Part the Third. On the System of Orthodox Theology
Est (Theologia) scientia, qua fides saluberrima, quae ad beatitatem veram ducit, gignitur, nutriur, defenditur, roboratur.
Augustin.,de Trinit. lib. XIV, cap. 1.
§ 152. On the Different Methods of Studying the Christian Faith, and the Division of This Part
The Christian faith, which forms the subject of Orthodox Theology, is always one and the same in its essence; its sources, that is, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, in which the doctrine concerning it is contained, are likewise always unchanging in themselves. But the manner (method) of studying the Christian faith on the basis of these sources may be various. One may study it, first, directly from Holy Scripture (under the Church’s guidance, of course), studying it in the very order in which the sacred books follow one another, and in which all the most detailed truths of Divine revelation are set forth in them: this is the biblical method of study. One may study it, second, from the writings of the holy Fathers of the Church, as the chief custodians of Holy Tradition, following the chronological order in which these writings arose: this is the patristic, or Fatherly, method of study. One may study it, third, from those confessions or catechisms which the Church offers as a pattern of sound words, and in the order in which the truths of the faith are set forth in them: this is the catechetical750 method of study. Finally, one may study the Christian Faith systematically. Intending to set forth in greater detail the concept of this last method of studying the Christian faith, which alone raises Theology to the rank of a science, we shall first speak of the system of Orthodox Theology in general, and then of the constituent parts of this system in particular.
SECTION I. ON THE SYSTEM OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY IN GENERAL
I. THE CHARACTER OF THE SYSTEM OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY
§ 153. The Concept of It
By the name of the system of Orthodox Theology (in keeping with the generally accepted notion of a system) one must understand that manner of setting forth the truths of the Orthodox Christian faith by which they would present a single harmonious whole, as it were one living and complete organism. For this, the system of Orthodox Theology is required:
a) to have a single beginning: one general, root truth (idea), which would embrace the whole subject of the science, contain within itself, as in a seed, all its parts, and then, once these parts have been drawn out, permeate and enliven them, as the soul enlivens all the members of the body;
b) that from this beginning all the parts or branches of the science be derived in the most precise, logical manner, each set in its own place and in the most correct and close connection with one another;
c) finally, that even within each of these branches all the detailed truths be developed with strict logical consistency, so that each branch presents a distinct system (science) within the general system of Theology, while the complete system of Theology contains under itself a harmonious totality of theological sciences.
From this it already follows of itself:
§ 154. The Distinction of This Method of Studying the Christian Faith from the Other Methods, and Its Relative Merit
The distinction consists in this, that with the systematic method of study, all information about the Christian Faith is artificially subsumed under a single beginning, and then derived from it and unfolded in strict, consecutive order; whereas with the other methods no such artificial construction of the truths takes place: on the contrary, with the biblical method, the study of the Christian faith follows the order in which the books of Holy Scripture are arranged, and all the separate truths within these books; with the patristic method, the chronological order of the works of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church; with the catechetical method, the order in which Christian doctrine is set forth in the catechisms, that is, the order of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the teaching on the Beatitudes, and the Decalogue. In all these methods there is, evidently, an order of their own, but not a systematic one.
And the relative merit of the systematic presentation of Christian truths is this, that by this method they can be studied and assimilated:
a) Far more quickly and with greater ease than by the biblical and patristic methods. Whereas in the Bible and in the patristic writings the same truths are repeated several times, in different books, and are unfolded in different places within these books, now from one side, now from another—in a system they are gathered together and arranged in such an order that one either reinforces or clarifies another. Whereas in the Bible and the patristic writings truths belonging to one subject are quite often considered together with truths of another kind—dogmatic truths together with historical or moral ones, and so on—in a system the truths are arranged by class. Truths of the same kind are separated from those of a different kind; both are considered apart, though in living connection with one another. And as a consequence of all this, what is set forth in the Bible and the patristic writings very expansively and in complex fashion is presented in a system in a more condensed and distinct form.
b) With greater fullness and thoroughness than by the catechetical method. For in the catechisms only the rudiments of Christian doctrine are offered; the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the teaching on the Beatitudes, and the Ten Commandments are explained, and moreover in brief fashion. This is why Christian doctrine in this form is taught only to children and to the uneducated. Whereas in a system the truths of the Christian faith are considered in their entirety and in their full scope, with due detail, with all their proofs and clarifications.
c) With greater clarity and distinctness than by all the other methods. This follows from the very nature of a system, in which the truths, being correctly distributed by class, are set forth in as strict an order as possible, with full distinctness in their details and proofs and with the greatest possible precision in the style itself.
It must be noted, however, that the systematic method of studying the Christian faith can possess all the aforementioned advantages over the other methods only for people who are fairly educated and accustomed to consecutive thinking; whereas for uneducated or poorly educated people, and in general for those of undeveloped understanding, it is extremely difficult and almost inaccessible. For this reason it is employed only in schools, and moreover for students already prepared to attend a course of Theology—especially for students of the Ecclesiastical schools who are preparing to become teachers of the faith, and who therefore need, within the brief span of their education, to furnish themselves with the most satisfactory possible knowledge of the Christian Faith for their future ministry. But outside the school, and for believers in general, among whom are people of every degree of education, but predominantly the poorly educated and the wholly uneducated, the systematic method of setting forth and teaching the Christian faith is unsuitable. On the contrary, all the other, non-systematic methods—biblical, patristic, and catechetical—are incomparably simpler, more accessible, and easier, and are therefore preferred to the systematic one. In a word: the systematic method is good and advantageous only for some who are fairly educated, and is even comparatively more advantageous than the other methods for them—whereas these other methods are equally good and useful for everyone, both the educated and the uneducated751.
§ 155. The Distinction of the System of Orthodox Theology from Other Systems
Being thus distinguished from the other methods of studying the Christian faith, the system of Orthodox Theology is also distinguished from other systems by certain peculiarities of its own.
The first peculiarity is that this system cannot be a strict system in all its parts. The truths of the Christian faith, though they pertain to a single subject, are highly diverse among themselves: some of them are accessible to the human mind, others are partly accessible and partly not. Still others are not accessible at all; among them there are dogmatic truths and moral ones, historical and experiential ones, theoretical and supra-experiential ones, and there are, as it were, mixed ones. And therefore, although they can be subsumed under a single beginning, they cannot be developed from this beginning in all their details with full logical consistency. Not all of them can be placed in a living, inner connection with one another, but must often be held together only by an external connection. This is why Orthodox Theology belongs among the sciences that are not strictly systematic.
The second peculiarity, which distinguishes the system of Orthodox Theology not merely from some but from all systems, is this, that in this system the activity of the human mind can by no means be admitted to the extent to which it is admitted in the others. In the other sciences the mind is complete master: having as its subject truths accessible to it, it disposes of them entirely at its own discretion, appropriates them to itself, tests them by its own principles, gives them this or that form, and then constructs systems as it were out of itself. In Orthodox Theology this cannot be, because here, besides truths comprehensible to reason, there are truths which are little or not at all comprehensible to it, which, consequently, it is neither able nor entitled to test by its own principles. It is not entitled to alter them according to any considerations of its own, in order to fit them more conveniently into this or that systematic form. Its task here is to accept the incomprehensible truths just as the faith delivers them to it, and, without touching their inner content, to concern itself only with their outward arrangement, as harmonious and consistent as possible. That is, the mind, even in Orthodox Theology, is the same kind of architect as in the other sciences. But here it has no right to work certain materials according to its own discretion; rather it must lay them into the building in their natural, unchanged form, though it is still within its power to place them in this or that part of the building, wherever it finds best.
§ 156. The Changeability and Perfectibility of the System of Orthodox Theology, and Its Constant Law
As a work of the human mind, the system of Orthodox Theology can change, although the subject of Theology—the Christian faith, as Divine revelation—is unchangeable in its essence. This changeability can depend:
a) On the character of the particular minds that happen to compose the theological system. Naturally, a clearer, more consistent, and more thorough mind can compose both a better plan for this system and unfold within it all the detailed truths better than a less perfect mind can.
b) On the difference of the points of view from which one and the same subject of Orthodox Theology may be considered. This subject is exceedingly vast and many-sided. And accordingly, from whatever point we regard it, some of its sides will necessarily present themselves to us in a brighter light, others in a dimmer one, and still others as it were in shadow. Hence it happens that in some systems of Theology a certain part is set forth more fully, in others a different part, and what in some occupies a small treatise or chapter appears in others quite often as a distinct theological science.
c) On the difference of the purposes for which the system of Theology is composed. The system composed for teaching students in the secondary ecclesiastical institutions should, without doubt, have neither such fullness in its overall composition nor such extensiveness in its details as are appropriate to a system taught in the higher ecclesiastical institutions: for both the age of the students and the purposes of these institutions differ from one another.
d) Finally, on the circumstances of the times. In different times there arise different moral needs, and different errors concerning the faith prevail. In keeping with these needs, and in refutation of these errors, the system of Theology may expressly expand some of its parts, abridge others, and give still others a new form and direction.
Subject to change, the system of Orthodox Theology is likewise subject to perfectibility, although the Christian faith, the subject of Theology, is not perfectible in its essence. One system may be distinguished by greater fullness, greater correctness in the division of its parts, greater rigor, clarity, and thoroughness in the unfolding of the particular truths, than another. And although one cannot expect a theological system perfect in every respect, since it is a work of the human mind, which can never be free of certain defects—nevertheless, to strive that the system of Theology, from time to time, become more perfected, especially in the higher ecclesiastical educational institutions, and correspond more fully to the needs and purpose of the students, is the duty of the teachers of this science.
One must only remember that, amid all this changeability and perfectibility of the theological system, there is one unchanging law to which it must constantly be subject, and which may be expressed in the following three rules:
1) As a system, it must unswervingly conform, so far as possible given the nature of its subject, to the general conditions of a system which logic prescribes.
2) As a system of Christian Theology, it must unswervingly conform to the essence of the Christian faith, granted to us by God Himself in a supernatural manner. And therefore it must draw its doctrine concerning it only from pure, Divine sources—Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition—and must firmly remember and respect the character of its truths, of which some are accessible to the human mind and others are not.
3) As a system of Orthodox Theology, it must unswervingly conform to the positive doctrine of the Orthodox Church and take her as its chief guide in the unfolding of all theological truths.
Should any one of these three rules be violated, and still more all of them, the system of Orthodox Theology will already have become unworthy of its name.
II. CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESS IN THE SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY
§ 157. Division
We have noted (§ 154) that the systematic method of studying the Christian faith can be especially useful only for some, and is employed only in schools. But even here, for this to succeed, the fulfillment of certain necessary conditions is required on the part of the students. These conditions concern:
a) the qualities of the students,
b) the range of preparatory sciences for attending a course in the system of Theology, and
c) the actual study of Theology itself.
§ 158. The Qualities of the Students
The qualities necessary in students for the successful study of the theological system are of two kinds—intellectual and moral—and are, in general, almost the very same as are required for the study of any other science, with a few particular features corresponding to the Christian Faith, the subject of Theology.
These intellectual qualities consist in the student —
a) possessing a mind not only sound by nature, but also already sufficiently developed and trained in consecutive thinking: otherwise the student will not be able to follow the gradual unfolding of the theological system, weigh and assimilate the truths presented to him, and distinguish them from errors;
b) possessing, at the very least, a not-weak memory, capable of receiving and retaining the knowledge imparted to it, and then reproducing it, on demand, for comparison with newly acquired knowledge;
c) not being steeped in any prejudices contrary to the Christian Faith, nor infected with a spirit of free-thinking or skepticism: for either of these would be a constant obstacle to the student on the path he has chosen.
Among the moral qualities necessary in one studying the theological sciences are:
a) a love of truth and of knowledge in general, a sincere and constant love, which would animate and sustain him in his difficult labors;
b) and especially a love for the Christian Faith, which forms the subject of the theological sciences: for it is only as a consequence of this love that a true love for the theological sciences themselves can be sustained in the student;
c) a love of virtue and the fear of God: for a living knowledge of the truths of Christianity is gained not by the mind alone, but together with the heart (Jn 7:17); Christian wisdom does not come to dwell in a soul bent on evil (Wis. 1:4; cf. Jas. 3:17), and one who does not love is unable to know God (1 Jn. 4:8).
§ 159. The Range of Preparatory Sciences
The range of sciences preparatory to Theology is determined by the concept of the subject of Theology, the Christian Faith, and of Theology itself, as a science.
1) The Christian faith is a Divine revelation, communicated to us in the Word of God, oral and written, explained in the verbal works of the ancient ecumenical teachers, and now taught in the living word of the Church; on the other hand, the chief aim of the systematic study of Theology by ecclesiastical students is that, in time, they may be able, by means of the word, to convey the knowledge of the Faith they have acquired to their flocks: hence the need, for those studying Theology, of certain philological sciences.
2) The Christian faith, though it is a supernatural revelation, nevertheless contains within itself many natural truths, accessible to the human mind. These truths can become far more intelligible to students in the science of Theology if, in explaining them, natural revelation, given to us in nature, is also called to assistance: hence the need for certain natural sciences.
3) The purpose of the Christian faith is to meet the needs of man that were laid bare in him as a consequence of his fall—the needs of his whole being, and, in particular, the needs of his mind and heart; and therefore, for a proper understanding of the Christian faith, it is first required to know the nature of man, especially his spiritual nature, with all its powers, faculties, and needs; on the other hand, for the study of the system of Theology, as we have already noted (§ 157), a mind sufficiently developed and trained to thinking is required in the student: hence the need for the philosophical sciences.
4) Finally, the Christian faith, having appeared on earth ever since the first promise of the Messiah was granted to mankind, has existed continuously throughout all the ages, and has had a close relation to many events in the human race, to the domain of the sciences, to the state of morality in various times. Hence, for a thorough study of the Christian faith, the need for the historical sciences.
In particular, of the sciences (we use this word in a loose sense) philological, necessary or useful for one preparing to attend a course of Orthodox Theology, are:
1) The study of languages:
a) Hebrew, in which the Old Testament is written;
b) Greek, in which the New Testament is written; used also in the Greek Orthodox Church for the Old Testament in the most ancient translation of the Seventy interpreters; in which the most numerous works of the Fathers of the Church are written;
c) Latin, in which many works of the Fathers are likewise written, and in which, besides, many very important theological works have been written in later times;
d) Church Slavonic, in which Holy Scripture is used and the divine services are performed in our native Church;
e) finally, some of the modern languages, chiefly German and French, in which, too, very learned theological works appear from time to time. Which of these languages are necessary for the ecclesiastical student, and which are merely useful, is quite easy to determine.
2) The study of native Literature, so that the ecclesiastical student, when he becomes a pastor, will be able to teach the doctrine of the faith correctly and clearly, in the native tongue, to his flock, and in general to express his thoughts on matters of faith. For this purpose, Grammar of the native language is taught in the lower ecclesiastical educational institutions, Rhetoric in the intermediate ones, and the rules of higher eloquence and Aesthetics in the higher ones.
Of the natural sciences, Physics is recognized as more useful than others for the future student of Theology, as a science occupied with the study of the very forces and laws of nature, and thereby introducing man, as it were, into the innermost sanctuary of natural revelation. But no less useful may be: natural History, which shows the traces of God’s wisdom and goodness in every creature on the face of the earth; and Astronomy, at least in its popular form, which shows the traces of God’s astonishing omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness on the face of the heavens, involuntarily lending wings to the spirit for lofty thoughts and raising it to the throne of the Almighty.
Of the philosophical sciences:
a) Logic, which studies the root forms and laws of thinking and knowing, and
b) pure Mathematics with its branches — Algebra, Geometry, and the rest—as a more detailed theoretical development of these same forms and laws: these two sciences are exceedingly important for awakening and establishing sound, precise, consecutive powers of discrimination in the future student of Theology;
c) Metaphysics with its branches — Cosmology, which clarifies man’s natural view of the world; [natural] Theology, which clarifies the natural concepts of God accessible to human reason; and Anthropology, which shows man to himself, with his constitution, powers, faculties, laws, weaknesses, and needs. These sciences, occupied as they are with the very same subjects—only from a natural point of view—with which Christian Theology is also occupied on the basis of supernatural revelation, naturally prepare the student for a more ready attendance upon and study of Theology;
d) finally, moral philosophy, or philosophical ethics, which unfolds to man, by the light of reason alone, those very moral laws which are inscribed on his conscience and heart, and which are afterward, with greater clarity and fullness, inscribed anew for fallen man on the tablets of revelation: with regard to this science one need only repeat what has been said concerning the branches of Metaphysics in relation to Theology.
Of the historical sciences:
a) the universal History of the human race, both before and after the coming of the Messiah. Here, with full tangibility, the one preparing to study Theology will see what man became as a consequence of his fall; what his state has always been without the true, revealed faith; and what a great benefaction, both for private persons and for whole nations, the holy Christian faith proved to be everywhere it was received with love and submission; and —
b) native History: hence, in particular, the ecclesiastical student will learn the fate of his Fatherland both before and after its enlightenment by Christianity, will learn the influence of Christianity upon that fate, and will become acquainted with the character of his countrymen, among whom he will in time have to labor in the field of pastoral ministry.
As for the teaching of all these preparatory sciences for Theology, we shall here make only two chief and more general remarks.
First: these sciences must be taught in such a spirit and direction that they truly prepare the students to attend the course of Theology, render them capable of understanding and assimilating the sacred truths of the Christian faith, and thus be useful, not harmful, to the students. For, to our sorrow, the greater part of these sciences, especially the philosophical ones, can be taught also in a perverse direction, and can beforehand steep the minds and hearts of their pupils in notions and convictions wholly contrary to the Gospel teaching, and will in time bear fruit after their own kind.
Second: these sciences must be taught in keeping with the age, understanding, and calling of the students. And therefore they must be taught differently in the intermediate ecclesiastical educational institutions than in the higher ones, in one scope in the former and in another in the latter.
§ 160. The Study of Theology
The study of Theology in schools, like the study of any other science, is of two kinds: classroom study, under the direct guidance of instructors, and home study.
The best method for classroom study, that is, for attending the professors’ lectures, is for the student, having in hand either a detailed synopsis of the science or a ready textbook:
a) before the beginning of each lecture, to consider, if only briefly, the matter to be treated in the lecture, and thereby to prepare himself for its more ready comprehension;
b) during the lecture itself, to follow its unfolding with constant attention, noting, if possible, even its smallest details, and, in any case, its general plan and fundamental positions;
c) after the lecture is over, to reconsider it again from every side, with full distinctness and critical care, and thus finally assimilate to himself everything heard from the instructor.
To home study belong:
1) Reading. The one studying the theological sciences:
a) must, above all, read the books of Holy Scripture, as the first and chief source of Theology;
b) then the writings of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, in which sacred Tradition is chiefly preserved: it is best to arrange the reading of these writings so that it corresponds to the order of the theological lectures themselves—that is, so that at the time when the lectures treat of the Holy Trinity, the patristic works read should likewise be on the Holy Trinity; when the lectures treat of the Divinity of the Savior, or of the union of the two natures in Him, or of His high-priestly ministry, the patristic works read should be on these same subjects;
c) must read and reread the Symbolic Books existing in the Orthodox Church, as a constant guide in the matter of the faith and in the domain of Orthodox Theology;
d) must read the theological works of private individuals as well, provided they are marked by soundness of intention, clarity of view, and learning, as an aid to the more rapid and thorough study of one or another branch or particular treatise of the theological system.
2) Reflection and practice in one’s own compositions. Both of these means, being justly recognized in general as the very best for developing the reasoning power in man, and, together with this, for clarifying, sharpening, and grounding all knowledge acquired by us—so, in particular, must they be recognized as the best also in relation to theological knowledge.
3) Moderate and decorous disputations. Having been justly banished from the classroom, disputations may nonetheless still be employed by students as a means, at home, for sharpening their understanding—a means which, indeed, may prove very useful for this purpose, provided only that it is used according to the rules of Logic.
4) Prayer to God. With it all theological study must begin, must be accompanied, and must end: for, besides purifying and elevating our soul and making it capable of these lofty labors, prayer is necessary to us by the very nature of the subject of Theology. The truths of the Christian faith, though revealed by God, are for the most part incomprehensible to man; and therefore he cannot assimilate them to himself as he assimilates other truths, by means of his natural reason. For this only one means remains: that God Himself should open in us, in a supernatural manner, the capacity to assimilate these truths through faith, which is for that reason called a gift of God (1 Cor. 12:9). And just as mankind as a whole would never have come to know God had not the only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, made Him known (Jn. 1:18): so likewise, among individual men, only the one to whom that same Son chooses to reveal Him can come to know God and His mysteries (Mt. 11:27). And therefore whoever seeks theological knowledge and Christian wisdom must ceaselessly ask it of God, who gives to all without reproach and without partiality (Jas. 1:5), and, in all his own labors in Theology, must cry out to God as David did: unveil my eyes, and I shall perceive the wonders hidden in your law (Ps. 118:18).
III. THE COMPOSITION OF THE SYSTEM OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY
§ 161. The General Division of the Theological Sciences
Orthodox Theology must consider the Christian Faith in that very form in which it exists today in the Orthodox Church (§2): and all the sciences into which it is in this case subdivided will together constitute the range of the essential sciences of Orthodox Theology. But it is known that the Christian faith did not appear and begin to exist only now, in the Orthodox Church, but existed, together with the Church herself, from an earlier time, from the very moment of her origin. It is also known that the Christian faith has existed and exists not in the Orthodox Church alone—that is, not only in her own pure, unspoiled form—but exists also in non-Orthodox churches or societies, in a more or less distorted form. And therefore, for a thorough and distinct understanding of the Orthodox Christian faith, it may also be studied historically and comparatively, or polemically—since any subject, too, is far better known with the aid of its history and by comparison with other subjects of the same kind. Hence arises the range of the auxiliary sciences of Orthodox Theology, that is, such sciences as, though they do not belong to the essence of Orthodox Theology, and do not set forth the Christian faith precisely in the form in which it exists in the Orthodox Church, nevertheless help a great deal toward a thorough and distinct understanding of it in that form.
§ 162. The Essential Sciences of Orthodox Theology
The true beginning for any system can only be a true and wholly complete concept of its subject: for it is from this beginning alone that all its parts can be derived. Consequently, the beginning for the system of Orthodox Theology, too, must be a proper concept of its subject, that is, of the Christian Faith, as it is held by the Orthodox Church. What, then, precisely, must be understood here by the name of the Christian faith? Nothing other than “the Divine revelation on the basis of which there exist, in the Orthodox Church, doctrine, sacred rites, and governance—for imparting this revelation to men, for sanctifying them, and for bringing them to eternal life.” If this is so, then the Christian Faith, within Orthodox Theology, must be considered from three sides:
a) in its foundation or sources,
b) in its constituent parts, and
c) in its application.
Or, if we liken the Christian Faith to a tree (Lk. 13:18–20), then we may say that Orthodox Theology must consider it:
a) in the seed (which is the Word of God, or Divine revelation),
b) in the trunk that has grown from this seed (doctrine, sacred rites, and governance, founded upon the Word of God), and
c) in the very fruits (that is, in its application to life). In this way there arise three classes of essential sciences of Orthodox Theology:
I) sciences concerning the sources of the Christian faith,
II) sciences concerning the very composition of the Christian faith, and
III) sciences concerning the application of the Christian faith.
The first, as it were, answer the question: where is the Christian faith to be found? The second: what is the Christian faith? The third: how is man to make it his own? The first, in comparison with the two latter classes, may be called the preliminary sciences, since the sources of the Christian faith precede both its composition and its application; the second, the constituent sciences; the third, the applied sciences.
I. The Preliminary Sciences
The sources of the Orthodox Christian faith are: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, according to the understanding of the Orthodox Church; and therefore the preliminary sciences are subdivided into three kinds:
1) Some are occupied with Holy Scripture. These are:
a) sacred Hermeneutics, which sets forth the rules for understanding and interpreting Holy Scripture, and
b) sacred Exegesis, or the interpretive reading of Holy Scripture, which applies these rules to the actual interpretation either of individual books and portions, or of the whole of Holy Scripture.
2) Others are occupied with Holy Tradition. This is Patristics proper, a science which draws from the writings of the holy Fathers and gathers together their notable thoughts on every subject of Christian doctrine, showing especially the unbroken agreement, throughout the centuries, among these renowned teachers of the faith, as a living witness of the Apostolic tradition preserved in the Church.
3) Still others contain the Symbolic doctrine of the Orthodox Church, as the chief guide in the use of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. These are, preeminently:
a) The Orthodox Confession of the catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, and
b) The Extended Christian Catechism of the Orthodox catholic Eastern Church, published by the Holy Synod.
II. The Constituent Sciences
The constituent sciences of Orthodox Theology are likewise subdivided into three kinds, corresponding to the three means which, on the basis of Divine revelation (that is, of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition), the Orthodox Church possesses and employs for her purpose, namely:
1) Some of these sciences set forth systematically the doctrine existing in the Orthodox Church. These are:
a) Dogmatic Theology, which sets forth the doctrine of the Christian faith, and
b) Moral Theology, which sets forth the doctrine of Christian conduct.
2) Others have as their subject the sacred rites of the Orthodox Church: this is Liturgics, or the science of the divine services of the Orthodox Church.
3) Still others, governance: this is the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church.
III. The Applied Sciences
The application of the Christian faith to the life of believers in the Orthodox Church is carried out by the pastors of the Church, and, together with them, by the believers themselves, under the pastors’ guidance. And therefore the applied sciences of Orthodox Theology must, some of them, instruct the pastor in how to carry out this application—that is, how worthily to fulfill his ministry to the Church—and others must instruct the flock.
1) For the first purpose serve:
a) Pastoral Theology, which guides the pastor in how to carry out all his duties in general in the shepherding of Christ’s rational flock, and
b) Homiletics, which, on account of the breadth of its subject, has separated from Pastoral Theology as a distinct science, and instructs the pastor in detail in how to carry out, in particular, one of his duties as a teacher of the Church.
2) For the latter purpose serves: Ascetics, which points out the means for progress in Christian piety.
§ 163. The Auxiliary Sciences of Orthodox Theology
The auxiliary sciences of Orthodox Theology, as we have seen (§ 161), are divided into two classes: historical and comparative.
I. Historical Sciences
Of the historical sciences, some may be called auxiliary equally for all the essential sciences of Orthodox Theology; others, only for the preliminary sciences, each in particular, or for the constituent sciences, or for the applied sciences.
A) Auxiliary for all the essential sciences of Orthodox Theology are:
1) Namely, the History of the Faith and the Church:
a) of the Old Testament,
b) of the New Testament, and
c) in particular, of the Russian Church;
2) The sciences auxiliary to Church History itself, namely:
a) Church Geography, and
b) Church Chronology.
This general history of the faith and the Church embraces within itself the subjects of all the other, particular historical sciences auxiliary to Orthodox Theology, to the enumeration of which we now pass, and thus serves for them, as it were, as a common root and source.
B) Auxiliary to the essential preliminary sciences:
1) To those occupied with Holy Scripture:
a) Introduction to the Books of Holy Scripture, which discusses the origin of each of these books, their gathering into a single collection, the fate of their text, and so forth, and
b) Biblical Archaeology, which explains the Jewish antiquities mentioned in Holy Scripture;
2) To those occupied with Holy Tradition: Patrology, which sets forth the biography and bibliography of the holy Fathers;
3) To those containing the Symbolic doctrine of the Orthodox Church: the Historical Survey of the Symbols and other confessions, brief and extensive, that have appeared in the Church on various occasions, as well as of the doctrine contained in these Symbols.
C) Auxiliary to the essential constituent sciences, namely:
1) To Dogmatic and Moral Theology, which set forth the doctrine of the Church systematically:
a) the History of Dogmas, and
b) the History of Christian Moral Teaching;
2) To Liturgics, which is occupied with the sacred rites of the Church: Church Archaeology;
3) To Canon Law, whose subject is church governance: the Historical Survey of Canon Law.
D) Auxiliary to certain of the applied sciences:
1) To Homiletics: the History of Church Eloquence;
2) To Ascetics: the History of Asceticism.
II. Comparative Sciences
The comparative theological sciences are of two kinds: some differ from one another by subject, others by method of investigation; and in either case they serve as auxiliary not directly to all the essential sciences of Orthodox Theology, but only to the constituent sciences.
1) By difference of subject, these comparative sciences are divided:
a) into Comparative Dogmatics, which surveys comparatively the doctrine of the various Confessions;
b) Comparative Liturgics, which likewise surveys the sacred rites of the various Confessions, and
c) Comparative Canon Law, which surveys comparatively the laws by which the various Christian churches and societies are governed.
It must be noted that, although various Christian societies also hold differing views on the subjects of the other essential sciences of Orthodox Theology—that is, on the sources of the Christian faith and on the manner of its application to life—yet, since these disagreements are not numerous, no special theological sciences have arisen to compare them, parallel to the essential, preliminary, and applied sciences; and these disagreements are ordinarily examined within Comparative Dogmatics.
2) By method of investigation, comparative Theology appears:
a) either as Symbolics, which only positively, without any critical remarks, presents the comparative doctrine of the various Christian churches and societies as it is set forth in their Symbolic books;
b) or as Polemics, which, in presenting such doctrine, at the same time seeks to refute all the disagreements of the other confessions with Orthodox doctrine;
c) or, finally, as Irenics, whose purpose is to point out the means for removing or reconciling these disagreements, both with one another and with the truth of Orthodoxy, so far as the truth permits—and thus, for reconciling the very Christian confessions and societies themselves.
§ 164. The Arrangement of the Essential and Auxiliary Sciences in One System
From the division we have made of the essential and auxiliary sciences of Orthodox Theology, it becomes apparent that their number is quite considerable… But it will appear less great to us if we bring both kinds together and arrange them in a single system, noting which of these sciences exist and are taught separately, and which are ordinarily merged with others. And to make such a summation is not at all difficult, because, just as the essential sciences of Theology are divided into preliminary, constituent, and applied, so the auxiliary sciences fall under the very same divisions. It remains, then, only to join like with like. The general Church History alone, together with its collateral branches, being auxiliary equally to all the essential sciences of Orthodox Theology, cannot be joined specifically with any one of them. But since this history, as has already been noted (§ 163), serves as a common root and source, as it were, for all the other historical auxiliary sciences, just as Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition serve for the essential sciences; and since, by the very nature of its subject, it precedes, or must precede, all the branches of Theology in general, both essential and auxiliary—it is quite natural to place it in the division of the preliminary sciences of Orthodox Theology, placing it there as a separate branch, and moreover, in the first place. In that case, the complete system of Orthodox Theology will be as follows:
a) The preliminary sciences:
I. Having as their subject the History of the Christian Faith and the Church in general:
1) The history of the faith and the Church proper:
a) of the Old Testament,
b) of the New Testament, and
c) in particular, of the Russian Church.
2) The sciences auxiliary to this history:
a) Church Geography, and
b) Church Chronology.
These auxiliary sciences are sometimes set forth briefly within the body of Church History itself, and sometimes taught separately, according to circumstances and the students’ needs.
II. Having as their subject the sources of the Christian faith:
1) Holy Scripture:
a) Introduction to Holy Scripture,
b) Biblical Archaeology,
c) Sacred Hermeneutics,
d) Sacred Exegesis, or the interpretive reading of Holy Scripture.
This last branch is, for the most part, and very conveniently, combined in teaching with the first: for, once the historical information about this or that sacred book has been imparted, it is quite natural to become more closely acquainted, at the same time, with its content, through the interpretation either of the whole book or of its notable passages. A common name for both these branches together might be — Bibliology.
2) Holy Tradition:
a) Patrology, and
b) Patristics.
Two parts equally necessary to one another. The first is not complete without the second, for, presenting the biography and bibliography of the holy Fathers, it does not present their very doctrine, which must also be known in order to know Holy Tradition. And the second is not complete without the first, for, presenting the very doctrine of the Fathers, it does not present their biographies and bibliographies, necessary for a proper understanding of that same doctrine. And therefore it is far more fitting for both these sciences to be joined into one, under the common name either of Patrology or of Patristics.
3) The Symbolic doctrine of the Church, as the chief guide in the use of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition:
a) the Historical Survey of the Symbols and confessions that have appeared in the Orthodox Church,
b) the Positive Study of the Symbolic guides, such as: the Orthodox Confession of Metropolitan Peter Mogila, and the Extended Catechism, published by the Holy Synod.
b) The constituent sciences:
I. Having as their subject Christian doctrine:
1) The doctrine of the faith:
a) the History of Dogmas,
b) Dogmatic Theology, and
c) Comparative Dogmatics (otherwise called Comparative Theology in general), taught in the form either of Symbolics, or of Polemics, or of Irenics.
It is far better to join the History of Dogmas with Dogmatic Theology itself. For the task of this history is:
a) to show that all the dogmas of the faith of Christ, just as they came forth from the mouth of Christ the Savior and the holy Apostles, so have they remained unchanged ever since in the Orthodox Church throughout the ages;
b) to show also the various perplexities, heresies, and disputes that have arisen concerning this or that dogma, but at the same time also,
c) how the Orthodox Church, in consequence of these perplexities, heresies, and disputes, defended, safeguarded, and more strictly defined them. And therefore, if in Dogmatic Theology, before the positive doctrine on each dogma is set forth, its history is presented, this will serve both as the best confirmation of its truth and as the best explanation toward its proper understanding. As for Comparative Theology: although it may quite conveniently be joined with Dogmatic Theology, as is sometimes done, yet, for a thorough and more careful study of the differences among the confessions, it is far more fitting to teach this science separately. And the best method of teaching it is for it to be, all at once, Symbolics—first presenting the genuine doctrine from the symbolic books of the various confessions—and Polemics—refuting, immediately thereafter, all the disagreements of the other confessions with the Orthodox—and Irenics—pointing out, in conclusion to all this, the means for removing or reconciling these disagreements.
2) The doctrine of conduct:
a) the History of Christian Moral Teaching, and
b) Moral Theology.
Here again are two sciences that are joined into one in the most natural way, of which the first constitutes the preliminary part of Moral Theology, and the latter its essential part; hence the first may be set forth as an introduction to the latter.
II. Having as their subject the Christian sacred rites, or divine worship:
1) Church Archaeology,
2) Liturgics of the Orthodox Church, and
3) Comparative Liturgics.
Church Archaeology. This may indeed be taught separately from Liturgics. For whereas the task of Liturgics is to show the meaning and use of the sacred rites and ceremonies of the Orthodox Church as they now stand, Archaeology shows their origin and historical fate; but it is more advantageous for both these sciences to be joined into one, which first shows the origin and history of each sacred rite, and then its meaning and present use. There is advantage here both for the sciences themselves, which thus become for one another a complement, a support, and an explanation, and for the students: for through such a combination the study of the church rites is made easier, and one obtains at once the fullest and most well-rounded knowledge of each of them. Comparative Liturgics has not yet been attempted as a compilation, though it is entirely possible, having its own distinct subject—the comparison of the various sacred rites existing in the various Christian churches and societies. This science, too, of course, may, wherever it is fitting to teach it, be joined in brief form with Orthodox Liturgics. For this it suffices, after the origin, meaning, and use of each of the sacred rites of the Orthodox Church have been shown, to make remarks about the corresponding sacred rites of other confessions and about the relative worth of these rites.
III. Having as their subject Christian governance:
1) the History of Canon Law,
2) Canon Law, as now in force in the Orthodox Church,
3) Comparative Canon Law.
The first two parts are ordinarily taught together. The last, though it has not hitherto attracted attention among us, may likewise, where the need arises, be taught together with the first two, as Comparative Liturgics is with Orthodox Liturgics and Church Archaeology, as shown in the preceding remark. Comparative Canon Law may, however, also exist separately, as some attempts made by foreigners752 attest.
c) The applied sciences:
I. Having as their purpose to instruct the pastor how to carry out his ministry to the Church and to apply the Christian Faith to the life of others: and —
1) how to carry out all his duties in general: Pastoral Theology;
2) how, in particular, to instruct the faithful in the Church:
a) the History of Church Eloquence,
b) the Theory of Church Eloquence, or Homiletics.
These are ordinarily joined together, sometimes so that the history is taught first and then the theory of church eloquence, and sometimes the reverse.
II. Having as their purpose to instruct the flock themselves how to strive after piety:
1) the History of Asceticism, and
2) Ascetics.
These may be combined as two parts. Or, better still, so that the first is set forth as an introduction to the latter. Or, again—so that examples from the history of asceticism are distributed among the various treatises of Ascetics itself, for a better elucidation of its rules.
SECTION II. ON THE CONSTITUENT PARTS OF THE SYSTEM OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY IN PARTICULAR
§ 165. The Parts and Character of This Section
Having presented an attempt at a general demarcation of the theological sciences, let us try to make a similar attempt at demarcating each of these sciences in particular, without forgetting the thought that the plan of the theological system, both in general and in its parts, cannot be any single fixed thing. That it must, from time to time, change in exactly the same way, while its subject remains unchanging, just as all systems change, from various conditions; and that to demand of Theology a most perfect system, after which nothing further would remain to be expected, would be an act of the utmost injustice (§ 156). In this demarcation of each of the theological sciences—first the preliminary, then the constituent, and finally the applied—we shall proceed in keeping with the general program we have adopted (§ 4), making, wherever it proves necessary, the briefest possible remarks about the method and direction of this or that science, as well as about its sources and aids.
I. THE PRELIMINARY SCIENCES OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY
A. HAVING AS THEIR SUBJECT THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THE CHURCH IN GENERAL
1. The History of the Faith and the Church Proper
§ 166. The Division of This Science
The history of the true faith and the Church on earth is divided into two halves by the great epoch of the incarnation of the Son of God, the Savior of mankind: into the history of the Old Testament and the history of the New Testament. The latter is further subdivided, specifically in our own native schools, into the history of the New Testament Church in general and the history, in particular, of the Russian Church.
§ 167. The Old Testament History
The Old Testament history, beginning with God’s first promise concerning the Messiah, depicts by degrees how God prepared the human race to receive the promised Deliverer and to enter into His kingdom of grace. And since God prepared men in a twofold manner—first through oral revelation in the patriarchal period, then through written revelation in the period under the Law—the Old Testament history is divided into two periods: the history of the patriarchal church and the history of the church under the Law. In the first period, this preparation applied at first to the whole human race, then became concentrated chiefly on the one posterity of Abraham. In the second, it was at first concentrated on the one posterity of Abraham, that is, the Jewish people, and then, through the dispersion of the sons of Israel, through the translation of Holy Scripture into the Greek language, and through other circumstances, it became accessible to other peoples as well. Hence both periods are each subdivided into two divisions, so that the general plan of the Old Testament history may be represented as follows:
Introduction: the history of the primeval church, that is, the history of the origin of the world and of man, the history of man’s innocence, and the history of his fall.
Period I. The history of the Patriarchal church (c. 3953 B.C.):
a) from the time of God’s first promise concerning the Messiah to the calling of Abraham, and
b) from the calling of Abraham to the Sinaitic legislation.
Period II. The history of the church under the Law (c. 3953–5508 B.C.):
a) from the time of the Sinaitic legislation to the death of the last of the Prophets,
b) from that point to the appearance on earth of the promised Messiah.
Conclusion: the state of the world before the coming of the Messiah, and the universal expectation of His appearing.
Each of the divisions indicated may, for greater convenience, be further subdivided into its own smaller divisions: for example, the first division of the first period is subdivided, in the most natural way, into two parts, of which the first depicts the state of the Patriarchal church before the flood, and the latter, from the flood to the calling of Abraham.
The chief, and almost the only, source for the Old Testament history is the Old Testament books of Holy Scripture. And therefore the spirit of this history, too, must be the spirit of the Bible. To this spirit and direction must be subordinated all the other information that may be drawn from secondary and human sources, such as the writings of Josephus Flavius, Philo, and a few others. An excellent guide to Biblical History, in use in our schools, is known to everyone.
§ 168. The New Testament History
The New Testament history shows how the promised Messiah actually appeared in the midst of men and founded His kingdom of grace, how this kingdom became established on earth and was fully set in order, and how it has continued to exist ever since, down to the present day. The plan of the New Testament history may be as follows:
Introduction: the history of the earthly life of Christ the Savior, who laid the first foundation of His Church (1–34).
Period I. the period chiefly of the external organization and establishment of the Church of Christ:
a) in the days of the holy Apostles (34–101),
b) in the days of their successors down to the Emperor Constantine the Great (101–312).
The chief business of the Church in this period, overshadowing, as it were, all else, was, without any doubt, her extraordinary spread among men and her unceasing struggle with external enemies, who strove by every means to hinder her establishment on earth—until Constantine the Great proclaimed the dominion of the Christian faith within the bounds of his empire; though, of course, the Church at the same time also took care of what pertains to her inner order, that is, to her doctrine, her sacred rites, and her governance, and waged war with enemies within.
Period II. the period chiefly of the internal organization and establishment of the Church of Christ:
a) in the days of the first five Ecumenical Councils (312–553), when the doctrine of the Church was chiefly being established, defined, and defended against numerous heresies (especially concerning the Person of the Savior and of the Holy Spirit), both by individual teachers and by whole Councils; and
b) in the days of the two remaining Ecumenical Councils, down to the falling-away of the Roman patriarchate from the universal Church (553–885)—when church governance, or canon law, was chiefly being organized and defined (the Nomocanon of John Scholasticus, the Council in Trullo, and the Nomocanon of Photius), and church worship was being defended and clothed in all its beauty (the struggle of individual pastors and of whole Councils with the iconoclasts; the renowned hymnographers: John of Damascus, Cosmas of Maiuma, and others).
There is no doubt that in this period, too, the Church continued to spread among men, and met no small number of external enemies, with whom she had to contend. But what sets a particular seal on this whole period is, unquestionably, the Church’s struggle with enemies within, together with the defense, establishment, and unfolding of those principles of which her inner life is composed.
Period III. the period of the constant preservation and defense, by the Orthodox Eastern Church, of the whole ancient good order of the universal Church, and of the gradual distortion of this good order by the Western church, down to the present day (885–1884):
A) The history of the Orthodox Eastern Church may be subdivided into two divisions:
a) the first—from the time of the Roman Patriarchate’s falling-away from the universal Church, and the original planting of the Orthodox faith in Russia that followed at the same time, to the establishment of the Russian Patriarchate, which, as it were, replaced the fallen Roman one (885–1588), and
b) the second—from the time of the establishment of the Russian Patriarchate to the present day.
B) The history of the fallen Western church may likewise be subdivided into two divisions:
a) the first, embracing the time of her gradual departure from Orthodoxy, down to the Reformation (885–1517), and
b) the second, embracing the time of the Christian West’s still greater departure from Orthodoxy, from the appearance of the Reformation to the present day.
That the chief character of the Orthodox Eastern Church throughout this whole period is indeed that she takes care only to preserve and defend the ancient good order of the universal Church, relying unchangingly on the seven Ecumenical Councils and the doctrine of the holy Fathers—and that, on the contrary, the chief character of the Western church is the gradual distortion of the ancient church doctrine and good order by means of numerous innovations in every part—this the history itself will confirm with the utmost clarity.
Conclusion: a depiction of the present state of the Church throughout the whole world, which may be studied quite extensively as well, as a special science: Church Statistics.
As for the method of arranging and examining the subjects of church history within each of its periods and divisions, two extremes are met with here. Some make no deliberate demarcation at all among these subjects, but examine them all together, wherever and however it happens, holding strictly only to the chronological order of events. Others, on the contrary, deliberately demarcate the subjects by classes (thus, in our classic textbook, they are divided into seven divisions), and examine each class separately, without concern for their mutual connection or the general course of events. In the first case, the disadvantage is that one cannot study distinctly the separate subjects of church history—for example, the state of doctrine in a given period, or the state of worship. In the latter, the disadvantage is that only the parts are studied, while the whole is lost from view. And therefore the best method is to choose the middle course between these extremes, or to join them together—that is, to set forth first the general history of the Church in each period and division of a period, following chronologically the general course of events, and touching, as this is done, on all her subjects, wherever and however it happens; and then the particular history, or the more detailed survey of each of her chief subjects in turn, such as: the hierarchy, the flock, doctrine, governance, and so forth.
The sources and aids for the New Testament church history are innumerable; we shall indicate here only the chief ones. Such are, after the New Testament Holy Scripture (properly speaking, for the history of Christ the Savior and the Apostles), among those that have appeared —
In the early centuries:
1) in the East: the church histories of Eusebius (4th c.), Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Philostorgius (5th c.), Theodore the Lector and Evagrius (6th c.)753;
2) in the West: Rufinus (4th c.), who translated and continued the history of Eusebius, Sulpicius Severus (5th) and Gregory of Tours (6th)754.
In the Middle Ages:
1) in the East: many chronicles entering into the composition of Byzantine history, in which church-related notices are quite frequently met with as well, such as: the chronicles of Cedrenus, Zonaras, Chalcondyles, and others755; the Russian chronicle of the venerable Nestor (11th–12th c.) and his continuators, and the church history of Nicephorus Callistus (14th c.)756;
2) in the West: the ten books on ecclesiastical antiquities by Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt (9th c.)757, and the church history of Adam of Bremen (11th c.)758.
In the most recent times:
1) in the East: a few brief chronicles or historical notes, properly Greek, such as:
those of Christopher Angelus759, Philip the Cypriot760, and Alexander Helladius761, and the numerous collections of acts and historical documents generally, published in Russia and pertaining, among other things, to our own church history762;
2) in the West;
a) written in the spirit of the Roman church and reckoned the best: the chronicles of Baronius763, the church history of Alexander Natalis764, and the church history of Fleury765;
b) written by Protestants, likewise the best: the Magdeburg Centuries766 and the church history of Mosheim767.
§ 169. The History, in Particular, of the Russian Church
The history of the native Church without doubt deserves the most detailed study, especially on the part of those who are preparing to be pastors of that Church. The plan of Russian church history may be as follows:
Introduction: the beginnings of Christianity in Russia down to the equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir (to 988), namely:
a) the beginnings of Christianity within the bounds of present-day Russia before the founding of the Russian realm, and
b) within the Russian realm itself down to the baptism of Vladimir.
Period I. The history of the Russian Church in dependence on the Patriarch of Constantinople (988–1588):
a) under the governance of a single Metropolitan, subject to him (988–1240);
b) under the governance of now one, now two Metropolitans (1240–1462);
c) under the governance of two Metropolitans (1462–1588).
Period II. The history of the Russian Church in her independence, that is, in dependence on her own Chief Hierarchs (1588–1884).
a) at first a single one, bearing the title of Patriarch (1588–1721);
b) then a Council of hierarchs, or the Most Holy Synod, which took the Patriarch’s place (1721–1884).
Conclusion: the present state of the Russian Church—Russian Church Statistics.
The method of arranging the subjects in Russian church history may be the same as that indicated for church history in general.
Of the sources, the chief are:
I. Chronicles:
1) Greek: first the church chronicles—of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, and others (these for the introduction to the history of the Russian Church); then the general ones—of Leo Grammaticus (10th c.), George the Monk (10th), Cedrenus (11th), Zonaras (12th), Bryennios (12th), Choniates (13th), and others, continuing down to the latter half of the fifteenth century768;
2) Native, begun by the venerable Nestor at the end of the eleventh century, and continued in various places in Russia—Kiev, Novgorod, Pskov, and others—with greater or lesser extent. Some down to the thirteenth century, others to the fourteenth or sixteenth, and some almost to the eighteenth769;
3) Polish, beginning in the twelfth century and ending in the fifteenth770.
II. Acts:
1) native, published by the Archaeographic Expedition and Commission, gathered and published in Kiev771 and Vilna772, published by Novikov (in the Ancient Russian Library), by Count Rumyantsev (in the collection of state charters), by Archpriest Grigorovich (in the Belarusian Archive), by Mukhanov773, and others774, and likewise included in the complete collection of Russian laws, St. Petersburg, 1840;
2) foreign, such as, for example, those gathered by Turgenev775.
III. Notes of contemporaries, composed partly by our own countrymen776, but more by foreigners who visited our fatherland, or wrote of it only by hearsay777.
IV. Lives of native Saints, entering into the composition of the Kiev Caves Paterikon, the Prologue, the Menologion, and others still remaining in manuscript.
Of the numerous aids, we shall indicate:
a) Karamzin’s History of the Russian State:
b) the Transactions of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at the Imperial University of Moscow778;
c) the History of the Russian Hierarchy, in six parts;
d) the Description of the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral and of the Kiev hierarchy;
e) the Historical Dictionary of Writers of the Clerical Estate Who Have Lived in Russia;
f) Bantysh-Kamensky’s History of the Union;
g) descriptions of monasteries, for example, of the Kiev Caves Lavra, the Lavra of St. Sergius, and the Solovetsky Monastery;
h) the Historical Dictionary of the Saints Glorified in the Russian Church.
2. The Sciences Auxiliary to Church History
§ 170. The Concept of Them
There are two sciences auxiliary to church history: Church Geography and Church Chronology, of which the first shows the places where the events of the Church took place, and the latter determines the time when they took place. And therefore the first must, naturally, precede church history, while the latter accompanies it or follows after it.
§ 171. Church Geography
Church Geography, in keeping with the division of church history, is divided into the geography of the Old Testament Church and the geography of the New Testament Church.
The geography of the Old Testament Church is subdivided:
I. Into the geography of the patriarchal church —
1) before the flood, where it treats:
a) of the location of paradise, and
b) of the lands of Havilah, Ethiopia, Assyria, and the land of Nod, mentioned in the first four chapters of the book of Genesis;
2) after the flood down to the Sinaitic legislation, or more precisely, down to the settlement of the Jews that followed it in Palestine (the promised land). Here geographical information is given:
a) of Ararat;
b) of the dispersal of the descendants of Noah: the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth;
c) of the kingdoms and lands that subsequently arose: Babylonian, Assyrian, Median, Persian, Mesopotamia, and so forth;
d) in particular, of the places where the wandering patriarchs of the people of God chiefly dwelt, and which were marked by Theophanies and miracles;
e) of Egypt, whither the Israelites resettled, and of the lands bordering it;
f) finally, of the route of the Israelites from Egypt to Sinai, and from Sinai to the occupation of Palestine.
II. Into the geography of the church under the Law, or, what is the same, the geography of Palestine —
1) the physical geography of Palestine:
a) its situation, extent, and boundaries,
b) seas, lakes, rivers,
c) mountains and valleys,
d) climate,
e) products, and so forth.
2) The political geography of Palestine:
a) from the time of its division among the 12 tribes of Israel to the falling-away of the kingdom of Israel from the kingdom of Judah;
b) from that time to the Babylonian captivity;
c) after the Babylonian captivity to the coming of Christ.
In each of these divisions, the geography should show the regions into which Palestine was divided, their extent and boundaries, the cities and chief settlements, with the number of their inhabitants, their notable features, and so forth.
The geography of the New Testament Church, likewise in keeping with the division of the New Testament history, may be presented in the following order:
1) The state of Palestine in the days of the earthly life of Christ the Savior, and His travels through that land;
2) The geography of the Christian Church in the first three centuries, down to the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, or to the Ecumenical Councils. Here, in particular:
a) the journeys of the holy Apostle Paul and the churches founded by him,
b) the places where the other Apostles preached, and the churches and episcopal sees founded by them,
c) the places of the subsequent spread of Christianity in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and the seats of the new episcopal sees.
3) The geography of the Christian Church in the days of the Ecumenical Councils, down to the falling-away of the Roman Patriarchate from it. In this period it is best of all to arrange the church geography by Patriarchates, and to depict separately:
a) the Roman Patriarchate, that is, its extent and bounds, the number of metropolitan sees, archbishoprics, and bishoprics subject to it, the seat of each of them, its extent, and so forth.
b) the Patriarchate of Constantinople,
c) of Alexandria,
d) of Antioch, and
e) of Jerusalem,
f) and finally, certain exarchates not subject to the Patriarchal thrones and governed by independent hierarchs (αυτοκέφαλοι).
4) The geography of the Church from the time of the Roman Patriarchate’s falling-away from it to the present day. Here, in particular:
a) the geography of the Orthodox Eastern Church, likewise by Patriarchates,
b) the geography of the Roman church before and after the Reformation,
c) and separately, the geography of the Russian church.
Of the sources and aids:
1) For the geography of the Old Testament Church, one may indicate:
a) besides the books of Holy Scripture, and
b) the writings of certain Jewish authors: Josephus Flavius, Philo, and the Talmudists,
c) Onomasticon urbium et locorum S. Scripturae, seu liber de locis hebraicis, graece primum ab Evsebio Gaesareensi, deinde latine scriptus ab Hieronymo, ed. opera Iac. Bonfrerii, Par. 1631 et 1639;
d) Calmet: Dictionarium historicum… et geographicum S. Scripturae. August. Windel. 1738;
e) Hadr. Relandus: Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus, illustrata, tabulis geographicis exornata…, Batav; 1714;
f) An Essay on Sacred Geography for Use in Ecclesiastical Schools, a work by the priest Peter Vegilyansky. St. Petersburg, 1808;
g) Ias. Fr. Allioli: Biblische Erd- und Länderkunde, Landshut. 1844;
h) a sacred geography with maps and a plan of Jerusalem, compiled by V. P. P., St. Petersburg, 1846.
2) For the geography of the New Testament Church:
a) besides the books of the New Testament,
b) Caroli a S. Paulo: Geographia sacra, seu notitia antiqua dioeceseon omnium veteris ecclesiae, Amstel. 1704;
c) Atlas antiquus sacer, ecclesiasticus et profanus, collectus ex tabulis geographicis Nic. Sansonis. Amstel. 1705;
d) Spanhemii Geographia sacra et ecclesiastica (in opp. tom. 1, Lugd. Bat. 1701);
e) Mich. Le Quien: Oriens Christianus… Paris, 1740;
f) Bingham: Origg. eccles. lib. IX, tom. III;
g) Handbuch der Kirchlichen Geographie und Statistik… von I. E. Theodor Wiltsch, in 2 parts, Berlin, 1846;
h) Kirchen historischer Atlas—by the same author, published 1843;
i) in particular for the geography of the Russian Church: the Historical Atlas of Russia, by Pavlishchev, Warsaw, 1845.
§ 172. Church Chronology
Church Chronology may be divided into two parts, of which —
The first will set forth the general principles of this chronology, that is, will impart information:
a) of the point at which it begins,
b) of the general division of time among the Hebrews,
c) of the Hebrew year and its relation to the years of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, and Romans,
d) of the Hebrew months and their relation to the months of other peoples,
e) of the weeks and days of the Hebrews, their division into parts, of the festival days, fasts, and so forth,
f) of the Christian reckoning of years and its relation to the Mohammedan and other reckonings,
g) of cycles, periods, epochs, or eras, both among the ancient Hebrews and in the Christian Church. Then —
The second will set forth, in particular, the chronology:
1) of the Old Testament Church, namely:
a) it will resolve the question of the chronology of the present Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the chronology of the translation of the Bible of the Seventy interpreters, and
b) it will present the very table of chronology, by the periods of the Old Testament church history;
2) of the New Testament Church, namely:
a) it will resolve the question of the time of the birth and death of Christ the Savior, and
b) it will present the very chronological table of the New Testament church history.
Aids in teaching this science may be found in:
a) Spanhemii Chronologia sacra (in opp, tom. 1, Lugd. Batav. 1701);
b) J. Ch. Gatterer: Abriss der Chronologie, Göttingen 1777;
c) L’art de vérifier les dates des faits historiques, etc., par un religieux Bénédictin, Paris, 1750.
B. HAVING AS THEIR SUBJECT THE SOURCES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH:
I. HOLY SCRIPTURE
§ 173. The Concept of the Sciences Belonging Here
Of the preliminary sciences relating to Holy Scripture, one teaches the rules for how to discern and explain the true sense of Holy Scripture: this is Hermeneutics; another imparts information about Jewish antiquities, necessary for the more ready understanding of Holy Scripture: this is Biblical Archaeology; the third, finally, actually applies all this to Holy Scripture and acquaints one both with the history and with the content of the sacred books: this is the introduction to Holy Scripture together with its interpretive reading, or Bibliology.
§ 174. Sacred Hermeneutics
Sacred Hermeneutics, as is evident from the very concept of it, naturally resolves into two parts, of which the first will show the means for finding and understanding the true sense of Holy Scripture, and the second, the manner of explaining the sense so found to others. But both these parts must be preceded by yet one more, general part, which would show what the true sense of Holy Scripture is, and what must be the chief guiding principle both in finding and understanding this sense and in explaining it to others. In its details, the composition of Hermeneutics may be as follows:
I. On the true sense of Holy Scripture and the chief principle of sacred Hermeneutics:
1) On the true sense of Holy Scripture:
a) on the literal sense,
b) on the mystical sense.
2) On the chief principle of sacred Hermeneutics:
a) the true principle—the doctrine of the Orthodox Catholic Church,
b) the refutation of the false principles invented by those who think wrongly.
II. On the means for understanding the true sense of Holy Scripture:
1) Internal, such as:
a) usage of words,
b) the context of the discourse,
c) the purpose of the sacred book or of a given passage of it,
d) parallelism;
2) External, to which belong information:
a) about the writer of the book,
b) about the persons introduced by the writer,
c) about the time of the writing of the book and of the events described in it,
d) about the place of the writing of the book and of the events mentioned in it,
e) about the occasion for the writing of the book and other circumstances.
III. On the manner of explaining the true sense of Holy Scripture:
1) Popular, such as:
a) translation,
b) paraphrase, and
c) homiletical explanations;
2) Scholarly, to which belong:
a) notes (scholia),
b) commentaries,
c) discourses or investigations.
The teaching of sacred Hermeneutics must without fail be in the spirit of the Orthodox Church: otherwise, instead of profit, it will bring only harm. And therefore, in choosing and using foreign guides on this science, one must be extremely careful—one must choose from them only what may have a place in Orthodox Hermeneutics. An indication of some of these guides may be found in the classic textbook used in our ecclesiastical schools: Delineatio Hermeneuticae sacrae, ed. 2. Petropoli 1832.
§ 175. Biblical Archaeology
The subject of Biblical Archaeology is the Jewish antiquities mentioned in Holy Scripture. But since these antiquities are of three kinds—domestic, civic, and ecclesiastical—Biblical Archaeology is accordingly ordinarily divided into three parts.
Part I, on the domestic antiquities, such as:
a) the dwellings, food, and clothing of the ancient Hebrews,
b) domestic society, or the family: marriage, the birth and upbringing of children, paternal authority, slaves, and so forth.
c) the domestic customs and manners of the ancient Hebrews,
d) sickness, death, and burial among the ancient Hebrews.
Part II, on the civic antiquities:
a) the form of government among the ancient Hebrews,
b) courts of judgment and legal procedure,
c) agriculture and animal husbandry,
d) trades, arts, and sciences,
e) trade and seafaring,
f) military organization and the manner of waging war.
Part III, on the ecclesiastical antiquities:
a) the origin and composition of Old Testament worship in general,
b) the sacred places,
c) the sacred times,
d) the sacred persons,
e) the sacred rites, and finally,
f) certain forms of idolatry into which the Jews sometimes fell.
Regarding the teaching of Biblical Archaeology, the same must be repeated as was said concerning the teaching of sacred Hermeneutics: for Archaeology, too, may be deliberately distorted by freethinkers and made harmful to the faith.
The sources for this science are:
a) the chief source: the books of Holy Scripture;
b) the secondary source: the writings of Josephus Flavius and Philo;
c) the tertiary source: the Talmud, and, generally, the accounts of the ancient Eastern and Greco-Roman writers concerning the Jews.
Of the aids, we shall indicate:
a) Archéologie biblique par J. B. Glaire, Paris, 1839 (in the 2nd volume of his introduction to the books of Holy Scripture), and
b) Politische, häusliche und religiöse Altertümer der Hebräer, von I. Franz Allioli, Landshut, 1844. In this last book, in its introduction, many other aids are also indicated.
§ 176. Bibliology
Bibliology, which combines within itself the introduction to Holy Scripture together with its interpretive reading, may consist of two parts: a general part, concerning all the sacred books in general, and a particular part, concerning each sacred book separately.
The general part:
1) On the essence of Holy Scripture:
a) the concept of it,
b) its various names,
c) its chief subject and purpose,
d) its division.
2) On the original text of Holy Scripture:
a) of the Old Testament,
b) of the New Testament.
3) On the chief translations of Holy Scripture:
a) the ancient,
b) the modern, and
c) in particular, on the translation of the Seventy interpreters and the Slavonic translation.
4) On the manuscripts and notable editions of Holy Scripture.
5) On the polyglot bibles (in many languages).
6) On the best commentaries on Holy Scripture.
The particular part:
1) On the books of the Old Testament, each in particular:
a) the historical: the Pentateuch of Moses, the book of Joshua, Judges, and so forth,
b) the didactic: the book of Psalms and the others, each separately,
c) the prophetic: the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the rest.
2) On the books of the New Testament, each in particular:
a) the historical: the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles,
b) the didactic: the Apostolic epistles, and
c) the prophetic: the Apocalypse.
In speaking of each of these books, Bibliology must show:
a) the name of the book,
b) its writer, and the time and place of its writing,
c) the subject, purpose, and arrangement of the parts of the book,
d) the best commentaries on it, and
e) finally, present an explanation either of the most important passages of the book, or even of the whole book.
A rich aid for the teaching of Bibliology may be found in the book: Sacrae Scripturae Cursus completus, ex commentariis omnium perfectissimis, ubique habitis…, unice conflatus, published by the Abbé Migne in 28 volumes, Paris 1839–1845. To this same category belong, in general, the so-called Introductions to Holy Scripture, among which, of course, a strict selection must be made. The chief guide, properly speaking, for the explanation both of individual passages and of whole books of Holy Scripture, must be the Interpretations of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church. An excellent example of the explanation of a whole book of Holy Scripture in our native language we have in the Notes on the Book of Genesis.
II. HOLY TRADITION
§ 177. Patrology, or Patristics
For the study of Holy Tradition, contained chiefly in the works of the holy Fathers of the Church, two sciences serve: Patrology and Patristics, which, however, as we have seen (§ 164), quite naturally combine and are taught together under the common name of either one of them.
The task of Patrology, or Patristics, consists in presenting:
a) a brief biography, or life, of each holy Father, especially in respect of those circumstances which had an influence on his manner of thought and his writings;
b) a bibliography, showing the authenticity of his writings, their chief content, arrangement, and distinctive character;
c) finally, the notable thoughts from these writings concerning the dogmas of the faith, morality, the order of the sacred rites, church regulations, and, in general, the subjects of Christian revelation.
The order of such an examination of the holy Fathers must be chronological. And in this respect, for greater convenience, Patrology is ordinarily divided into periods, which, in keeping with the general division of church history, may be as follows:
1) The period of the first three centuries of Christianity, down to the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, or to the Ecumenical Councils. Here, in particular:
a) on the Apostolic Fathers, or men,
b) on the Fathers who followed after them.
2) The period of the Ecumenical Councils, down to the falling-away of the Roman church from the universal Church, or to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius:
a) on the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries,
b) on the Fathers of the remaining centuries.
3) The period of the holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church from the time of Photius to the present day:
a) on the holy Fathers who lived in the Greek Church, and
b)—in the Russian Church.
The limits of Patrology may, however, also be narrowed. The holy Fathers who wrote have never been lacking in the Church of Christ, even down to our own day. But since Patrology considers the Fathers chiefly as witnesses of the Apostolic tradition, and in a series of witnesses to any event whatsoever it suffices, for the confirmation of the truth, to hear only those witnesses nearest in time to the event, especially if their number is not small, Patrology will not err at all if, to shorten its labor, it confines itself to the first two periods indicated. All the more so since the later Fathers, who lived in the Orthodox Church from the time of the falling-away of the Roman Patriarchate from it, only repeated, with respect to Holy Tradition, what had already been said by the Fathers of the first centuries, holding strictly to the ancient Orthodoxy.
But while thus being narrowed in one respect, Patrology may be somewhat broadened in another. Its essential subject is composed solely of the writings of the holy Fathers (whence it is called Patrology), that is, of those men who have been numbered by the Church among the Saints. But since it is known that there were also in the Church other renowned teachers, who, though not numbered among the Saints, are nonetheless, by reason of their antiquity and closeness to the Apostolic age, very important witnesses in their writings to the Apostolic tradition (such as Tertullian, Origen—both only in certain places of their writings—Eusebius of Caesarea, and others), Patrology will not err in the least if it considers the writings of these men too, at least in the form of appendices to each of its periods.
There are very many aids for the teaching of Patristics. Among the most important belong:
1) Historia litteraria scriptorum ecclesiasticorum…. by William Cave;
2) Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles…. by Tillemont;
3) Nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, etc…. by Du Pin;
4) Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques, etc…. by Remi Ceillier.
But the richest aid, though also too vast, and therefore ill-suited for use in the school teaching of Patristics, is the collection recently begun (in 1844) in Paris by the Abbé Migne—the Patrologiae cursus completus, of which more than 80 volumes have already appeared.
III. THE SYMBOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
§ 178. A Historical Survey of the Symbols of the Orthodox Church
The Symbolic doctrine of the Orthodox Church may be known:
a) through a historical survey of the Symbols and, in general, of the confessions that have appeared in it over the centuries, and
b) through the positive study of its Symbolic guides, such as: the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila and the Orthodox Catechism, published by the Holy Synod (see § 164). But since the latter exist in a definite form and in their complete composition, and therefore have no need of our plan, we shall here turn our attention only to the former, that is, to a historical survey of the Symbols and other confessions of the Orthodox Church.
The subject of this survey are, in general, the Symbols and confessions sealed with the authority of the Orthodox Church, such as:
a) the Symbols used in the Church in the first three centuries, from Apostolic times to the appearance of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol;
b) the Symbols and definitions of faith composed at the Ecumenical and local Councils;
c) the circular epistles of the Councils;
d) the Symbols, or confessions, composed by individual teachers of the faith as well, but read, approved, and confirmed by Councils, or, even without conciliar confirmation, accepted and respected by the whole Orthodox Church.
Surveying, in chronological order, all the Symbols and confessions of this kind, this science must show:
a) the origin of each of them, with all the circumstances;
b) its use in the Church, likewise with all the circumstances, and finally —
c) the detailed content of each Symbol, with an explanation, where needed, of the terms and expressions occurring in it, and likewise of the source from which they are drawn, why such dogmas in particular, and not others, entered into the composition of the Symbol, and its relation to the Symbols that preceded and followed it.
In its division into periods, this historical science, as a particular branch of the general history of the Church, may follow the same order adopted for the latter, and consequently appear in the following form:
1) A survey of the Symbols of the first three centuries of Christianity, down to the Ecumenical Councils, or to the appearance of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol:
a) the Symbols used in particular churches: the Roman, the Antiochian, and others;
b) the Symbols of individual pastors, but accepted by the universal Church, such as the Symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker;
c) the Symbols and confessions composed at local Councils: for example, the Symbol of the Council of Antioch, held against Paul of Samosata around the year 266;
d) conciliar epistles: for example, the epistle of that same Council of Antioch to Paul of Samosata.
2) A survey of the Symbols that appeared in the period of the Ecumenical Councils—down to the last, solemn confirmation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol at the eighth Ecumenical Council under Photius (in 867), or to the falling-away of the Roman Church from the universal Church:
a) the Symbols, and, in general, the definitions of faith of all the Ecumenical and local Councils accepted by the Orthodox Church;
b) confessions of faith by individual teachers, but read and approved at Councils: for example, the anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria;
c) Symbols not read at Councils, but accepted by the whole Church: such as the Symbol of St. Athanasius.
3) A survey of the confessions that appeared in subsequent times in the Orthodox Church, down to the present day:
a) confessions and definitions of faith composed at local Councils: such are the eleven chapters of the Council of Constantinople (around the year 1080) against false philosophy, occasioned by the errors of John Italos, and the exposition of faith composed at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 against the Calvinists;
b) confessions of individual teachers, read and approved at local Councils: for example, the confession of St. Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, read and unanimously approved at the Council of Constantinople in 1350 against Barlaam and Akindynos;
c) conciliar epistles;
d) fairly detailed expositions of the faith and Catechisms which the Church herself has given for the guidance of her children, whether in Greece, or in Russia and other countries.
The result of such a survey of the Symbols and confessions that have appeared in the Orthodox Church will be the most tangible proof that she has, throughout the ages, preserved in its entirety the deposit of faith entrusted to her by the Lord Jesus, and has always taught her children the very same Symbolic doctrine which she teaches even now. At the same time, through this survey there will be prepared a rich store of material for Dogmatic Theology—for the unfolding and confirmation of, at the very least, all the chief truths of the faith.
Aids for this science (which does not exist among us) may be found:
1) in Bingham: in Origin. ecclesiast. tom. IV, cap. 3–4, where the Symbols of the first three centuries of the Church are gathered;
2) in the Book of the Rules of the holy Apostles, of the holy Ecumenical and local Councils, and of the holy Fathers, published by the Holy Synod;
3) in the acts of the Ecumenical and local Councils, published by Labbe and Cossart and others;
4) in the many collections and investigations concerning the ancient Symbols and confessions indicated in Walch, in Biblioth. Theolog. tom. 1, cap. III, sect. 1.
II. THE CONSTITUENT SCIENCES OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY:
A. HAVING AS THEIR SUBJECT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
§ 179. Their Division
Christian doctrine, in keeping with the essence of the Christian faith as the restored union between God and man, consists of a twofold kind of truths:
a) of the truths of faith and hope, or of faith in the broad sense, which contain within them the doctrine of God and of His relation to the world, and, in particular, to man, showing what God has done, does, and, according to the promises given, will do for man, who is called into a union of grace with Him; and —
b) of the truths of love, or of activity, determining what God has commanded man, who has entered into this union and bound himself to fulfill all its conditions in holiness, to do. The first truths, appropriated by faith and hope, are called dogmas779; the latter, appropriated by love and activity, are called commandments. The systematic exposition of the former, in the form in which the Orthodox Church holds and teaches them, constitutes Dogmatic Theology; and in the form in which the various Christian churches and societies hold them,—Comparative Theology. From the systematic exposition of the latter proceeds Moral Theology.
§ 180. Dogmatic Theology
The composition of Dogmatic Theology is likewise determined from the very concept of the Christian Faith. This faith is not only a union of God with man such as was the primordial union, to which the Lord called man, together with all the other spiritual beings, through their very creation (see § 12). It is, rather, precisely a restored union, a union following upon man’s fall, to which only fallen man has been directly called, and called through redemption in Christ Jesus. And therefore the Christian truths (or dogmas) that compose the doctrine of God and His relation to man are of two kinds. Some contain the doctrine of God and His relation to man that is general (naturali, ordinario)—such as God had and has toward all the other beings of the world as well—and which is expressed in the two divine acts of creation and providence. Others contain within them the doctrine of God specifically as the Redeemer of mankind, and of His special relation to the human race (supranaturali, extraordinario), known under the name of salvation, or the economy (οἰκονομία). The first truths belong to the Christian Faith as faith, and would have had a place in the primordial Faith too, had man preserved it. The latter belong to it specifically as the Christian Faith, restored. In keeping with this, following the example of the ancient holy Fathers and teachers of the Orthodox Church780, Dogmatic Theology may be divided into two chief parts:
I) the doctrine of God and of His general relation to the world and, in particular, to man, that is, of creation and providence (what the ancient teachers called θεολογία ἁπλῆ, or simply θεολογία), and
II) the doctrine of God specifically as the Redeemer of mankind, and of His special relation to the human race, that is, of the salvation of men, the economy (what was called by the ancient teachers θεολογία οἰκονομική, or simply οἰκονομία). In more detail, the plan of Dogmatic Theology may be as follows:
I. The doctrine of God and of His general relation to the world and to man.
1) The doctrine of God:
A)—One in essence:
a) of the unity and essence of God,
b) of the essential attributes of God;
B)—Three in Persons:
a) in God there are indeed three Persons, with unity of essence;
b) each of these Persons has its own personal property, distinguishing it from the other Persons;
c) each is, in truth, a divine Person, is God.
2) The doctrine of God’s general relation to the world and to man, that is,
A) Of God’s creation:
a) of the creation of the invisible world, or the Angels:
aa) when God created them,
bb) of what kind He created them, and whence the evil angels,
cc) for what purpose He created them?
b) of the creation of the visible world:
aa) how, and out of what, God created it,
bb) in how much time,
cc) of what kind, and
dd) for what purpose He created it?
c) of the creation of man:
aa) how God created man,
bb) of what kind, and
cc) for what purpose?
B) Of God’s providence:
a) in the invisible world:
aa) in what it is expressed in relation to the good Angels, and
bb) in relation to the evil angels?
b) in the visible world: in what is it expressed here?
c) in the human race:
aa) in what it was expressed before man’s fall, and from what cause, in what manner, under the providence of God, that fall, with all its consequences, followed —
bb) in what it is expressed after man’s fall?
II. The doctrine of God as the Redeemer of mankind, and of His special relation to the human race.
1) The doctrine of God as the Redeemer of mankind:
A) Of the participation of all the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in the work of man’s redemption:
a) the participation of God the Father: in what does it consist?
b) the participation of God the Son: here to be indicated only in general terms;
c) the participation of God the Holy Spirit.
B) In particular, of the Son of God incarnate for the redemption of mankind, our Lord Jesus Christ:
a) of the Person of the Lord Jesus:
aa) of the two natures in Him, the Divine and the human,
bb) of the unity of hypostasis;
b) of the twofold state of the Lord Jesus:
aa) of the state of humiliation, and
bb) of the state of glorification.
2) The doctrine of God’s special relation to the human race, or of the economy:
A) Of the beginning of this economy, that is, of God’s eternal predestination to save fallen man:
a) in what it consists, and
b) upon whom it extends?
B) Of the actual accomplishment of man’s salvation by the Lord Jesus, through a threefold ministry to the human race:
a) the prophetic: in what did it consist?
b) the high-priestly: its essence?
c) the royal: its essence?
C) Of the application, or appropriation, to men of the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ. For this the Lord Jesus:
a) established on earth His holy Church, as a guide leading men to salvation: the doctrine of the Church;
b) bestows on men His divine grace: the doctrine of grace;
c) through the holy sacraments of the Church: the doctrine of the sacraments in general, and of each one separately.
D) Of the completion of God’s economy:
a) for individual persons, and still incomplete:
aa) immediately upon each one’s death,
bb) at the particular judgment,
cc) after which there is still an undecided recompense, and sinners who have died with repentance may yet hope for salvation, through the prayers of the Church;
b) for the whole human race, and already complete, which will follow:
aa) at the end of the world,
bb) at the universal judgment,
cc) when the righteous and sinners will each finally and decisively be recompensed according to their deeds.
Concerning the method of Dogmatic Theology, it must be noted:
1) The task of Dogmatic Theology is to set forth the dogmas of the faith in that very form in which the Orthodox Church holds and teaches them. Hence the first duty of this science is to place, at the head of each of its investigations, general or particular, the Church’s own definition of the dogma, drawn either from the Symbol of faith or from the more extensive confessions of the Church, such as: the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila, the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, and so forth.
2) But the Church does not teach us her own doctrine, and not from herself: her dogmas are truths revealed by God, and she draws them from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, which the Lord entrusted specifically to her, as a precious deposit of salvation. Hence the second duty of Dogmatic Theology: immediately after the Church’s definition of the dogma has been presented, to bring forward the very grounds of this dogma from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, and to explain the passages adduced according to the mind of the Orthodox Church.
To these two essential conditions of the method of Orthodox Dogmatics, three secondary ones must be added:
3) The dogmas of the faith, as dogmas, in themselves and in the doctrine of the universal Church of Christ as infallible, are always unchanging: they are taught by the Orthodox Church even now in that very form in which she received them from the Lord Jesus Himself, and will be taught so until the end of the age. But the manner in which individual believers have understood the dogmas has already changed more than once over the course of the centuries: there have been people who held false opinions about the dogmas, and there have been those who utterly perverted the dogmas and fell into heresies. In consequence of which the holy Church convoked Ecumenical and local Councils, and made at them the most precise definitions or explanations of these dogmas, for the guidance of the Orthodox. And zealous pastors wrote whole works against the heretics, and, according to the nature of the heresy, and as the circumstances of place and time required, employed this or that explanation and proof in defense of the dogma under attack. Hence arose the history of dogmas, which, when set forth within Orthodox Dogmatics, can tangibly contribute to a more precise understanding of the Church’s doctrine concerning them. Dogmatics will therefore do well if, having presented, before the detailed unfolding of each dogma, the Church’s definition of it, it there and then also presents a brief sketch of its history, and only afterward brings forward the very grounds of the dogma, both from Holy Scripture and from Holy Tradition.
4) Among the dogmas of the Orthodox faith there are dogmas not inaccessible even to our reason, such as: of God, one in essence, and of His essential attributes, of His providence, of man, his fall, and so forth. On the other hand, almost all the dogmas of the Church have been and are subjected to the objections of freethinking, which for the most part are likewise drawn from reason. It is therefore by no means superfluous, but even necessary in certain cases, that Orthodox Dogmatics, in unfolding, by the method indicated, the positive doctrine of the Church concerning a dogma, should, where the dogma is accessible to our conceptions, bring forward possible explanations of it drawn from rational considerations781, and should endeavor to refute the objections raised against it. Only in both cases it must remember measure. In the first—not to allow reason to step outside its submission to faith, and to avoid, in every way, empty scholastic questions and subtleties that have no bearing on the positive doctrine of the Church. In the latter, moreover—to occupy itself only with the refutation of particular objections, which cannot properly enter into the composition of the special science of Comparative (or Polemical) Theology, and not with the disagreements of whole Christian societies concerning this or that dogma, which that latter science alone must treat.
5) Finally, it must be remembered that the dogmas of the faith, as truths revealed by God and utterances of God, are, by their very essence, spirit and life for believers (Jn. 6:63). And therefore Dogmatic Theology will do very well if, having shown how each of them is to be understood in accordance with the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, it will, in conclusion to it all, also show the relation of these dogmas to the Christian life, so that faith in them may be not a cold assent of the intellect, but a living faith of the heart. These moral reflections within Dogmatics, however, given the existence of a special science setting forth Christian moral teaching, must by no means be extensive, though neither are they excluded by the existence of that latter science.
The chief aid in the outlining and teaching of Dogmatic Theology must be those rich materials which the preliminary theological sciences will have prepared for it: Bibliology—from Holy Scripture, Patrology—from the writings of the holy Fathers, or from Holy Tradition, and the historical survey of the Symbols—from the ancient confessions of the Church. These materials alone are entirely sufficient for constructing the most complete, and at the same time fully Orthodox, system of Dogmatic Theology. To this same category belong, in particular, the few works of ancient renowned pastors of the Church, composed in the form of essays in Dogmatic Theology, such as: the Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas of the blessed Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus (see Khr. Cht. 1844, IV, 173), and, especially, the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, or the Theology of St. John of Damascus (in the new Russian translation, published in Moscow, 1844). It may not be without profit, at times, however, to turn also to the systems of later theologians —
a) both native—Theophan Prokopovich, Falkovsky, and others—at least in the treatises worked out by them with particular care and circumspection, such as the treatise on the procession of the Holy Spirit…;
b) and foreign, chiefly of the Roman church782, of course, only on those points of dogmatic doctrine in which these theologians of other confessions are entirely in agreement with us—for example, in the doctrine of the triune God, of the Redeemer, and of certain of the sacraments.
In particular, an aid for teaching the history of dogmas may be found:
a) in the large work of Denis Petau: de Theologicis dogmatibus, though everything here is presented in the form of unworked material, and —
b) more conveniently, in the Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, in 2 parts, by the well-known theologian of the Roman church, Heinrich Klee.
§ 181. Comparative, or Polemical, Theology
Comparative Theology has as its purpose to show the dogmatic differences of the other Christian confessions and sects now existing, from the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
All these non-Orthodox Christian confessions and sects, by place of existence, are divided into two halves: into
1) Confessions and sects existing in the East, such as:
a) the societies of the Nestorians, who have their churches in Mesopotamia, chiefly along the river Tigris, in Persia, India, and Kurdistan;
b) the societies of the Monophysites, from whom, in Africa, arose the Coptic and Abyssinian churches, and in Asia, the Armenian and Syro-Jacobite along the river Euphrates;
c) the schismatic sects existing in Russia;
d) finally, the Dukhobors, likewise in Russia; and into —
2) Confessions and sects existing in the West, to which belong:
a) the Roman church,
b) the Protestant confessions: the Lutheran and the Reformed,
c) the Anglican Church, and
d) the small Christian sects: the Anabaptists, the Quakers, the Herrnhuters, and others.
The order in which the dogmatic differences of the Christian churches and societies enumerated are examined in Comparative Theology is known to be twofold: some (the greater part) examine these differences by confession, that is, they take up in turn the distinguishing opinions of first one confession, then another, a third, and so on; others—by subject, that is, they present the Symbolic doctrine of all the Christian confessions first on one dogmatic subject, then on another, a third…, adhering to some system. But it is best of all to combine both these methods, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages, and first to examine the dogmatic differences by confession with full particularity, so as to obtain a distinct concept of each confession separately; and then, at the end, to present a brief systematic table of these differences by subject, so as to see the differences themselves more distinctly.
In particular, in examining the differences by confession, Comparative Theology must:
a) first give a brief historical account of each confession and indicate its Symbolic books;
b) then draw out from these books the very dogmatic differences of each confession from the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, and show their groundlessness (expose, refute…);
c) and, in conclusion to it all, show, where possible, the means for reconciling these differences with Orthodox doctrine, as well as for the return of the followers of this or that non-Orthodox confession into the bosom of the true Church of Christ.
The first source and aid for Comparative Theology are the Symbolic books of each confession. But, besides this, one may also make use of ready-made guides to this science, of which, under various names, a great many are known783. Of those composed in recent times, the Symbolics of Möhler, Guericke, Planck, and Winer are reckoned the best.
§ 182. Moral Theology
Moral Theology sets forth the doctrine of the moral Law of God, which the Christian man is obligated to fulfill, in order to remain faithful to the restored union with God, and thus to attain eternal salvation. This science therefore consists of two parts:
I) the general doctrine of the moral law of God given in Christianity, and
II) the particular doctrine of the duties of the Christian, determined by this law.
I. The general doctrine of the moral law given in Christianity.
1) Of the essence of the moral Christian law:
a) in what this law consists, and
b) what is its relation to the natural law?
2) Of the subject matter of the moral Christian law, that is,
a) of the virtues it prescribes, and
b) of the sins it forbids;
3) Of the motives proposed by this law:
a) the higher, and
b) the lower;
4) Of the powers necessary on man’s part for the fulfillment of this law:
a) the natural—sound reason, freedom, and conscience, and
b) the supernatural—of grace;
5) Of the chief principle of activity proposed by the moral Christian law;
a) the formal principle — the guidance of the Orthodox Church,
b) the real principle—the Christian’s love for God, for himself, and for his neighbors (Mk. 12:30–31).
II. The particular doctrine of the duties of the Christian.
1) The duties of the Christian toward the three-hypostatic God, Creator, Provider, and Savior:
a) toward God directly: faith, hope, and love, which form the foundation of the whole Christian life (1 Cor. 13:13); their expression in prayer, in outward worship, in certain extraordinary acts;
b) toward God as wondrous in His Saints; duties toward the most holy Virgin Theotokos, toward the bodiless Powers, toward all the Saints, in particular toward one’s guardian Angel and namesake Saint;
c) toward God as the Head of the body of the Church, of which we are members: duties toward the God-appointed pastors of the Church and toward all her members, as members of Christ.
2) The duties of the Christian toward himself:
a) the general: self-knowledge, self-denial, and so forth;
b) the particular: in relation to the soul, to the body, and to outward goods;
3) The duties of the Christian toward his neighbors:
a) the general: love for one’s neighbors, and its expression in various acts; in relation to the neighbor’s soul, body, and outward goods;
b) the particular: in domestic society and in civil society.
Concerning the method of expounding and teaching this science, the following chief rules may be laid down:
1) One must take care that the moral teaching it sets forth be truly Christian, and not resemble a philosophical one to which texts have merely been fitted (as sometimes happens). For this the teacher:
a) in unfolding the duties of the Christian, must always show their living connection with the dogmas, so that the moral teaching taught may thus be permeated in all its parts by the Christian doctrine of faith;
b) must also show that, although Christian moral teaching contains many rules of natural morality—just as the doctrine of faith contains many natural (comprehensible) truths—they have here nonetheless received, and possess, their own particular character from the general spirit of Christianity;
c) must, finally, unfold with particular care those rules which belong exclusively to Christian moral teaching and constitute its distinctive character.
2) The Christian moral laws determine not only what the Christian must do, but also what he must not do. And therefore, in unfolding each duty, one must consider not only the virtues it prescribes, but also the sins it forbids.
3) In explaining the Christian virtues, one must above all follow the counsels and instructions of men experienced in the spiritual life, such as the ancient Christian ascetics were, and enliven one’s explanations with the manifold examples drawn from the Word of God and the lives of the Saints.
Aids for Moral Theology, at least for its various parts—and the richest of aids—the teacher will always find in the numerous moral writings of the holy Fathers of the Church, which it would be superfluous to enumerate here. Among the ready-made guides to this science, one may point to the Active Theology of His Grace Innocent of Penza, the Features of the Active Teaching of the Faith of Archpriest I. S. Kochetov, and, among the foreign, to the systems of Moral Theology by Schenkl, Stapf, and Riegler.
B. HAVING AS THEIR SUBJECT THE CHRISTIAN SACRED RITES, OR DIVINE WORSHIP
§ 183. Liturgics
All three sciences having as their subject the Christian sacred rites—namely, Church Archaeology, Orthodox Liturgics, and Comparative Liturgics, wherever its teaching is fitting—may, very conveniently, as we have seen (§ 164), be set forth together, under the one common name of Liturgics, or the Doctrine of Worship.
The doctrine of Christian worship is composed of the doctrine of worship itself, that is, of the sacred rites, and the doctrine of the appurtenances of the sacred rites. Worship itself may be examined in a twofold manner: first, in its essential elements or constituent parts in general, independently of the definite forms in which it appears in the Orthodox Church; then, in its individual kinds, performed according to definite church ordinances. To the appurtenances of worship belong: the sacred places, the sacred times, the sacred objects, and the liturgical books. The general plan of Liturgics may therefore be as follows:
I. Of Christian worship.
1) Of the constituent elements (parts) of Christian worship in general, which are:
a) the holy sacraments,
b) prayers,
c) sacred hymns,
d) readings of the holy Gospel,
e) church homilies,
f) censing with incense, the lighting of lamps, and so forth.
2) Of the particular kinds of Christian worship.
These particular kinds of worship, performed according to definite church ordinances, are divided into two kinds: constant and daily services, and services, so to speak, occasional, performed only at particular times, corresponding to the various needs of believers, and therefore ordinarily called occasional offices.
a) The constant and daily services are:
aa) the Liturgy, at which the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated, and
bb) the services that serve Christians as a preparation for the Liturgy: Vespers, Compline, Midnight Office, Matins, and the Hours.
b) To the occasional offices belong, as set forth in the Book of Occasional Offices:
aa) the orders of all the other sacraments, besides the Eucharist,
bb) the orders of the rites: the blessing of water, the burial of the dead, the singing of intercessory services, monastic tonsure, and many others.
II. Of the appurtenances of Christian worship.
1) Of the sacred places, or temples:
a) of temples in general,
b) of the constituent parts of Christian temples,
c) of their outward and inward arrangement;
2) Of the sacred times:
a) the daily, such as: morning, the first hour, and the rest,
b) the weekly: the Lord’s day and the rest,
c) the yearly: feasts, fasts, days of commemoration of the departed;
3) Of the sacred objects:
a) of the church vestments,
b) of the vessels and other implements;
4) Of the liturgical books, such as:
a) the Priest’s Service Book,
b) the Book of Occasional Offices,
c) the Church Typikon, the Menaion, and others.
The method of Liturgics, given the concept of it we have adopted, requires:
1) That it, in unfolding the doctrine of each sacred rite and each appurtenance of a sacred rite, first show the actual composition of this rite and appurtenance, then their history, or archaeology, further, their inward meaning and mystical sense, and finally, where possible and fitting, make comparative remarks about the sacred rites of the other Christian confessions; and
2) In particular, that, in explaining the mystical sense of the sacred rites and their appurtenances, it follow not some arbitrary conjectures, but the guidance of the Orthodox Church herself.
Aids for this science are presented by:
1) Among the writings of the ancients:
a) the Apostolic Constitutions,
b) On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, by St. Dionysius the Areopagite,
c) the Catechetical Lectures, of St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
d) the Contemplation of the Divine Things, of St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople,
e) the Explanation of the Liturgy, of Nicholas Cabasilas,
f) the same, by Symeon of Thessalonica.
2) Among the more recent writings that have appeared in our native Church:
a) On the Services and Ordinances of the Orthodox Greco-Russian Church, by His Grace Gabriel, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg,
b) the New Tablet, by His Grace Benjamin of Nizhny Novgorod,
c) the Explanation of the Liturgy, by Dmitrevsky,
d) the Monuments of Christian Antiquities, by Vetrinsky, and others.
C. HAVING AS THEIR SUBJECT CHRISTIAN GOVERNANCE
§ 184. Canon Law, or Church Jurisprudence
Christian governance too, like worship, though it likewise may be the subject of three separate sciences, namely: the Historical Survey of Canon Law; Canon Law now in force in the Orthodox Church; and Comparative Canon Law — may nonetheless, as was noted (§ 164), very conveniently be set forth in one general science as well, under the name of Canon Law, or Church Jurisprudence.
The laws by which the governance of the Orthodox Church is carried out (the subject of Canon Law) may be divided into two classes: some concern the constitution of the Church, as a special society of believers in Jesus Christ, joined to one another by mutual rights and duties, and enjoying certain means for attaining eternal salvation; others determine her relation to societies outside her. The former constitute the internal law of the Church, the latter, her external law. But all these laws, now in force in the Orthodox Church, are nothing other than the development, interpretation, and application to particular cases and circumstances of the Church of those original rights and duties of hers which, flowing from her very essence and purpose, were granted to her by the Savior Himself, and reached their present form only over the course of many centuries. They therefore have a twofold foundation: in the Word of God—a dogmatic one, and in the history of the Church—a historical one. On all these grounds, the following plan may be drawn up for the science of Canon Law:
I. Of the foundations of the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church:
1) The dogmatic foundation. The original, or root, rights of the Church, as a society instituted by God, determined in the Word of God itself:
a) the right of self-preservation,
b) the right to have her own Hierarchy,
c) the right of propagation,
d) the right of good order,
e) the right to teach, to perform the sacred rites, and so forth.
2) The historical foundation. A survey of the gradual formation of church legislation:
a) in the first three centuries,
b) in the period of the Ecumenical Councils down to the Patriarch Photius,
c) from the time of Photius to the present day, especially in Russia.
II. Of the internal law of the Church:
1) Concerning the Persons of whom the Church consists, such as:
a) the Church Government, in particular —
aa) the Most Holy Governing Synod and the institutions attached to it;
bb) the administrations subordinate to the Holy Synod: the diocesan administration, the administration of the court clergy, and the administration of the military clergy,
b) the Clergy of the Orthodox Church:
aa) the white (married, parish) clergy,
bb) the monastic clergy,
cc) persons belonging to the clerical estate by birth and by service;
c) the Laity:
aa) within the diocesan jurisdiction,
bb) the court jurisdiction, and
cc) the military jurisdiction.
2) Concerning the means which the Church employs for her purpose, namely:
a) teaching: its subjects, manner, and time,
b) worship: the sacred rites, places, times, and objects,
c) governance, or church judicial discipline:
aa) in relation to all Orthodox members of the Church, and
bb) in particular, in relation to persons belonging to the clerical jurisdiction.
III. Of the external law of the Church.
In our fatherland, the Orthodox Church, standing under the protection of her most pious Sovereigns, exists in close connection with civil society, and, besides this, in certain relations with the societies of non-Orthodox Christians and of those of other faiths dwelling in Russia and tolerated by the Government. The external law of the Church must therefore determine her relation:
a) to civil society,
b) to the societies of non-Orthodox Christians,
c) to the societies of those of other faiths: Jews, Mohammedans, and pagans.
The sources and aids for the science of the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church in Russia, after Holy Scripture, must be:
a) the Book of the Rules of the holy Apostles, of the holy Ecumenical and local Councils, and of the holy Fathers;
b) the Typikon and the orders of the church services;
c) the enactments of the All-Russian Sovereigns pertaining to the Church, and entered into the general Digest of the Laws of the Russian Empire;
d) the determinations of the Most Holy Governing All-Russian Synod;
e) in particular: the Ecclesiastical Regulation, the Statute of the Ecclesiastical Consistories, the Statutes of the Ecclesiastical Academies, Seminaries, Schools, and the like.
III. THE APPLIED SCIENCES OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY:
A. HAVING AS THEIR PURPOSE TO INSTRUCT THE PASTOR HOW TO CARRY OUT HIS MINISTRY TO THE CHURCH AND TO APPLY THE CHRISTIAN FAITH TO THE LIFE OF OTHERS
§ 185. The Concept of These Sciences
There are two of these sciences: Pastoral Theology, which instructs the pastor in the carrying out of all his duties in general, and, in particular, Homiletics, which instructs him only in the field of church preaching.
§ 186. Pastoral Theology
The pastor’s appointment in the Church is to be a guide leading others to eternal salvation. But he can carry out this lofty calling worthily only if he himself possesses the qualities necessary for it. The duties of the pastor are therefore divided into two classes: his duties toward himself, as a pastor, and his duties toward those in his care, in keeping with the holy Apostle’s instruction to the pastors of Ephesus: take heed to yourselves and to all the flock (Acts 20:28). The first duties show what the pastor himself must be; the latter, how he must carry out his ministry to the Church to the greater benefit of those in his care. Hence the two parts of Pastoral Theology. But these parts must be preceded by yet a third: on the pastoral ministry in general, because all the individual instructions concerning the pastor’s duties, both toward himself and toward those in his care, can be derived only from the nature of the pastoral ministry. In more detail, these parts may be unfolded in the following order:
I. On the pastoral ministry in general:
a) the concept of this ministry,
b) its Divine origin,
c) its appointment,
d) its lofty dignity, hence —
e) the motive for carrying out the pastoral calling worthily,
f) the pastor’s bond with his flock and with the whole Church,
g) the particular duties of the pastor.
II. On the pastor’s duties toward himself, as a pastor:
a) what the intellectual qualities of the pastor must be: how he must maintain and perfect his knowledge of the faith, what he must read, of what books his library should consist, and so forth?
b) what his moral qualities must be? Here, in particular:
aa) of the virtues especially proper to a pastor,
bb) of the vices chiefly noticeable in the clerical estate and intolerable in a pastor, and
cc) of the means against these vices;
c) what must the pastor’s manner of domestic life be, and what private occupations befit him?
III. On the pastor’s duties toward those in his care.
There are three of these duties: the pastor must —
a) teach his flock the faith,
b) perform worship for them, and
c) guide them on the path of a pious life. Here, therefore, in particular, must be unfolded:
1) How the pastor must instruct his flock in the faith.
These instructions are of two kinds: some public, delivered chiefly in church; others private, occurring everywhere, according to the various needs of those in his care. The first kind of instruction has become the subject of a special science—Homiletics. Pastoral Theology must therefore confine itself only to the latter, and show how the pastor, in keeping with the various needs of Christians, must:
a) enlighten the unbeliever,
b) instruct the one who doubts,
c) convert the one who has gone astray, for example, a schismatic or a heretic,
d) correct the one given over to some passion or vice,
e) comfort and strengthen the one who despairs amid life’s sorrows, and the like.
2) How the pastor must perform worship in a manner pleasing to God and to the greater edification of those in his care. In particular:
a) how he must celebrate the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist at the Liturgy: here —
aa) of the pastor’s preparation for celebrating the Liturgy, both at home and in church, and
bb) of the manner of the celebration itself;
b) how he must perform the sacrament of penance and hear confession, especially in the days of the church fasts and of preparatory devotion;
c) how he must perform the remaining sacraments: baptism, chrismation, marriage, and the anointing of the sick;
d) how he must perform all the other occasional offices.
3) How the pastor must guide others on the path of a pious life. Here, above all, must be set forth the rules of pastoral prudence:
a) in dealing with those in his care of different stations and dispositions.
b) in the various circumstances of life.
As for the method of this science, a particular remark is that, in explaining the pastoral duties, it should point, as often as possible, to the examples bequeathed to us by the most worthy ministers of the Church. Such examples are pointed to: St. Chrysostom, in the life of Ignatius the God-bearer; St. Gregory the Theologian, in the lives of Athanasius and Basil the Great; St. Gregory of Nyssa, in the life of Gregory the Wonderworker. Such examples should be drawn not only from the lives of the holy pastors of the ancient Church, but also from the lives of the holy pastors of our own native land.
Many works of the holy Fathers may serve as aids for Pastoral Theology, such as:
a) St. Chrysostom’s: the discourses on the priesthood, and the commentaries on the Apostle Paul’s epistles to Titus and Timothy;
b) St. Ambrose’s: de officiis Clericorum;
c) the blessed Jerome’s: the letter to Nepotian, de vita Clericorum;
d) St. Gregory the Dialogist’s: de cura pastorali (in Russian translation, see Khr. Cht. 1847, part I), and others.
We have on this subject a very good guide in the Book on the Duties of Parish Priests, used in our ecclesiastical Seminaries. One may also turn, from time to time, to foreign guides of a similar kind, written by theologians of the Roman church, such as, for example: Theologiae pastoralis systema, by M. de Schenkl, or Sacerdos Christianus, auctore Ludovico Abelly.
§ 187. Homiletics
Homiletics, according to the plan we have adopted (§ 164), must consist of two parts: the theory of church discourse, and the history of church discourse, or the literature of preaching. The former is nothing other than a body of rules concerning church discourse in general and its particular kinds (forms) in particular. The latter must depict the fortunes of preaching, both in the universal Church and, in particular, in the Russian Church. The plan of Homiletics, in general outline, may therefore be as follows:
A. The theory of church discourse.
I. On church discourse in general:
1) The subjects of church discourse:
a) dogmatic doctrine,
b) moral doctrine,
c) liturgical doctrine,
d) historical and natural doctrine.
2) The qualities of church discourse:
a) the internal: edification, persuasion of the will, unction,
b) the external: what the style of church discourse must be, and how it must be delivered to the people?
II. On the particular kinds of church discourse:
1) distinguished by form and internal arrangement, such as:
a) sermons,
b) homilies,
c) brief exhortations, and
d) catechetical instructions;
2) distinguished by content, in keeping with external circumstances —
a) of the Church: sermons for church feasts, sermons and addresses upon the celebration of certain sacraments, for example, communion, marriage, and during other sacred rites: the consecration of a temple, the burial of the dead, and the like.
b) of the fatherland: sermons for high state occasions, victory celebrations, at the election of judges, at the consecration of banners, at the opening of charitable institutions, in days of public calamity, and so forth.
B. The history of the literature of preaching:
1) in the universal Church:
a) the state of Christian preaching in the first three centuries,
b) in the fourth and fifth centuries,
c) in the remaining centuries.
2) in the Russian Church:
a) from the time of her origin to the founding of the Kiev Academy (988–1589),
b) to the reform of the ecclesiastical schools (–1809),
c) to the present day. A very good work on this science, though unfinished and pertaining only to the first part, we have in the not-long-ago published Lectures on Church Letters of the late Professor of the Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy, Ya. K. Amfiteatrov. There the interested reader will find seasoned remarks both on the method of Homiletics and on everything, in general, that must be known beforehand about this science. The sources and aids for the history of the literature of preaching must, of course, be the very monuments of that literature.
B. HAVING AS THEIR PURPOSE TO INSTRUCT THOSE IN A PASTOR’S CARE THEMSELVES, HOW TO APPROPRIATE THE CHRISTIAN FAITH TO THEMSELVES AND TO PROGRESS IN PIETY
§ 188. Ascetics, or a Guide to the Pious Life
To the present section belong only two theological branches: the History of Asceticism and Ascetics, of which, moreover, the former may very well enter into the composition of the latter, and take its place in the introduction (§ 164).
The composition of Christian Ascetics, in that case, may be as follows:
Introduction:
a) The concept of Christian Ascetics, as a science that must point out the means for progress in Christian piety and the manner of using them.
b) The concept of Christian piety, as an ascetic labor (ἄσκησις), consisting in this: that we put off the old man, corrupt through the deceitful lusts, and put on the new man, created in the likeness of God, in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:22–24), that is, that we eradicate in ourselves everything sinful and acquire all the virtues.
c) The beginning and chief condition for progress in Christian piety on man’s part: a sincere, constant desire and seeking after moral perfection, and a spirit of zeal for piety.
d) The division of Ascetics. The means for progress in Christian piety are of two kinds: first, general means, necessary for all Christians, whatever calling they may be in; and, second, particular means for these or those Christians, according to the various callings or states of their outward life. Ascetics is therefore divided into two parts.
e) The history of Christian asceticism, or of Christian piety.
Part I. On the general means for progress in Christian piety.
We can progress in Christian piety only under the guidance of the Orthodox Church, whom God Himself has appointed to be our guide to piety and eternal salvation: and therefore, sincerely desiring Christian moral perfection and striving zealously toward it, we must, above all, make use of the means the Church offers us for this, and to these add the means that depend on ourselves.
1) The means offered by the Church.
The Orthodox Church:
a) gives us pastors, as constant instructors and guides in piety: each of us is obligated to have, from among them, a spiritual father of his own, and to obey his guidance;
b) calls us into her temples, which are justly called schools of piety: we are obligated to visit these schools as often as possible, and to be present at the church services as we ought;
c) teaches us how to begin and end, to whom, and with what dispositions of soul, to dedicate each day of the week: we must fulfill these instructions in holiness;
d) has established numerous feasts and celebrations to the glory of God or of His Saints, and for our moral edification: we are obligated to participate in these feasts constantly and as we ought;
e) has established certain seasons of universal fasting and repentance: we must without fail make use of these precious seasons;
f) always offers us, for our cleansing from sins and our strengthening in the spiritual life, the two saving mysteries of penance and the Eucharist: we must, as often as possible, confess before our spiritual father and partake of the holy Mysteries;
g) is always ready, with her prayers and sacred rites, for our manifold occasional needs, for the sanctification of all our deeds and undertakings and of everything that surrounds us: it is our duty to resort, as often as possible, to these saving means as well.
But, in thus making use of the means to piety offered by the Church, the Christian must, at the same time, employ every possible means to that end on his own part as well.
2) The means on the part of the Christian himself.
There are two kinds of these means: some more negative, directed immediately toward the putting to death in us of the old man; others more positive, contributing in us toward the strengthening of the new man—though the one and the other are accomplished in us inseparably.
A. The negative means.
Here are meant the means against all the enemies of our salvation: against the world, the flesh, and the devil.
a) The means against the temptations of the world:
aa) the restraining of the senses,
bb) the testing of people,
cc) withdrawal from bad company, and fellowship with pious people,
dd) frequent solitude;
b) The means against the temptations of the flesh: in particular:
aa) against the lust of the flesh,
bb) the lust of the eyes, and
cc) the pride of life, which serve as the roots for all the other lusts;
c) The means against the temptations of the devil. The devil tempts us sometimes through the world, sometimes through our flesh, and sometimes by directly stirring up sinful thoughts in our spirit: in the first two cases the means against the devil are the same as those against the temptations of the world and the flesh; in the last, the chief means consists in constant spiritual watchfulness over one’s thoughts, and in discerning them.
B. The positive means.
To these may be assigned:
a) self-recollection,
b) walking in spirit before God, with the consciousness of His omnipresence,
c) prayer to God and spiritual conversation with Him,
d) the reverent reading of the Word of God and of other pious books,
e) spiritual reflection, or the contemplation of God,
f) unceasing remembrance:
aa) of Christ’s saving sufferings,
bb) of the vows given at baptism,
cc) of death, judgment, hell, and the like.
Part II. On the particular means for progress in Christian piety, according to the various callings or states of life.
There are two chief paths for Christians: the public, worldly life, and the solitary, monastic life. The first is subdivided into various states; the latter likewise into its own particular kinds. All these states of public and solitary life, each separately, have their own conveniences, in relation to progress in Christian piety, and their own inconveniences, difficulties, or obstacles. The task of this present part of Ascetics consists precisely in showing how to make use, in each state, of the former—that is, of the conveniences for a pious life—and how to remove or overcome the latter—that is, the inconveniences. And therefore it must here be said:
1) Of the particular means to Christian piety in the public, worldly life, namely:
a) in the higher state or calling of society,
b) in the clerical calling,
c) in the scholarly calling,
d) in the military calling,
e) in the merchant calling,
f) in the calling of townsmen, villagers, and so forth.
2) Of the particular means to Christian piety in the solitary, monastic life:
a) in general,
b) in particular: in communal monasteries, and
c) in hermitages,
d) yet more particularly: in certain special forms of ascetic struggle, such as: the life of the recluse, the pillar-saint, the silent one, and others.
Thus, Christian Ascetics, as is evident from a survey of its subjects, is a science that is, above all, practical. And therefore its teaching, too, must be based chiefly on the remarks, experiences, and examples of the holy men, both of the ancient Church and of our own native land, who have struggled and been saved in every state of life, and have learned by their own experience the conveniences and inconveniences of each of them in relation to Christian piety. Consequently, the chief aids for Ascetics must be:
1) The writings of the holy Fathers, especially the ascetic ones. Such are — among the ancients:
a) the instructions and letters of St. Anthony the Great (see Khr. Cht., by index…);
b) the ascetic discourses of St. Ephraim the Syrian (see Works of the holy Fathers);
c) the longer and shorter rules of St. Basil the Great (—in the same);
d) the homilies of the venerable Macarius the Great;
e) the Conferences with the Fathers of the venerable Cassian;
f) the letters of the venerable Isidore of Pelusium;
g) the Philokalia, and much else besides.
Among the Russian:
a) the Rule of the venerable Nilus of Sora;
b) the Spiritual Alphabet of St. Demetrius of Rostov;
c) the first part of the works of His Grace Tikhon of Voronezh, and others.
The lives of the Saints, contained in the Menologion, and especially the brief accounts of the particular labors, incidents, and sayings of the servants of God, entering into the composition of the Prologue, the Paterika—the Skete Paterikon, the Alphabetical Paterikon, and the Caves Paterikon—the Lemonarion, the Lausiac History, and other similar pious books.
There is yet another means, and the very best one, for coming to know the Christian Faith, namely: a pious Christian life, and the kindling within oneself of that gracious unction from the Holy One, which teaches the believer all things (1 Jn. 2:27). But this means cannot be called a method for studying the Christian faith—which is what is under discussion here—and therefore we do not number it among the methods.
This is the reason why revelation, given for all men, did not appear in the form of a system, and why neither Christ the Savior Himself nor the holy Apostles employed a systematic manner in the teaching of their doctrine.
For example: Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts aller Christlichen Konfessionen, von Ferdinand Walter, Bonn. 1842.
The best edition of all these Greek church historians, in 3 volumes, belongs to Henri de Valois, Paris, 1659.
The eleven books of the church history of Rufinus were published by Renanus together with the history of Cassiodorus (Basileae, 1523); the works of Sulpicius Severus—by Jean Le Clerc (Clericus) (Lipsiae, 1709); the history of Gregory of Tours—by Theodoric Ruinart (Paris, 1699).
All these Byzantine historians, under the title: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae…, have already been published three times: in Paris, 1645–1702, in Venice, 1729, and in Bonn, beginning 1829.
The surviving first 18 books of this history (carried down to the year 610) were published by Fronto Ducaeus, Paris, 1630.
Published three times: in Rome, 1564, in Lyon, 1615, and in Helmstedt, 1671.
Published in Hamburg, 1706.
Enchiridion de statu hodiernorum Graecorum… Cantabrigiae 1619, and afterward several times more.
Chronicon Ecclesiae Graecae…, Franeckerae, 1679.
Status praesens ecclesiae Graecae…, Altorfii, 1714.
Acts published by Rumyantsev, by the Archaeographic Expedition and Commission, by the Temporary Commission attached to the Governor-General of Kiev. Acts of the cities of Vilna, Kovno… and so on and so forth.
Annales ecclesiastici, carried by Baronius down to the year 1198 and continued by Raynaldus down to the year 1565. Published several times.
Historia ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti in XXIV tomis, published, for the first time, in Paris, 1676–1686.
Histoire ecclésiastique…, carried down to the year 1414, published, for the first time, in XX volumes, 1691–1722.
Centuriae Magdeburgenses… in XIII tomis, published several times. Called “centuries” because each volume embraces a particular century (centuriam), and “Magdeburg” because they were begun at Magdeburg by a society of scholars.
Institutionum Hist. Ecclesiasticae… libri IV, Helmstadii, 1764.
All of them are found in the aforementioned collection: Corpus Scriptorum Hist. Byzantinae.
Some of these chronicles have already been published, others not yet. The best edition has been begun, and is being continued, by the Archaeographic Commission, under the title: The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles.
Annales Polonici, published in tom. 1–2 script, rer. Siles. by T. W. Sommersberg, and some published separately at various times.
Monuments, published by the Temporary Commission for the Examination of Ancient Acts attached to the Kiev Military Governor-General, in 2 volumes.
A collection of ancient charters and acts of the cities of Vilna, Kovno, Trakai…, 1843.
Mukhanov’s Collection, 1836.
For example, in the Simbirsk Collection… Moscow, 1845.
Historica Russiae monumenta, ex antiquis gentium archivis et bibliothecis deprompta…, Petropoli, 1841.
Such are: the accounts of Prince Kurbsky, published St. Petersburg, 1833; on Russia in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, by Kotoshikhin, St. Petersburg, 1840; the notes of Russian men of Peter’s time… St. Petersburg, 1838.
Many of these works have been published separately, and many in collections, for example, under the title: Rerum Moscovitarum auctores varii… Francofurt, 1600; or: Historiae Ruthenicae scriptores exteri saeculi XVI…, 1841–1842.
They have been published under various names: at first, Notes and Proceedings…, then the Historical Collection…, Readings…, now the Chronicle.
From the Greek word: δόγμα — an opinion, teaching, decree, laid down with authority, or authoritatively (see Lk. 2:1; Acts 17:17, according to the original text). And correspondingly, in particular, the doctrine revealed by God, taught by the Church, which is invested for that purpose with authority from God Himself (cf. Acts 15:28 and 16:4, likewise according to the original text).
See our Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. I, § 5, notes 42, 43.
This rule for Orthodox Dogmatics was also indicated by the Commission of Ecclesiastical Schools formerly among us, which, having shortened the course of philosophical sciences in the Seminaries, ordered the metaphysical concepts of God, the world, and man to be set forth in the course of Dogmatic Theology.
Of these, the best are reckoned to be: Klee, Staudenmaier, Perrone, Liebermann, Dobmayer, Brenner.
See their enumeration in the Theological Library of Walch, tom. I, cap. 3.