V. Old Russian Theology in Relation to Ancient and Contemporary Life

Such was the origin of the theological-polemical system in the East, where the abundance of heresies, echoes of extreme Eastern teachings, and extensive acquaintance with ancient philosophy made the polemical exposition of Christian truths extremely difficult: each heresy separately required an exact generalization and consistent refutation. Therefore, to write a denunciation of all heresies meant to take into account the state of mind in a given epoch and to systematize Christian dogmas accordingly. And so did Sts. Fathers, as we have seen above. The situation was somewhat different in Russia. The first Russian heresy, which aroused against itself the theological system of St. Joseph, had a very strange character, due to his complete ignorance of theological subjects and extreme moral laxity. Secretly separating themselves from church communion, on the basis of the Jewish law, the Judaizers were nevertheless not ashamed to occupy the highest ecclesiastical offices and even to defend their hierarchical rights (Verse 13). Denying all the content of Christianity in church teaching, the Judaizers demanded a lenient attitude on the part of the church authorities. It does not even appear that they wanted to substantiate the doctrine precisely and definitely, and were inclined to found their own religious community. The main seal of Judaism - circumcision - was alien to them on the advice of the Jews themselves, so that their connection with the hated tribe of god-killers would not be revealed. The heretics were left with only one denial. It is precisely as a complete denial, often groundless, that the entire teaching of the Judaizers is presented. Here is how St. Joseph: "The Divine Nativity of Christ, which is from the Father, is falsely named, and His incarnation, which is for our salvation, is mocked, saying, that God the Father Almighty has no Son, nor the Holy Spirit. They are of one essence and co-throned with Themselves, and as there is no Holy Trinity, but the books say that God the Father Almighty has the Word and the Spirit, that is, the word is spoken, and the Spirit is poured out in the air. And his Scriptures shall call Christ the Son of God, he is not yet born, but when he is born, then shall he be called the Son of God, not in essence, but by grace, as Moses and David and the rest of the prophets, and Him is spoken by the Christians of Christ God, he is a simple man, and not God, and was crucified by the Jews and decayed in the tomb, for this reason, he said, it is now fitting to keep the law of Moses. And again, behold, God cannot save Adam from hell and those who are with him, and when the heavenly powers and the prophets and the righteous do not have it, it is not fitting to fulfill their will: but he himself descends, as a non-possessor, and seeks, and becomes man, and suffers, and himself outwitted the devil, it is not fitting for God to do so" (34). On the basis of such a strange teaching, they denied the monastic way of life, accusing the monks of an arbitrary way of life, alien to biblical men, and depriving monasticism of its beauty and glory of the Divine institution. Despite such a negative attitude towards divine dogmas, they occupied hierarchical posts, apparently in the form of desecration of the Orthodox. The priests who held this heresy clearly mocked the sanctity of Christ's teaching: "Drinking and overeating, and on the great holy and all the holy fasts, and on Wednesdays and Fridays, eating meat and defiling with fornication, and entering the divine churches and celebrating the holy liturgy" (36). Metropolitan Zosima was not only a blasphemer, but it seems that he did not even recognize the dogmatics of the Novgorod heretics. Like them, he blasphemed Christ God and the Most Holy Mother of God, was defiled by carnal sins and blasphemy, but in addition he added: "And what is the kingdom of heaven, and what is the second coming, and what is the resurrection of the dead? Nothing of the kind, a man died, and then a hundred" (44). Sexual promiscuity, which constitutes the essence of their life and is only covered up by false biblical teaching, has reached the extreme limits of a pathological phenomenon. Not to mention the unnatural mixtures, they defiled the chaste in a very special way with some kind of pleasure incomprehensible to a healthy person: "I bring the harlot to their temples," writes St. Joseph about the Novgorod archimandrite Kassian and his like-minded people, "and I defiled with them with fornication and washed with them in a tub, and I took this filthy water and poured it into wine and honey, and sent that wine and honey to the saints and priests, and to the sick, and to the guests, and to all Orthodox Christians" (520). Prep. Joseph is not at all exaggerating when he asserts that "they do not eat anything like this." It is unlikely that such phenomena can be tolerably substantiated on the writings accepted by the Jews, and the Judaizers, as St. Joseph, only for the sake of appearance, they referred to the Divine Scriptures. Such an outrageous and deeply shameful teaching, if it can be called a teaching, caused the appearance of the first theological system in Russia. If Sts. the Fathers first of all condemned the heretics for the rebellious disruption of church unity, the Russian heretics armed St. Joseph against them mainly with their unheard-of blasphemy and abominable depravity. Prep. Joseph, however, crossed the boundaries of literary polemics and demanded government repressions. But it should be noted that the heresy of the Judaizers in its essence belongs to the number of crimes punishable by the most humane legislation, and appeals to the supreme secular power are quite understandable given the ecclesiastical nature of the state itself.

The heresy of Theodosius Kosoy found a zealous accuser in the person of the blessed monk Zinovii of Otens. Since the heresy of Kosoy caused less movement in comparison with the indignation of the Judaizers, its denunciation was carried out in a more restrained tone. The content of the heresy in general strongly resembles the ravings of the Judaizers; the same mixture of various concepts, united by the power of round ignorance and depravity. Blessed Zenobius also had to expound the entire essence of Christ's teaching, and besides this, to discuss the non-originality of the world, the significance of various passages of the works of the Holy Fathers, the oath of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and many other questions, which alone can be spoken of in view of the existing false teaching, for for the Orthodox children of the Church they either do not represent the slightest doubt (as the non-originality of the world). or they belong to the sphere of church discipline (like the question of the Seventh Council, which is far from being a matter of primary necessity, since it is a matter for the whole Church).

And the essential dogmas handed down to us by the Universal Church are considered, as far as possible, in relation to the understanding of Russian society of this epoch. In the latter respect, the system of bliss. Zinovy differs from the work of St. Joseph; the most educated and intelligent man of his age, St. Joseph transferred to Russian soil all the depth and power of patristic Eastern theology; in spite of the quite local and even temporary purpose of his work as a denunciation of the heresy of the Judaizers, he, as a first-class talent, was able to forget all conventionality in the exposition of dogmas, as it were, and gave the Russian Church a creation of unique brilliance and power.

If we turn to the third theologian of the epoch we are considering, to the teacher of Blessed Theodore. In addition to a few contemplative and didactic words, we will see that all his works were written on various issues that were very important for the Russian Church at that time. The Universal Church has given us, in the person of the ever-memorable monk Maximus, a great fighter against the West, which invariably strives to infect us with its impiety, and against its own superstitions, which stemmed (and stemmed, let us add) from a separate existence in the ecclesiastical sense, from a constant inclination to be content with one form, and from the beginnings of empty and stupid national pride. The number of works of a dogmatic nature in Bl. Maximus is not much; as such, one can only point to the "Confession of the Orthodox Faith," caused by the ignorant suspicion of the Russian church government, and to the "Homily for the Nativity of Jesus." In the rest, he has to affirm various dogmas of universal piety, either against the Russian heresies (Judaizers), or against the impiety of Hagar, which is tempting for Christians, or against the charms of Latin exhortations to imaginary unity, or against the inclination of Russians to various superstitions. Denouncing the Jews and followers of Mohammed, Bl. Maximus condemns the West for the distortion of the symbol, for the use of unleavened bread at the Eucharist, contrary to the Churches of the East, which seems to him to be a revival of the superstitious teaching of Apollinaris of Laodicea, and especially for its predilection for rationalism, in contrast to which the Vatopedi monk affirms the beginning of spiritual contemplation, the inner life and spiritual feats. Against Russian superstition, inclined to determine and change one's fate by means of sorcery and fortune-telling, Maximus the Greek tried to present a true view of the life of man, dependent on the action of free will and Divine Providence. In addition to this, Bl. Maximus wrote on exegetical, ascetic, and canonical questions. History testifies that none of the Russian theologians of the sixteenth century had such a strong influence on society as Blazh. Maxim; it is true that he did not leave a theological system, but he rendered a service to the Russian Church, which now seems to have been completely forgotten. He was perhaps the first to note the peculiarity of the heretical creations of the Latins and warned Russian theology against them. This circumstance alone compels us to rank him among the pillars of our theology. The secret of his strong influence lies in his charming personality, which can be seen everywhere in the creations of even the most abstract nature... Here again we encounter the same phenomenon: not a system, as an external arrangement of parts, sometimes accidental, sometimes caused by some conventional circumstances, but an inner strength, a spirit of pure contemplation, a feeling filled with fiery zeal for the Church, ardent love for people and pity for the fallen – this is what constitutes the peculiarity of patristic theology, its eternal unchanging beauty and indestructible power.

Like the great fathers of the Universal Church, the Russian saints. The Fathers and Teachers saw the peculiarity of Orthodox theology not in conventional pettiness, not in narrow literalism and endless terminology, but in the integrity and general fidelity of the Church's understanding. Arming himself against the rationalism of the Judaizers, who, turning to the Scriptures, saw in it one letter, St. Joseph says: "Let us move with the fear of God, and let us be abolished with humility in the Divine Scriptures, as the divine John Chrysostom says, if we see the head of the Scriptures as it lies, and in due time they will come, and not without time, and they will not agree with us, but they will agree with us" (Verse 5). The seeming contradictions of the Divine Scriptures, such powerful weapons against the truth, as they seemed to the Judaizers, stem from the inability of sinful and carnal people to understand the words of higher spiritual knowledge; The decisive vote in controversial questions of this kind should be considered the unanimous opinion of Sts. as highly spiritual exponents of Christ's truth. "For the great Maximus says," we read in the same 5th homily, "that every Divine Scripture, both old and new, has permission not to have permission for itself, unless the Holy Fathers, filled with the Divine Spirit, as it is absurd, they will say so, as they write, for they see many in the Scriptures, as they resist one another, and sometimes they say this, but otherwise. And this happens from our lack of reasoning, or from offense, or from contempt: but the words of holy men do not change, but we, who are fleshly, cannot be spiritually wise, as one of the saints spoke, as if we were carnal philosophists, not according to the will of the Holy Spirit. The Divine Scriptures understand the Spirit, but according to the will of the flesh." And how were the searches for the meaning of the Holy Scriptures carried out? Scriptures, we have seen above. Here, too, importance is attached not to the mechanical cohesion of individual patristic thoughts, but to the inner fulfillment of the higher knowledge by the spirit: "Whosoever desires to gain understanding in the Scriptures, sets up his understanding to no one, as good, but this one is evil, who keeps the words unshaken, and by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit he acquires the hidden mysteries, testified to from the Divine Scriptures" (Verse 5). Possessing the fullness of spiritual knowledge, they considered the truth to be the property of an ascetic, contemplative life, and they were very reluctant to reason in the language of human concepts about those questions that can be clarified only by the grace of the Holy Spirit. They are understandable only to reverent and pious people. First of all, as we have seen above, they called for the correction of life, and with extraordinary power and perseverance pointed out to the knowledge of the truth the contemplative path, devoid of useless curiosity and superfluous subtleties. Those who live in ordinary conditions and those who are poorly adapted to the highest asceticisms are persuaded to be content with the general confession of the Church, which fully determines salvation: "Let the superfluous in the Church of God be silent, let the faithful be glorified, let not the silent be tried. If we begin to experience the untested, the imams and we will perish," i.e. useless reasoning about the higher manifestations of the Divine world leads to disastrous divisions.

VI. Ancient Russian Theology and Monasticism

The deepest idea, the most powerful principle, are effective and vital only when they do not remain in the realm of pure thought, but pass into the world of living reality. The Christian foundations of life do not represent something completely inaccessible to the human mind, and in some forms are found in the works of ancient philosophers and Eastern sages, not to mention the divinely inspired pronouncements of the prophets. But these foundations received their power and powerful effect from the time when they found expression in the true life and death of the Saviour; the further development of Christian ideas would also be inconceivable without their living embodiment, without the Church of Christ. The same can be said about the principles of contemplative patristic theology. These principles are quite understandable and have never, under any circumstances, been definitively rejected by theological thought, but they become alive, i.e.

A few chosen ones can live by the idea of the Universal Church, deeply conscious, they can even exert their efforts to develop this idea in the public consciousness as much as possible, but their movement can be strong and durable only if there is a certain culture, and, what is especially important, certain traditions. To create new cultural forms adapted to this or that idea is a task that exceeds the forces of the conscious actions of the human will, and is carried out by the complex, semi-unconscious process of theoretical history. The idea of the Church in the sixteenth century was perhaps less strong than that of the Slavophiles of the nineteenth century, and was less clearly expressed in the literature of the sixteenth century than in the immortal works of Khomyakov; but in the sixteenth century church life was also strongly developed, from many aspects of which there was a breath of strength, freshness, in a word, a full and powerful impulse of the human soul. For this reason, all the principles of Russian theology that we have elucidated found not only a strong and bold expression in theological works, but also a deep confirmation in the ancient Russian monastic, or rather, monastic culture. Each Local Church elaborates some separate aspect of church life, although inherent in the rest of the Church, but especially important and even necessary in a given Local Church. And this aspect of church life becomes, as it were, a link that unites the Local Church with the Divine Body of the Universal Church. Such an aspect of church life in the sixteenth century in Russia was monasticism; The Russian monasteries of that era were truly a moral force, reviving the ecclesiastical consciousness of the Russian people and leading it out of national isolation. Such an importance of monasteries, which is quite understandable and hardly requires many confirmations in its favor, manifested itself with noticeable force in the sixteenth century, when the dependence on the great Church of Constantinople, beneficial to the universal idea, ceased, when disastrous circumstances and dependence on the Turks removed in the eyes of Russian society the halo that had hitherto surrounded the representatives of the Greek Church. Russian society, constantly inclined to false patriotism and poorly versed in religious matters, did not represent a significant obstacle to the penetration of anti-universal ideas into Russia. Only the monasteries, which at that time were torches of enlightenment, which gave the Russian Church hierarchs, which never broke the living, indissoluble connection with the traditions of the Universal Church, and abounded in spiritual gifts, only the monasteries made it possible for the Monks Joseph and Zinovii to appear, and St. Athos gave the Russian Church the blessings. Maximus the Greek. Especially important is the merit of the monasteries in their constant connection with the universal ascetic tradition of the Church. For only the monasteries, with their constant teaching of the ancient patristic writings, with their invariable attraction to the Holy Athos, reminded Russian society that church life is not exhausted by the cult of Russian saints and locally venerated icons, and that before Russian monasticism there was another monasticism, universally Eastern, marked by many miracles and wondrous teaching. The connection with this monasticism left an indelible imprint on the works of the Russian Fathers with a higher idea, distracting their attention from the weak reality and irresistibly drawing the Divine power of miraculous revelations into the eternally living world. One circumstance somewhat overshadowed the monastic life of that epoch - this was the economic system of life, inevitable in a harsh climate and a constant struggle with poor nature. But villages and property, used with humility, out of necessity, and not arbitrarily, did not prevent the Russian saints from discovering the great sides of the human spirit. Bl. Zinovius, defending the Russian monasteries from numerous criticisms, which were joined by the voice of Maximus the Greek, who was little acquainted with the conditions of Russian life, quite justly says: "If blessed are our fathers: Theodosius of the Caves, Barlaam, and Sergius, and Cyril, and Nikon, and Alexis, and others, and without consideration they kept evil instead of good, and did not as befits the saints, and did, as they received the ancients: For how shall they be with the saints, if thou hast done neither the true nor the righteous, the lower praiseworthy? What hope of future blessings remains for them? Wherefore are the sweats and labors of one's labors in ascetic labors against the ruler of the world, wherefore is the length of fasting, and the sorrow of the womb, and the all-night vigil, and the fountains of tears and sobs, and much meekness and patience, and all that the God-loving souls diligently work in the commandments of God to those who have died?" (911). But in spite of the possession of estates, the fathers and first leaders of Russian monasticism not only set an example of an exemplary life, but also their own lives were marked by many manifestations of God's mercy and miracles. "According to the Gospel," writes Blazh. Zinovius, "that God will not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a God-reader and does His will, he will listen to him, and we see those monks: Theodosius, Barlaam, Alexis, Sergius and Cyril are obedient from God, as if they were asked by God, accepted by God; and if there had not been worshippers and had not done His will, God would not have listened to them, and would not have granted them their petitions, for which they had asked for the necessities, or when the bread and drink had become scarce, or when the rain had increased excessively, or when the earth had become impoverished, or the army had been rebuked, or the blind had sight, or the deaf could hear, or the lame walked, or the weakened were bent, or health to the sick, or extinguishment to the scorched, or expulsion to the harmful" (912). Thus, the property of the monasteries did not prevent the monks from reaching the highest degrees of spiritual life. The constant moral connection with the flourishing period of universal monasticism, with the centuries of wondrous miracles and divine illuminations, as well as homogeneous phenomena on Russian soil, gave the ecclesiastical worldview of the Russian fathers of the sixteenth century a special monastic imprint. Having received in the monasteries the fullness of intellectual and moral development, seeing only in monasticism a purely Christian beginning of life, undefiled either by the vain strivings of a rebellious age, or by the pernicious influence of human passions, they saw only in monasticism all the glory of the Church's active teaching. Considering monasticism to be a God-established society on the basis of patristic writings (Prost., p. 11), they were ready to defend the divine origin of the monastic image as an unchangeable dogma of piety. This is quite understandable if we remember that the entire preceding history of the best manifestations of church life was in their minds inseparably linked with monasticism, whose representatives are the continuers of the great work of the Apostles: "As the Old Law is insufficient, this Divine Apostles, in the New Law, is not sufficient to complete the law with the Holy Gospel. Likewise, our holiness and venerability have written many of our writings and divine traditions, the Gospel and Apostolic Scriptures, and the deficiencies of the new law. For the Divine Apostles were abolished for divine preaching: for there were not many teachers of the whole world, as the sun watcheth: and a certain and most necessary one who wrote and betrayed them. The rest of the successor, the Holy Apostle, our hierarchs and venerable fathers and teachers, wrote and betrayed. And nothing is contrary to the prophetic and evangelical and apostolic writings. Likewise, the monastic life according to the tradition of the holy Prophet and Apostle; they themselves reaped and betrayed everyone else. And all this was copied from the monks and miraculously arranged, and many traditions and hymns of the church were created by divine command, and many writings were compiled, of which there is no number. And he was holy and God-bearing, who established the law and created the entire rule of Christian life, and the church deanery and statutes: and the liturgy - the creation of Basil the Great, the second of John Chrysostom, the third of Gregory the Pope of Rome, which is sung during Great Lent - the confession of the Orthodox faith, that is, "I believe in one God the Father"... and the divine and sacred rules have been written, for there is nourishment of all Christian life, and the marginalization of all the Divine Scriptures, and a certain eye, and a candlestick of the soul, and a light, enlightening every man, without him he who desires to walk in darkness errs" (Prost., p. 11). This is how the monastic fathers of the Russian Church of the sixteenth century understood the significance of monasticism in the general course of church life. In full accord with the actual situation, they assimilated to the monastics, in addition to the building up of the church order, i.e. the external expression of universal truth, also active participation in the life of the Church at each of its individual upheavals, and by their denunciations and deeds they saved Christians from the temptation of heretical snares. The right of monastics to participate in the affirmation of true piety is considered as an invariable feature of church life, inherent in all ages: "As for the rest, we speak of these things, when heretics say, that it is proper to judge or condemn heretics or apostates, but by the tsar and prince and the saint and the judges of the land, and not by the monks, who have renounced the world and all who are in the world, and it behooves them to pay attention to themselves and condemn no one. To such it is said: if it is not fitting for monks to condemn heretics lower than apostates, then how did Great Anthony condemn them" (Prost., p. 18). Further, all cases of denunciation of heresy on the part of monks are enumerated. The incompatibility of the difficulties of the higher ecclesiastical service with the inevitable worldly state of the family man made it necessary for the Church to leave all its supreme administration to the monks, so that the monasticism of bishops is, according to the consciousness of our fathers of the sixteenth century, not an accident, but a completely legitimate phenomenon arising from historical circumstances: "With their wives the bishops who live and the worldly image of the possessors are hudi and unhappy, and have done nothing glorious in their lives, neither miracles nor signs. Having seen this, the Divine Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, as a stumbling block to men, and a stumbling block and to the harm of the Church, for this reason commanded that this should not be" (Verse 11). The view of monasticism as a support and affirmation of Orthodox teaching gives the Russian theological works of the epoch under consideration the imprint of definiteness and completeness. "Enlightener" St. Joseph's is not only a talented work of the famous writer; no, apart from this, it expressed a whole culture, a whole profoundly complete worldview, which is possible only under the condition of the existence of a certain soil, which was monasticism, as a strictly defined sum of ideas, as a completely complete trend. The further development of Russia in the spirit of strengthening the ecumenical-monastic principles could have given mankind an example of hitherto unheard-of exclusively ecclesiastical life, but, alas, the events that followed the sixteenth century and certain Russian national shortcomings deprived the monasteries of their social and teaching significance and for a long time (if not forever) pushed Russian reality off the path of universal church life. The idealization of Savonarola in the works of Bl. Maximus in its time could have had a prophetic character, and dissatisfaction on this occasion, expressed by Bl. Zinovy, is a matter of human weakness and painfully wounded national pride.

БОГОСЛОВЫ КИЕВСКИЕ

I. Религия и богословие латинян

Никакая в них догма крепка непщуется, ни человеческая, ни божественная, аще ни аристотельские силлогизмы утвердят сию догму (Максим Грек I.247).

Частные особенности, характеризующие ту или другую ветвь Вселенской Церкви, нисколько не препятствуют ее духовному росту, если она пребывает в неизменном общении с остальной Церковью; если же она добровольно разрывает узы любви, то все ее особенности сделаются в ее жизни неизменным догматическим началом. Это совершилось в жизни знаменитой среди Церквей Церкви Римской, после ее, исполненного гордости, отделения от Апостольских Церквей Востока. Пребывая в общении с Церквами, Церковь Римская отличалась по преимуществу строгостью дисциплины, сильным значением церковной власти и преклонением перед внешним авторитетом епископского сана. Эти особенности оказывали иногда даже благодетельное влияние на жизнь Церкви. Известно, что ереси и бесконечные споры, вызванные еретиками IV и V веков, были исключительно, или почти исключительно, достоянием Востока. Если волновался и Запад, то это происходило от интриг еретичествующих сынов равноапостольного "цезаря", от переселения туда оскверненных ересью варваров. Христианские народы Запада без этих внешних причин остались совершенно равнодушны к великим историческим движениям эпохи. Зато великая Западная Церковь выработала стройную дисциплину своей иерархической жизни. В лице Амвросия Медиоланского, Льва и Григория - знаменитых святителей ветхого Рима, она дала высокий образец церковных организаторов, защитников и выразителей церковных прав, церковной самобытности. Запад всегда был чужд высокого полета духа и никогда не мог в этом отношении сравняться с Востоком, не мог даже приблизиться хоть сколько-нибудь к нему, в отношении откровенных созерцаний премирного начала и познания основ сущего. Как бы восполняя этот существенный недостаток церковной жизни, западные монахи явились ревностными носителями деятельной любви в самом точном значении этого слова. Восток освещался все новыми и новыми созерцаниями и чудесами. Монашеский род жизни приобрел новые, дотоле неслыханные формы столпнического и добровольного Христа ради юродства. Странные сначала обе эти формы были признаны Церковью, ибо их осенило особое явление благодати, и не оставалось ни малейшего сомнения в их глубокой духовности. Прекратившееся, вследствие монофизитской ереси, вселенское подвижничество Фиваиды и Египта нашло себе новые центры в обителях Палестины, Синая, Афона и царствующего града Константинополя. А западные иноки в это время несли свет Христова учения все дальше и дальше на север, на туманные острова Британии, в покрытые девственными лесами и снегами страны саксов и скандинавов. Примыкавший к восточно-греческому миру, мир славянский еще коснел в мраке язычества, а племена германские были уже все просвещены мужественными и неустрашимыми служителями Римской Церкви. Когда Церкви Востока волновались внутренними несогласиями и религиозными спорами, Рим оставался спокойным величавым зрителем и участвовал в спорах настолько, насколько к этому побуждало высокое достоинство апостольского трона и вынуждали обстоятельства: папы осуждали ереси, посылали представителей на вселенские соборы, но сами почти не оставляли Рима. Только двое из них, несчастные своей судьбой, Либерий и Гонорий, оказались причастными к делу ересей арианской и монофелитской, но ни один не был основателем ересеучения, ни один не заявил себя ревностным распространителем еретических бредней, вопреки древним преданиям божественных рыбарей, благодатию уловлявших вселенную. Правда, Запад почти не знал вдохновенных вещаний великих учителей веры. Если исключить первые века, то увидим, что лучшие из западных отцов блаж. Иероним и св. Амвросий Мед., по внутренней связи, принадлежат более Востоку; блаж. Августин не отличался жизненностью и силой, как это признает даже преп. Филарет Черниговский; остается один Иларий Пуатьесский. Но недостаток в богословском развитии искупался отсутствием ересей и строгостью церковной дисциплины. Кроме того, постоянно поддерживая связь с Востоком, знаменитые учители веры, гонимые фанатичными служителями ереси, находили приют в православных епархиях Запада и являли собой Западной Церкви образ истинных учеников Распятого. Так было с величайшим из Александрийских пап св. Афанасием, то же случилось и с лучшим из всех писателей Востока, византийского цикла, св. Максимом Исповедником.

Так было, пока поддерживалось общение с вселенской носительницей истины. Но вот совершилось духовное братоубийство. Властолюбивые притязания получили силу внутреннего самоопределения, а все особенности местной жизни приобрели, в силу обстоятельств, характер неизменности и подверглись общей участи всех явлений истории: им также надлежало пережить - периоды развития, процветания и упадка. Но особенности церковной жизни Рима были такого свойства, что в эпоху их расцвета, при сохранении связи с востоком, они поражали сухостью и мертвенностью. Что же должно было их ожидать после отделения? Несколько странных особенностей должны были создать уродливую карикатуру, жалкое подобие церковной жизни. Так и случилось. В XI веке совершился грех отделения, а уже несколько десятилетий спустя явился грозный Григорий VII со своими воззрениями на папскую власть, со своими притязаниями быть царем земных царей. Служитель Бога превратился в земного владыку, ведущего войны именем Того, Кто, по слову пророка, не угашал курящегося льна и не сокрушал надломленной трости. Церковная жизнь прекратилась. Суеверие заменило веру и потребовало защит отвне, ибо не имело внутренней силы. Костры инквизиции озарили непроглядный мрак. Все особенности государственной жизни давно были перенесены в церковную жизнь Рима. Теперь они утвердились окончательно. Римская Церковь более всего напоминает средневековое феодальное государство. Папа - это сюзерен, правда, власть его неограниченная, но он, подобно остальным монархам, ограничен внешними условиями, ограничен своим земным могуществом, был ограничен даже областью своих земных владений. Неограниченный de jure, он более чем ограничен de facto, ограничен силой обычая, невежества и духом среды. Кардиналы, епископы, настоятели монастырей и даже священники - это вассалы папы, более или менее могущественные; феодальный строй знал различные степени зависимости: наравне с королем богемским императору мог непосредственно подчиняться, как ленник, простой рыцарь, и король английский, как герцог нормандский, был вассалом короля французского. Подобное же было и в Западной Церкви. Феодальное государство немыслимо без института юристов, обязанность которых привести в определенную систему варварское законодательство и сколько-нибудь обосновать на началах римского права, память о котором была еще жива. Государственная жизнь Церкви так же нуждалась в специалистах: нужно же дать какое-нибудь объяснение этой жизни, нужно привести в порядок запутанное церковное законодательство, нужно, наконец, найти всему этому какие-нибудь подтверждения. Библию, правда, можно не показывать мирянам; зачем простым подданным читать постановления самой высшей инстанции, мало понятные даже поставленному ею правительству, с самим царем - наместником во главе! Но ведь нельзя же ее совсем за борт! Богословие западное, даже в творениях Августина склонное к формальной сухости, окончательно определилось в этом направлении. Вся сила внутреннего, сокровенного духа, вся красота внешнего поэтического выражения превратилась, в сознании схоластических богословов, в мертвую, бездушную массу законодательного материала. С утратой, или, точнее, непониманием духа буква смело вступила в свои права. Истолкованная на почве чуждой ей аристотелевской логики, принятая, как нечто безусловное и непреложное, буква церковной литературы представила нечто новое, строго законченное, точно определенное не только в сущности, но и в деталях. Отношения к Богу, загробная жизнь, тайны человеческой совести, одним словом, все важнейшие запросы духа, разрешаемые в творениях восточных отцов долгим, мучительным процессом подвига и созерцания, здесь разрешены быстро и с необыкновенной точностью. С Богом установлен точный договор: к Нему есть определенные обязанности, но зато и Он связан правами Своих подданных, особенно правами Своего земного правительства и Своего не всегда помнящего свое назначение наместника. Об истине, как освобождающей силе, о любви, упраздняющей страх и закон, не могло быть и речи: эта область души человеческой не подходит под рубрики церковного законодательства, да и по самому свойству своему мало внушает доверия. Истина всецело принадлежит католической церковной организации и познать ее значит точно выяснить католическое учение, т.е. истолковать Библию в католическом духе. Если такое учение подтверждает внешний авторитет Церкви, этого вполне достаточно, а большего даже не нужно. Свобода духа, любовь - это понятия положительно опасные: свобода влечет за собой ересь, а любовь - она, конечно, необходима, - но нуждается в пояснении. Духовные подвиги, умная молитва - это все хорошо, как сверхдолжные добрые дела, как заслуга пред Богом, и только. Как познание истины, указывается внешнее учение Церкви, а полнота благодати преподается в семи таинствах. Таким образом, о созерцательном богословии не могло быть и речи, да к нему запад не был способен даже в цветущий период своей церковной жизни. Живого характера современности богословие схоластиков могло иметь всего менее: ведь государственные науки процветают и возбуждают интерес только тогда, когда живет и развивается само государство, когда изменяются формы общественных отношений, когда созидаются новые отрасли жизни. В государстве-Церкви ничего подобного быть не может. Высший небесный Государь раз навсегда дал определенную организацию и установил определенные отношения к Себе. Он неизменен; по крайней мере таковым объявили Его истолкователи Его законов. Неизменны, как Он Сам, и Его веления. Земной наместник также не может и не должен менять своего положения.