed of the Council of Nicea as a right teaching only because it is based on the Holy Scriptures: the faith that the Council confessed on the basis of the Scriptures is the faith of the Catholic Church" 57 . “True and pious faith in the Lord is obvious to everyone; it is known and studied from the Divine Scriptures; the saints (the Nicene fathers) secretly guided by her became martyrs” 58. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his catechetical discourses, expounds the Christian faith on the basis of the symbol of his Church, but at the same time expresses the conviction that it represents a condensed presentation of the truths of Holy Scripture 59 . “The Divine and holy mysteries of faith,” he says, “should not be taught without the Divine Scriptures and should not be carried away by mere probability and arguments of reason. Don’t even just believe me, who am telling you this, if you do not receive evidence of what I proclaim from the Divine Scriptures. For the very salvation of our faith is not based on refined words, but on evidence from the Divine Scriptures” 60. This significance of the Holy Scriptures for Church Theology explains why so many commentaries remain from the writers of this period. The most important schools were predominantly exegetical. Methods of explanation were given great importance. But no less decisively, church theologians put forward another source and guiding principle in the matter of revealing the truths of dogma and norms of church life - the Apostolic Tradition preserved in the Church and among the saints. In their works there are constantly references to the “Apostolic Faith”, “Church Teaching”, “the original Tradition, teaching and faith of the Universal Church”, which is identical everywhere, because it was handed down equally by the fathers everywhere. The discovery, clarification and approval of dogmatic teaching, the complication of liturgical and ritual practice, and so on, prompted the writers of this period to insist more than they did before them on oral teaching, on the tradition that came down from the Apostles. Pointing to tradition, in their opinion, eliminates even the need to provide any other evidence. In the great dogmatic struggle they move completely imperceptibly from the evidence of Holy Scripture to the testimony of Tradition. It is considered the “canon” of understanding the Holy Scriptures, and if it does not determine its explanation in particulars, it guides its application to dogma. Such a view of the meaning of Tradition, after such energetic statements about the independent authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture, may suggest a contradiction or at least ambiguity and consistently raise the question of the mutual relationship and significance of both sources and authorities in the opinion of church theologians of this period. But for them such questions did not exist: pointing to Tradition, they appealed to the general church consciousness itself, as it was expressed in the teaching of the Church, Its institutions and organization, in religious rites and customs; they clearly understood the threads along which they brought Church Tradition to the Apostles themselves, and in the works of church writers they found confirmation of the correctness of their view. “Let us look,” says Saint Athanasius, “at the very original Tradition, at the teaching and faith of the Universal Church - the faith that the Lord betrayed, the Apostles preached, and the fathers observed. For the Church is founded on it, and whoever falls away from Her cannot be or even be called a Christian” 61. Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes: “Let no one require me to confirm what we recognize with evidence, because to prove our teaching it is enough to have the Tradition that has come to us from the Father as some inheritance, transmitted successively from the Apostles through subsequent saints” 62. It is clear that for them both Scripture and Tradition came from one source, confirming and explaining each other. Therefore, without falling into contradiction, they asserted that “both are equally reliable” 63, that both have the same power for piety 64. They took such wide advantage of this Apostolic Tradition, observed in the Church, so richly saturated their works with it and at the same time showed such deep penetration into its spirit that the works of the holy men of this period for subsequent generations are the richest and most dominant source of Tradition coming from the Apostles. With all this, if there is an urgent need to choose between discordant traditions and customs, then the judge should be Divinely inspired Scripture, “and whoever’s teaching turns out to be in agreement with God’s word, on his side, without a doubt, will be the voice of truth” (St. Basil the Great. Letter 181 [189]. Russian translation, part 7, p. 20). Holy Scripture and Tradition served as the basis and provided all the necessary elements of Church teaching. But Church Theological Science, in order to facilitate the Church’s implementation of Her task - in a new favorable situation to complete the victory over the pagan world and make Christianity its spiritual heritage - had to use means corresponding to this great goal. There was no need to invent these means: they were at hand, and the famous Alexandrian teacher had already pointed out them and not only pointed them out, but also gave an example of their use; this is the culture of the Greco-Roman world in general and especially its philosophy. It was only necessary to free oneself from those exaggerations in the application of these means to Christian teaching, which Origen was not alien to. And the greatest fathers and teachers of the Church of the period under review accomplished this task in the most perfect manner. Most of them were educated in the best pagan schools of their time, studied classical literature and philosophy there, mastered all the means of modern education and, in general, all branches of ancient culture, and therefore were able to attract to the service of Christianity all the best, noblest and most useful for it. Their creations, especially Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Blessed Theodoret, under the inexhaustible treasures of Orthodox Christian teaching, reveal everywhere traces of comprehensive ancient knowledge. From here they first of all borrowed the forms into which the content of Christian teaching was cast, methods of research, disclosure and substantiation of it, expressions and concepts that made it accessible to the understanding of modern society living in the atmosphere of Greco-Roman culture. But for them, who equally comprehended the essence of Christianity and Greco-Roman culture, it was absolutely clear that the Christian Revelation contains or presupposes a circle of truths that are comprehensible by reason and accessible to natural knowledge and which found at least partial resolution in pagan philosophy; So many of these elements that were true and correct and at the same time consistent with the worldview given in Christianity were found that since the time of Clement of Alexandria, a view on the wisdom of the Hellenes was definitely expressed or tacitly assumed as a preparatory to perfect knowledge, fully revealed in Christ. They had all the greater dignity in the eyes of Christian teachers because the latter, without realizing it, considered them in the light of their highest Christian knowledge and thus completely assimilated them with the Christian way of thinking. These elements of truth, common to Christianity and Hellenic philosophy, were the best means to establish a connection between classical education and the Christian religion, Greek gnosis and the Church faith. The more fully the representatives of Church Theological Science understood this task of theirs, the further the range of problems that they brought in connection with the teaching of faith extended, the greater the number of elements that they learned from Greek philosophy should have been made. Since Greek philosophy itself continued to develop at this time, a reflection of this development can also be traced among church writers. Not everything that was borrowed from Greek philosophy became a permanent component of Church science - much found only temporary application and then disappeared by itself. The more completely a known concept could be detached from the soil on which it grew, and separated from those side thoughts that could be combined with it, the closer and firmer was its connection with Christian teaching; on the contrary, what was determined by a certain phase of the development of Greek spiritual life, although it was accepted temporarily to resolve a particular problem, was later singled out 65. A careful study of the works of church writers - especially the Cappadocian fathers - shows that they did not limit themselves to the assimilation of elements of Hellenic culture and did not unconditionally bow to established forms. They felt and realized that ancient metaphysical and psychological schemes were too narrow for Christian ideas, and this forced them to undertake experiments in the further development of philosophical terminology in relation to the essential features of the content of Christian teaching. The later Greeks were quite clearly aware that Christian Theology produced new formations in ancient concepts. Saint John of Damascus, in his “Source of Knowledge,” devoted the first book to clarifying philosophical concepts. He clearly shows that, in his opinion, dogmatic formulas were formed with the help of philosophy, but at the same time he puts forward the difference between theological and philosophical terminology. Where necessary, he makes the remark that the holy fathers defined terms differently than non-Christian philosophers 66 . In this way it was achieved that the content of the Church's faith was expressed in a language that was accessible to all educated people. Greek philosophy was the form in which the treasure of the transmitted Church faith was preserved and expressed. If the latter was given a new formulation, then this did not introduce alien content into it. The undeniable influence of Hellenic philosophy on Church dogma should not be exaggerated. The result was “not the transformation of Christianity into Hellenism, but on the contrary: the conversion of Hellenism into Christianity. The metaphysical ideas of philosophy, transplanted into the Christian Church, were reborn here and received another higher and spiritual meaning, and, as in other areas of life, so here, in the sphere of philosophy, the Christian religion extracted all the fresh juices, transformed them in accordance with its own spirit and assimilated them as its own property” 67. If we add to what has been said that the church writers of the period under review, with all their scientific and philosophical education and direction, were able to rise above pagan philosophy and, using Ancient science to refute pagan wisdom and heresies and to reveal and substantiate purely Orthodox teaching, clearly limited the limits of independent research of the mind and did not allow the possibility of comprehending or deducing by logical-dialectical techniques the very dogmas and natural activities of the mind subordinated to the teachings of Divine Revelation and the Church, then it will be clear to us why they were able to create such a Christian-church worldview in which reason and faith were brought into living unity and harmony. They showed the truly royal path along which Church theological science should follow for the fruitful service of the Church. Looking at the course and development of dogmatic movements in the 4th and 5th centuries and assessing the results achieved by theological science, it is not difficult to see that if Christian thought had followed the rationalistic path along which Arianism pushed it, then Christianity as a religion would have ceased to exist; but, on the other hand, if she had remained in the position in which she was held by the conservative group of theologians, the Church would have been left with the vague formulas of pre-Nicene symbols, opening wide scope for extreme diversity and confusion in concepts regarding the most fundamental questions of the Christian religion. Another distinctive feature of theological science of the 4th and 5th centuries is the living spirit that pervades it. Its source must be sought first of all in the liveliness of the religious consciousness of church writers of that time. A strong religious feeling gave the tone to their whole life and was reflected in all its manifestations; it also permeates all their theological and literary activity: it was guided and inspired not by formally scientific, but predominantly by religious interests. For them, endless and seemingly petty discussions and disputes about terms, about one iota, had the highest religious significance. In questions about the Divinity of the Son, about the Incarnation and the union of two natures in Christ, the matter was about the fate of the believing soul - the possibility for it of salvation, immortality, deification. This deep religious consciousness was for them both a source of energy in a difficult struggle and a true criterion in determining the means of theological and scientific activity: it kept them from expanding the area of ​​what is cognizable by the natural human mind to infinity and gave rise to the reverence so characteristic of them for the incomprehensible mysteries of Divine Revelation; it also forced them to listen sensitively to the voice of “simple faith” and carefully, weighing every step, move forward in clarifying it and raising it to the level of distinct, reasonable Christian knowledge. On the other hand, a favorable and necessary condition for the development of the vital energy of theological and scientific work of this period was a living and fresh atmosphere of freedom of thought - not unlimited, of course, but completely providing legitimate scope for theological creativity. With all their ardent zeal for the observance of the transmitted faith and protecting it from distortion, representatives of Church Theological Science demanded agreement with Church teaching only in essential provisions, allowing freedom in the rest, and were quite tolerant of theological opinions when they were expressed not in the form of unconditional theses of faith, but in the form of assumptions that revealed a desire to understand and clarify Church truth. Here we can, first of all, point to Saint Athanasius, who shows respect for science and its free development; This is evidenced by his judgments about Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Theognostus, and his tolerant attitude towards others, even clearly erroneous opinions, is sufficiently evidenced by the nature of his judgment about Marcellus - already at a time when he aroused fair suspicions in many. Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus reports: “I myself once asked Blessed Pope Athanasius what his opinion was about this Marcellus. He did not defend him, and did not treat him with hostility, but only, smiling, secretly expressed that he was not far from being mistaken, and considered him justified” 68. About Basil of Ancyra, who adhered to Omiunianism and did not accept the term “consubstantial,” Saint Athanasius says: “with those who accept everything else that is written in Nicaea, they only doubt the saying “consubstantial”, we must not treat them as enemies, and we do not rebel against them, as against the Arians and those opposing the fathers (of Nicaea), but we reason as brothers with brothers, having the same thought with us and doubting only the name” 69. And at the Council of Alexandria in 362, under the chairmanship of Saint Athanasius, decrees were made full of love and condescension towards those who differ in their views. Saint Gregory the Theologian, although he himself zealously defended and proved the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, did not, however, demand the confession of this truth from those Christians who, reasoning sensibly about the Son and not daring to relegate the Holy Spirit directly to the category of creatures, nevertheless refused to recognize Him as God. He considers them worthy of complete leniency and tries to present their opinion in the most favorable light. Saint Gregory the Theologian says that they must be gradually led forward and brought closer to the highest; He addresses them with the following words: “Let us come together spiritually, let us be brotherly loving rather than selfish. Recognize the power of the Divine, and we will grant you indulgence in speech. Confess the nature under other names, which you respect most, and we will heal you as if you were weak, even if we hide otherwise to your satisfaction.” And further: “I will say even more clearly and briefly: neither you blame us for a more sublime speech, nor will we condemn us for that speech that is within your power for the time being, until you reach, albeit in a different way, the same refuge with us. We do not seek victory, but the return of the brothers, separation from whom torments us. These things we say to you, in which we find several lives that you reason soundly about the Son” 70. All the conciliatory activities of Basil the Great, carried out by him with the assistance of Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, reveal the most cautious attitude towards the beliefs and opinions of others. The basis of this respect for freedom of thought and research is the conviction of the church fathers and writers that Christianity should not be imagined as if its theoretical side is doomed at all points to immobility, excluding the need for further disclosure and deepening of its understanding; they allowed for the possibility of disagreements and disputes due to the unclearness of some issues of Christian Theology and show examples of differences in the construction of even an integral Christian worldview. They believed in the progress of Theological Science and desired it, because they considered it absolutely necessary. Saint Gregory the Theologian in his word on the Holy Spirit, explaining why the teaching about the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not immediately expressed clearly and definitely, says: “It is necessary that the Trinity light illuminate those who are enlightened by gradual enlightenment... ascensions, proceeds from glory to glory and successes... You see the insights gradually shining upon us and the order of Theology, which it is better for us to observe, not suddenly expressing everything and not completely hiding everything” 71 . The entire course of dogmatic movements during the period under review shows such progress. In the first half of the 4th century, theological figures led by Saint Athanasius defined ideas and developed doctrine, in the second half - the Cappadocian Fathers, Didymus, Amphilochius - finally established terminology and concluded discussions on triadological issues: the Trinitarian teaching of Saint Athanasius, representing imperfections both in terminology and in the theory of the Divine Persons and Their relationship, was revealed, fulfilled and more precisely defined by the Cappadocian Fathers. At the same time, the theologians of the end of the 4th century, who so energetically rebelled against the teachings of Apollinaris, relying on the transmitted Church teaching and their Catholic faith, however, did not present a final and absolutely satisfactory solution to the Christological problem, which was gradually accomplished by theologians of the 5th and 6th centuries. Inaccuracies and even erroneous opinions of some writers caused clarifications by others, and thus the truths of faith passed in the church consciousness from less clarity and certainty to greater ones and received such a formulation that gave the most accurate expression to their content and protected them from distortion and reinterpretation in the future. Finally, the vitality of theological thought, its intensity and vigorous activity were also determined by the fact that the writers of this time had the opportunity to speak and do appear before us with a pronounced individuality, to the extent of the spiritual gifts of each of them. The main trends in theological science that we have noted show that theologians of this period, energetically working for the benefit of the Church in word and writing, thought in the forms and views of their time in different directions, and at least the most gifted among them, from their own special point of view, assessed and applied the results of the activities of their predecessors and the theological traditions of different schools and established their own understanding of the religious and moral needs and problems of contemporary church life. And this difference in the forms of Christian thought not only did not harm the comprehension of the one truth, but certainly contributed to it. All the literary and theological activity of church writers of this period, with its various directions and shades, with its diversity of views, was brought with all zeal to the service of the Church; personal interests merged with church interests, and representatives of theological science not only fought the enemies of truth in a literary way, but were ready to endure all sorts of hardships for the cause of the Church: it was their own business, the work of their lives. But the Church did not fence itself off from theological science, did not consider it alien to itself, having nominated a number of brilliant representatives and even its leaders from among the archpastors, and did not artificially and forcibly limit the scope of its activity: all church issues were also questions of theological science; each of its representatives felt his right to participate in resolving them and therefore realized the importance of the responsibility assumed by every action. Therefore, the problems of theological science immediately received ecclesiastical significance, and theological science continuously and directly influenced the Church teaching established as generally binding. Under such conditions, as a result of the intensive work of theological thought, not only numerous works of individual writers in various fields of theological knowledge appeared, full of deep content, but also the ground was prepared for those majestic in their brevity definitions of faith of the Ecumenical Councils, which approved the Ecumenical Church understanding of Christianity: in them, every concept, every term was preliminarily weighed and assessed in its suitability for the exact expression of Church teaching precisely by Theological Science. Church theological science does not know of another period that, in terms of the breadth and loftiness of thought, the depth of its content, the ideological richness and diversity of views and the energy of theological creativity, could be compared with what it experienced in the 4th and 5th centuries. In its history, this time constitutes an era that has left indelible traces, and its theological writing is rightly the ideal of true Church Theological science. All generations of church theologians following this period stop before him in reverent amazement, consider it a sacred duty to carefully study the works of the great fathers and teachers of the Church, and from their rich treasury they draw edification in the Right Faith and genuine Christian life. But theological science at the present time, as always in general, cannot limit itself to only this: it must strive to realize the ideal of theological science, which was so clearly manifested in the golden age of history, in modern reality, not through simple imitation and reproduction, but through living creative activity. If the Church always faces the task of self-affirmation in the spiritual life of peoples, and if in the cultural world she can carry it out first and foremost through theological science, then the latter must always progress. The highest goal towards which it is directed is the possible full intellectual expression of truth. But if the dogmas of the Church and Her moral teaching are unchanging, always identical, because in their essence they are Divine, then their assimilation and understanding must gradually develop and improve both in the consciousness of each individual member and of the entire Church. Here one involuntarily comes to mind interesting discussions about progress in Theology, belonging to Vikenty Lirinsky. “Perhaps someone will say,” he writes, “this means that there should be no prosperity of religion in the Church of Christ? Of course, it must be very great... But, however, so that the success is really the success of faith, and not a change... Let the understanding, knowledge, wisdom of each individual, as well as all, of one person, as of the whole Church, grow and prosper to the highest degree over the years and centuries, only in its own kind, precisely in the same concept. Pointing to the course of organic development of the human body, Vincent continues: “the teaching of the Christian religion should follow the same laws of prosperity, namely, let it strengthen over the years, expand over time, and rise with age; however, let it remain undamaged and unspoiled” 72. The depths of Divine Revelation are inexhaustible, and humanity, at every stage of its development, comprehends its truths from a new angle and in a new light. The expression of this understanding must naturally vary, must correspond to the times, the general state of knowledge, spiritual and moral experience, individual circumstances and needs. Compliance with the needs of each new age can be considered as an indicator of the healthy state of Theological Science, and if this sign is absent, then one can suspect morbidity, a stop or even a decline in its organic growth. To stand at the height of its task, theological science must constantly update and improve its points of view and its arguments in order to better prove, better explain Church teaching, and lead to a better understanding of it. These are the requirements arising from the very essence of theological science and its goals. But with what means and under what conditions can it accomplish this task? The fathers and teachers of the Church, not theoretically, but by their very creations and the nature of their theology, showed what the principles of theological science should be, on which the continuous progress of theological knowledge in the spirit of the Orthodox Church is established. In the knowledge and revelation of Christian truth, theological thought must proceed from Revelation itself and build Biblical-Church science. The Holy Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition preserved by the Church and the Church's conscience in their integral unity and mutual penetration must serve as the basis, source and constant criterion of Christian knowledge and provide theological science with such progress that would be the success of faith, and not a change in it. Enlivened and warmed by faith, she spiritualizes her scientific aspirations with the highest religious interests. In the name of serving these interests and for the sake of its best implementation, it must penetrate into the spirit of modern culture, take from it all the best elements, adapt them to the spirit and character of Church teaching, use all cultural and scientific means in order to enter deeper into the understanding of the revealed truths, more clearly comprehend their internal connection, find the most solid evidence for them and build an integral church worldview, accessible to the understanding and assimilation of humanity, which is in a certain stage of spirituality. development. But this requires creativity; Without creativity, theological science cannot be vital and fruitful. And creativity is unthinkable without providing theological science with freedom of discussion and research within the boundaries determined by its sources. If the path to truth becomes so narrow that even experienced people can only follow it with the constant fear of involuntarily deviating from it, then it is impossible to think about the vitality of theological science and expect creativity from it: fear of research naturally subsequently gives rise to an indifferent attitude towards the truth, even under the condition of reverence for the provisions of faith preached by the Church. This is clearly confirmed by the rapid decline of Ancient Church Theological science, as soon as a one-sided traditional direction prevailed in Church society, associated with respectable reverence for the handed down heritage and the authorities of antiquity, and a distrustful attitude towards everything that showed the stamp of originality and liveliness of thought. The Church has every reason to demand from Theological Science that it devote itself entirely to serving Her and that it does not for a single moment lose sight of its character as Church Science. But for the successful manifestation of the activity of Theological Science, the latter, in turn, must have solid ground in the conviction, unshakable by factual relations to it, that its existence and normal all-round development, precisely as a science, is recognized as essentially arising from the tasks of the Church and absolutely necessary for illuminating all aspects of its life and the issues arising in it. Then for theological science, along with church responsibilities, its right in the Church will arise, in the consciousness of which it will always feel its share of responsibility for the Church’s implementation of its mission in modern society. Compare: Thomasius D. Die christliche Dogmengeschichte als Entwicklungsgeschichte des kirchlichen Lehrbegriffs. 2 Aufl. 1 Bd. Erlangen 1886, S. 1–7. Saint John. Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, 8:1. “Refutation and refutation of false knowledge”, 4:33.8; 3:4.1; 2:28.2; 3:3.1.4; 4:26.2; 1:10.3. Reproof and Refutation, 2:26.1. Eusebius. Church History, 4:26.2; 5:27. Prof. Adolf Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 4 Aufl., Tubingen 1909, V. I, pp. 639–640. “On the Beginnings” 1, introduction, § 10; Russian lane "The Works of Origen, Teacher of Alexandria", vol. 1, Kazan, 1899 (ed. Kazan Theological Academy), p. 11. “On Beginnings” 4:11 next: Russian. lane, p. 326 words “On the Beginnings” 1, Intro. 2: Russian. lane, p. 6. “On the Beginnings” I, “Introduction. 3 words: Russian. lane, p. 6 words Prof. V.V. Bolotov. Origen's teaching on the Holy Trinity. SPb. 1879, p. 277. Compare: Prof. R.Seebery. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Erster Band: Die Anfange des Dogmas im nachapostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter. 2 Aufl. Leipzig 1908. S. 517. Prof. Nat. Bonwetsch. Die Theologie des Methodius von Olympus. Berlin 1903, S. 171. W.H. von de Sande Bakhuysen. Der Dialog des Adamantius Lepizig 1901 (Grienchisch-christl. Schriftsteller. Bd. IV). Prof. Alb. Ehrhard. Die altchristliche Litteratur und ihre Erforschung von 1884–1900. 1 Abth. Freiburg in Br. 1900, pp. 625–626. A Word about the Life of Saint Gregory the Wonderworker: Russian. lane, part 8, p. 146. Compare: prof. I.V. Popov. The religious ideal of Saint Athanasius // Theological Bulletin. 1903. December; 1904, March and May. Serapion 4:9: Russian. lane 1903, part 3, p. 76. About the definition Council of Nicaea: Russian. lane ed. 1851, part 1, p. 348, 352. Compare: Socrates, Ecclesiastical History. 6:13. See, for example, St. Basil the Great “To young men on how to benefit from pagan writings” and Saint Gregory the Theologian “Memories of his time in Athens”: Conversation 43, 17–22. Leirold Joh. Didymus der Blinde von Alexandria. Leipzig, 1905 (Text. u. Untersuch., herausgeb. v. Gebhard und Harnack, N. F. XIV, 3). Socrates, Ecclesiastical History. 4:25. Blazh. Jerome, Adv. Rufinum, I, 6: MPL, 23, 402; I, 16; MPL, 23, 409; II, 16: MPL, 23, 438–439. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History. 4:25. See the comparative description of the Theology of St. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa in the study by Prof. Karl Hall. Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinen Verhältniss zu den grossen Kappadoziern. Tublingen und Leirzig, 1904. Basil the Great, Epistle 196 (204) to the Neocaesarians: Russian. trans., ed. 3 (1892), part 7, p. 67. St. Gregory of Nyssa “A Sermon on the Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker.” Russian trans., ed. 1872, part 8, p. 126–197. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 4:26. Prof. A. Orlov. Trinitarian views of Hilary of Pictavia. Historical and dogmatic research. Sergiev Posad. 1908, p. 260. Prof. K.Holl. Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinen Verhältniss zu den grossen Kappadoziern. Tubingen und Leirzig, 1904. Prof. A.A. Spassky. The historical fate of the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea with a brief preliminary sketch of his life. Sergiev Posad. 1895, p. 10–17. Prof. Adolf Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. II, pp. 324–325. Prof. Adolf Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dormengeschichte, Bd. II, S. 332 Anmerk. 3. See prof. A.I. Brilliantova. The origin of Monophysitism. SPb. 1906, p.7. Preuschen Erw in: Realencyclopedie für protestantische Theologie, herausgeb. v. Prof. Alb. Hauck (3 Ausg.), Bd. V, S. 617. Against the Arians I:54; Russian lane, part 2 (ed. 1852), p. 238. Prof. R.Holl. Amphilochius von Ikonium, S. 254–261. Compare: Weiss H., Die Kappadocier Basilius, Gregorius von Nazianz und Gregor von Nyssa als Exegeten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese. Braunsberg 1872, S. 59 ff. Tixeront J. Histoire des dogmes. II: De saint Athanase a saint Augustin (318–430). Paris 1909, p. 13. Prof. H. Kihn. Die Bedeutung der Antiochenischen Schule auf dem exegetischen Gebiete, nebst einer Abhandlung über die ältesten christlichen Schulen. Weissenburg 1866, Prof. H. Kihn. Theodor von Mopsuestia und Julius Africanus als exegeten. Freiburg in Br. 1880, S. 1–32. Prof Adolf Harnack in Realencyklopedie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, herausgeb, v. Prof. Alb. Hauck (3 Ausg.), Bd. I (1896), pp. 592–595. Prof. A.Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. II, pp. 78–79, Anmerk. 3. Prof. H. Kihn, Ueber θεορία and αλλεγορία nach der verlorenen hermeneutischen Schriften der Antiochener (in: "Theolog. Quartalschr," 62 (1880), 4, 531 ff.). See prof. N. N. Glubokovsky. Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. His life and literary activity, I–II, Moscow 1890 (especially II, 15–67). For Origen's teaching on the Holy Spirit, see the study of Prof. V.V. Bolotova. Origen's Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, p. 364 words Prof. Th.Zahn. Marcellus von Ancyra. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Theologie. Gotha. 1867. Domanski B. Die Psychologie des Nemesius. Munster. 1900. Ostroumov A.A. Synesius Bishop of Ptolemand. Moscow 1879, p. 12; Glover T.R. Life and Letters in the fourth Century. Cambridge 1901, p. 320–356. 68.73. Russian lane 1872, part 3, p. 206, 221–222. Ch. 8 and 3. Russian. lane, part 3, p. 98, 83–84. See for example 3:23, 6:7; 6; 13; 7:6. Homil. in Genes. X, 87; XI, 91. Word against the pagans 1: Russian. trans., ed. 1851, vol. 1, p. 5. About cathedrals, 6. Russian. trans., ed. 1903, part 3; With. 97. Commentary on Colossians 9:1. Russian trans., vol. XI, p. 432. On repentance, VIII, 3: vol. II, p. 382. Conversation. to the psalm. 3: vol. V, p. 7. Basil the Great letter to Gregory the Theologian. Russian lane vol. 6, p. 11. On the definitions of the Council of Nicaea 27. Russian. lane ed. 1851, vol. I, p. 342. To Jovian 1. Russian. trans., ed. 1903, part 3, p. 175. Catechetical Word V:12. "To Serapion" 1:28. Russian trans., ed. 1903, part 3, p. 41. "Against Eunomius", book. IV, Russian. lane part 5, p. 474. Saint John Chrysostom. “Tolkov. on II Thess. 4:2." Russian trans., vol. XI, p. 601. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit, 27. Russian. lane, part III, p. 269. Prof. Freih. v. Hertling. Christentum und griechische Philosophie (in: Akten des funften internationalen Kongresses katholischer Gelehrten zu München vom 24. bis 28. September 1900), München 1901, S. 71, 74. Prof. R.Holl. Amphilochius von Ikonium, S. 3–4. Prof. A.A. Spassky. History of dogmatic movements in the era of the Ecumenical Councils (in connection with the philosophical teachings of that time). Sergiev Posad. 1906 T.1. pp. 650–651. This entire study, as its title shows, clarifies the significance of the ideas and forms of modern philosophy in the disclosure, justification and formulation of Church teaching. The dissertation also pursues the same goal: prof. A. Orlov. Trinitarian views of Hilary of Pictavia. Historical and dogmatic research. Sergiev Posad. 1908 - in his extensive (1–276 pp.) chapter: Historical overview of the Church teaching about the Triune God in the 2nd–4th centuries in connection with its philosophical premises. Heresies, 72:4. Russian lane, part 4, p. 282–283. About cathedrals, 41. Russian. trans., ed. 1903, part 3, p. 146. Word 41. Russian. lane, part 4, p. 11, 12, 13. Word 31. Russian. lane, part III, p. 126–127.