Secondly, it was not enough to build dams and fortifications for external protection against Gnosticism, it was not enough to proclaim, contrary to Gnosticism, what Christians believed in and hoped for, and there arose a desire to imitate Gnosticism, namely, to oppose the enemy with scientific theology. But this enterprise led once more to the secularization of Christianity: Tradition, the rule of faith, was transformed into a system of beliefs in which the data of ancient Christian teaching found their place only partially and more in name. Here Harnack considers it appropriate to quote the following saying of Luther: "When the Word of God fell into the hands of the fathers (of the Church), it was the same thing that happened to milk strained through a coal bag – the milk turns black and spoils." "In the Christian literature of the apologists, which it had already been about the middle of the second century," Harnack reveals his views, "the beginning of that development was laid, which, a century later, in the theology of Origen, i.e., in the attempt to transform the Gospel into an ecclesiastical-scientific system of teachings, reached its conclusion, at least for the time being. From the point of view of content, this system of teachings signifies the legitimization of the transfer of Greek philosophy to the Christian faith. The Hellenization of ecclesiastical Christianity (and we do not mean the Gospel) did not occur gradually; On the contrary, at the very moment when the thinking Greek, having accepted the new religion, began to understand it to himself, Hellenization had already begun. The Christianity of Justin, Athenagoras, and Minucius was no less Hellenized than that of Origen; however, there is a significant difference between them (the apologists and Origen). Since the question of what should be considered Christian did not exist at all for the apologists, and they did not pose it, they did not pretend to consider their scientific exposition of Christianity as a real expression of Christianity. Justin and his companions believed beyond all doubt that the faith, which as Tradition lives in the communities, is in itself complete and pure, and does not need scientific processing. The apologists, almost playfully, solved their task of presenting Christianity as perfect and reliable, as the highest knowledge of God and the world, since this knowledge is revealed philosophy. But the problems of Christian Science soon became more difficult to solve. The struggle against Gnosticism prompted us to somehow answer what should be considered Christian, and to put the found answer firmly and clearly. But in truth, Christians were not able to answer this question firmly and definitely. This can be seen in the example of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, more or less dependent on the (Christian) tradition on the one hand, and on philosophy on the other, tried to oppose to the Gnostic conception of Christianity, on the basis of an expanded baptismal Creed, a certain kind of complex of ecclesiastical teachings; at the same time, they undoubtedly had before them the extremely instructive example of the Gnostics and Marcion. But these Church Fathers worked out only individual dogmas, i.e., particular propositions characterizing Christianity, and by no means worked out dogmatics. They still lived in the conviction that Christianity, which filled them and which they considered identical with the Christianity of other – and even uneducated – believers, had no need of scientific processing in order to serve as an expression of higher knowledge. But what Irenaeus and Tertullian did not do, was done by Clement and especially by Origen. The more the Christian Tradition approached the Greek religious philosophy, the more immeasurable was the sum total of the problems that arose from it.

Clement of Alexandria set about solving them, but had to retreat before the enormity of the task. Origen took up the same task under difficult circumstances and in some respects brought it to an end. He wrote the first Christian dogmatics, which rivaled the philosophical systems of the time, and which was a peculiar combination of the apologetic theology of Justin and the Gnostic theology of Valentinus, but Origen did not lose sight of the practical aim. In this dogmatics, the rule of faith was melted down, and this was done consciously. Origen did not conceal his conviction that Christianity in scientific knowledge was for the first time coming to its systematic expression, and that Christianity (whatever its form) without theology was a poor and obscure Christianity in itself. The Hellenization of the doctrine reaches a high degree in Origen. And yet, in spite of all the Hellenism that is noticeable in Clement and Origen, they undeniably came closer to the Gospel than Irenaeus with his attachment to authority. In general, Harnack defines the catholic dogmatics of the third century as "Christianity understood and formulated in the sense of Greek religious philosophy" (S. 243-253).

A more detailed disclosure of the currently mentioned provisions of Harnack:

1) Rules of faith (Symbols), canon and Church.

Even before the Church's heated struggle with Gnosticism, brief formulations of faith appeared in Christian communities. The shortest formulation was that which defined the Christian faith as faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These formulas were used during solemn church actions. These formulas also contained a brief indication of the most important facts in the history of Jesus. We know with certainty that in the Roman Church, a little later than 150 A.D., a firm Symbol of Faith was created, which had to be assimilated by everyone who was baptized. When Gnosticism appeared, support in the struggle against this enemy began to be sought in these Symbols; they were declared "apostolic" Symbols. But in this case, they were used not in their original form, but in a widespread, interpreted form. This is what Irenaeus did in the first place. For the greater success of the struggle against Gnostic speculations, he clearly passed off the interpreted baptismal Creed as the apostolic regula veritatis. He based his proof of the apostolic character of this Creed on the fact that this Creed is the content of the faith of those communities founded by the Apostles, and that these communities have always preserved the apostolic faith unchanged. At the heart of these two theses, Harnack considers it necessary to note, are two unproven assumptions and one substitution. It is not proved that any Creed came from the apostles; nor is it proved that the ecclesiastical communities founded by the apostles invariably preserved their teaching; finally, the Symbol itself in this case is replaced by its interpretation. But on the other hand, the path taken by Irenaeus was the only one by which it was possible to save what was still possessed at that time from the times of primitive Christianity, and therein lies the historical significance of this work. Through the affirmation of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in Irenaeus was applied to the model of the Roman Creed, the most important Gnostic theses were eliminated at one blow and the opposite teaching was firmly established as apostolic. Tertullian fully followed the example of Irenaeus. He had already openly declared that whoever recognized the formula of faith as his own confession was to be considered a Christian brother, he had the right to a fraternal greeting and hospitality from other Christians. In the formulations of faith, the hitherto divided Christian societies now received a kind of "Yeh" that united them, just as philosophical schools in some briefly formulated teachings had a unifying connection of a real and practical character. The "Rules of Faith" became a kind of passport for traveling Christians, served as the basis for the confederation of individual communities, etc. (S. 258-272).

Further. Marcion based his understanding of Christianity on the canon of the new (i.e., New Testament) books, which in his societies seems to have enjoyed the same respect with which the Old Testament was treated in "great Christianity" (i.e., the Church). In the Gnostic schools, which rejected the Old Testament either in whole or in part, the Gospel and Apostolic writings were regarded as sacred texts as early as the middle of the second century and theological speculations were based on them. And in "great Christianity" at the same time there was no collection (canon) of New Testament writings that would be equated with the Old Testament canon. The canonical collection of New Testament writings arose in the Catholic Church later than that of the Gnostics (but not later than 180 A.D.) and in imitation of the latter. Quite suddenly, in Meliton of Sardis, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and in the so-called Muratorian fragment, a canon appears before us. Nothing precise can be said about the origin of this canon in the Church. One thing can be noticed is that the canon first appears where we first encounter the so-called apostolic rules of faith. Nothing is known about the authority of the collectors of the canon. Nevertheless, the canon of Irenaeus and Tertullian is quite complete; heretics are strongly reproached by them for not recognizing this or that book (as the New Testament), while they (Irenaeus and Tertullian) considered their own collection to be the most ancient and valued it as highly as the Old Testament.

books, although the canon was already present in the Church. This enterprise was a forced affair. Marcion and the Gnostics energetically pointed out that everything truly Christian must be based on apostolic preaching, and yet the supposed identity between the general Christian circle of views and apostolic Christianity, in the view of these Gnostics, does not exist, that even the apostles contradicted themselves. As a result of such opposition, the Church was forced to deal with the question posed by her enemies. But in the essence of the matter this task was completely insoluble. And only "unconscious logic" (?), the logic of self-preservation, could show the Church the only way out of the difficulty: namely, to collect the entire apostolic heritage, to declare herself the only legally capable owner of this apostolic heritage, and to equate this heritage in importance with the Old Testament. But the question arose: what exactly are the apostolic writings? The question is difficult. After the middle of the second century, a multitude of works were circulated bearing the name of apostolic, and moreover, there were often different editions of one and the same work. The redactions, which contained a docetic element and exhortations to the crudest asceticism, even reached the liturgical use in the communities. Therefore, it was necessary to decide definitively what was to be considered truly apostolic writings; Which form or redaction should be recognized as apostolic? The Church, i.e., mainly Asia Minor and Roman, which in the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus still had a common history, took up this selection; they turned their attention to that circle of Christian writings which were accepted for use in divine services, and among these books they recognized as truly apostolic those writings which were presented as authentic by the tradition of the ancients. At the same time, the rule was adhered to, according to which writings which, although bearing apostolic names, contradicted the general Christian faith, i.e., the rule of faith, or contained something offensive to the Old Testament God and the realm of His creation, were declared false, and all editions of the apostolic writings were equally rejected if they bore similar features. Consequently, the Church held on to such writings that bore the names of the apostles and the content of which did not diverge from the Church faith, i.e., proved it. But all this, according to Harnack, does not yet testify to the fact that the Church did not allow herself any falsity in this. In compiling the canon, Harnack argues, the Church revised the text of the books, and it added beginnings and ends in some of the New Testament writings. But much more important is the fact that the Church attributed many anonymous works by their origin to one or another of the apostles, although the German researcher is inclined to assume the idea that such a forgery could have been made before the time of the compilation of the canon.

But we have not yet enumerated all the signs by which the Church, according to Harnack, distinguished authentic apostolic writings from inauthentic ones. The choice of genuinely apostolic writings, writes this scholar, was greatly facilitated for the Church by the fact that the content of the early Christian works seemed for the most part incomprehensible to subsequent Christianity, while the later and false writings betrayed themselves not only by the presence of heretical teachings in them, but above all by the comprehensibility of their content (we would be ready, we note on our own behalf, to take this last thought for irony, if the author were inclined to this manner of presentation, but he does not find this inclination anywhere in the book). Thus, there arose a collection (canon) of apostolic-ecclesiastical writings, which in its volume did not differ significantly from the number of those books that had enjoyed respect in communities for more than one generation and which were mainly read. Harnack points out the significance of the New Testament canon for the Church from different angles. Here are some of his judgments on this issue. In the course of the second century, little by little, there ceased to appear in Christian society persons who, under the influence of Christian enthusiasm, had instructed other Christians, and who had been called apostles, prophets, and teachers. The authority of these persons had to be replaced by something else. And so, through the creation of the canon, the representatives of the past were placed on an unattainable height. Now from the point of view of this new authority, they began to evaluate the merit of those teachings that were spread by someone in society. This circumstance had great consequences for the Church. A barrier was put in place for various dreamers and fantasists: they began to point out to them that only the apostles had the spirit of God and spoke in the name of this Spirit, that their words were contained in the collection of the canon, and that all new teachers who supposedly spoke in the name of the "Spirit" were liars and deceivers. In this case, the canon had a beneficial effect: the enthusiasm that guided such persons threatened Christianity with complete savagery, since under the cover of enthusiasm much that was alien to Christianity could penetrate into society. Further, the canon put an obstacle to the appearance of new works with a claim to apostolic authority, contributed to the emergence of simple, ordinary theological literature, indicating to it its place and its purpose. Now there was room for all kinds of literature, if it did not contradict the canon; now every writer could assimilate all the results of Greek education and turn them to the benefit of the Church. Finally, if the canon had obscured the historical meaning and historical origin of the works included in it, the conditions were now given for a serious study of these writings: exegetical-theological science could now appear (S. 272-282, 290).

According to Harnack, very important changes in the position of the Church as such also took place in the epoch under study. From that time on, only that which bore the name of apostolic and which could prove that it was so began to be considered true Christianity. A natural consequence of this view was that the apostleship was now connected with the episcopacy, and the bishops were recognized as the successors of the "grace of truth" belonging to the apostles. Such a view was supposed to guarantee the truth of the Christian faith. Whereas hitherto Christians had looked upon the Church as a holy Church, and the basis of this view had been found in the teaching that God bestows His Spirit upon the Church, now bishops have come to be regarded as bearers of this Spirit, and the holiness of the Church has been placed in connection with the indicated privilege of bishops. Other changes have taken place as well. The most important of them was that for the success of the victory over the world, the Church made many concessions in favor of peace. The Church began to distinguish between two kinds of morality: the higher, assigned to the elect (hence monasticism later developed), and the lower, for the majority. Not only that: it put forward some moral requirements for the clergy and others for the laity. But since the members of the Church did not always fulfill even the weakened requirements, in order to preserve the purity of the Church, the primates of the Church appropriated the right to forgive sins, the right, as it were, to repeat the sacrament of baptism, which forgives all sins. All this taken together greatly elevated the class of hierarchical persons. "In the circles of the laity, faith in the grace of God began to weaken, and confidence in the Church increased." Having arrogated to herself the right to absolve sins, the Church "began to act in the name of God and in His place"; "the bishop has in fact become a judge vice Christi." In place of Christianity, which had in its midst St. The Spirit (early Christian enthusiasm) was established by the institution of the Church, which had a canon (instrumentum divinae litteraturae) and a spiritual office (episcopate). At the same time, Harnack does not agree with those scholars who think that with such changes the Church has become inferior in its properties to the Christianity of previous times. He ascribes many virtues to it. "It destroyed any remnant of exclusivity (separatism) and became catholic in the proper sense." Moreover, "the catholic Church, thanks to the wisdom, caution and relative strictness of the majority of bishops, has become the support of civil society and the state" (pp. 296, 318, 329, 331, 334-336 and 343).

2) The development of theological science and Christian doctrine.

Apologists. "In the efforts of the apologists to acquaint the educated world with Christianity, the attempts of these Greek ecclesiastical men to present the Christian religion as a philosophy and to show it to the heterodox as the highest wisdom and absolute truth are explained. These attempts, not like those of the Gnostics, were favorably received by Christian society and subsequently became the basis of church dogmatics. Gnostic speculation was condemned, while apologetic speculation was sanctioned. The form in which the apologists portrayed Christianity as a philosophy found recognition. Why did the apologists have been so successful, despite the fact that they, like the Gnostics, linked church Christianity with Greek philosophy in their writings? The answer to the question may seem paradoxical, Harnack prefaces the reader. The theses of the apologists did not meet with any doubts in ecclesiastical circles and attracted the attention of the Greco-Roman world, because they made Christianity rational without touching the historical Tradition of Christianity and adding nothing to it. This is the profound difference between Christian philosophers like Justin and Christian philosophers like the Gnostic Valentinus. The Gnostics searched for religion, and the apologists, though they did not realize it clearly, sought the certainty of the moral outlook they already had. In doing their work, both of them encountered the complex of Christian Tradition, which, although alien to them, attracted them to many things. The Gnostics tried to make this complex of Tradition intelligible, and for the apologists it was enough that this complex contained Revelation, that this Revelation indisputably testified to the one spiritual God, to virtue and immortality, and that it (this Revelation) had the power to attract people to itself and lead them to a virtuous life. Viewed externally, the apologists were undoubtedly conservative, and they were so because they barely touched the content of Church Tradition; but, on the contrary, the Gnostics tried to understand what they read in Tradition, and the gospel of which they heard they wanted to substantiate" (S. 372-373, 375). These are the tasks of the apologists according to Harnack. He calls his explanations "paradoxical", and hardly anyone will disagree with him. The development of Christian teaching by apologists, after what has just been said, is understandably out of the question in Harnack.

Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus. The German scholar describes their significance in this area as follows: "Gnosticism and the Marcionite Church forced the great Church to make a selection from Tradition and offer the chosen ones to Christians as apostolic law. These include: the baptismal Symbol and the canon of the New Testament. But this was not enough for the needs of the time. It was necessary to explain Christian teaching. And this explanation borrowed its substance from the holy books of both Testaments; but here the influence of philosophical theology, as it is among the apologists, is already felt, on the other hand, ancient Christian hopes (eschatology) are introduced into this interpretation, as they were understood by the enthusiastic predecessors of Irenaeus, with the clear intention of defending this tradition. In this case, the speculations of the Gnostics remained not without influence: they found acceptance among all thinking Christians. Theological works that arose under such conditions were of a highly peculiar and complex character. The ancient Catholic Fathers, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, were imbued with the conviction that in their writings they expounded the most universally recognized church faith and nothing more. But this was not the case. The canonization of the books of the New Testament at once yielded a great deal of knowledge that had to be processed as dogmas and combined into one with the faith that the Church had lived up to that time. The scope of faith grew to immensity, and meanwhile Tradition, as well as polemics, forced us not to go too far and to be content with brief formulas. This oscillation between the brevity of dogmatic formulas and the boundless fullness of the content given by the canon constitutes one of the characteristic features of the above-mentioned ancient Catholic Fathers. These fathers did not notice a significant change in the state of affairs. The period of enthusiasm in Christianity has passed, i.e., the time has passed when, in revealing the teaching, teachers of Christianity could refer to the gifts of the Spirit belonging to them as proof of the correctness of their words: prophecy, vision, "knowledge." Now it was necessary to turn to such instances as Tradition, as reason. But these Fathers did not notice this and did not think about how to reconcile the requirements of rational theology (reason) with Tradition. They knew one thing for sure: it was necessary to guard against Gnostic science, from philosophical-theological formulas. But this precaution was in fact in vain. No matter how much Irenaeus avoided speculation, he naively gives place to speculation next to the established positions of faith, which formally do not differ from the speculations of apologists or, what is the same thing, of the Gnostics. The Fathers in question, at any rate, did not create a theology in the strict sense of the word. For them, theology is an explained faith, but it is not so (see below for the Alexandrian school). The result of the dogmatic thought of the Fathers in question was a simple interweaving of articles of faith that lacked a strict style, a definite principle, and a firm unifying goal. This kind of creed is especially clear in Tertullian. Tertullian was still quite incapable of uniting his rational theology, which he developed as an apologist, with the Christological propositions of the regulai fidei, which he took and defended against heresy on the basis of Scripture and Tradition. If he ever tries to justify the inner necessity of these articles of faith, he seldom goes beyond rhetorical propagation and sacred paradoxes (?). He was not a systematic thinker, but a cosmologist, a moralist, and a virtuoso advocate of Tradition, and therefore his theology, if that is the name of his theological verbosity, lacks unity; it is a mixture of contradictory and often contradictory statements; there is nothing like the older theology of Valentinus or the later theology of Origen. In Tertullian everything goes apart; Problems arose as quickly as they were solved. We would search almost in vain for inner principles and goals. The great work of Irenaeus in this respect is much superior to the theological writing of Tertullian. However, Irenaeus did not succeed in summing up the matter given by the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and the rule of faith, according to his basic point of view on redemption; In addition, its archaic eschatological details do not fit together, and very much, for example, the thoughts and formulas of Ap. Paul, he completely lost his character. His speculations are in some respects closely related to Gnostic speculations. In his theological explanations, in general, very diverse elements can be seen: the most ancient Christian motifs and hopes, the letter of the Two Testaments, the moral and philosophical element (the heritage of the apologists), and the realistic element. Such an eclectic method appeared in the great teacher by accident, it is the result of a "happy blindness" that did not allow him to see the abyss that had formed between Christian Tradition and the circle of ideas in which they began to live now. In any case, Irenaeus in this method indicated the method of future Christian theology. Tertullian and Hippolytus wrote under the influence of Irenaeus. Both of them adopted from him the early Christian-eschatological and rationalistic elements, which later merged into one whole in the West, but only Tertullian borrowed very little from Irenaeus, and Hippolytus completely remained behind Irenaeus. The immediate useful consequence of the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus is the preservation of the faithful from antiquity, and the rational treatment of certain dogmas which gradually arose in Christianity. Mainly, Irenaeus formed a number of theological schemes that were of great importance in the future. The rapid Hellenization of the Gospel teaching, which took place in the Gnostic systems, was prevented by Irenaeus and his followers, because they preserved and saved a large part of the ancient Christian Tradition, either in the letter or in the spirit, and saved it for the future. But this preservation was bought at the price of the adoption of a whole series of Gnostic schemes: they slowly entered the circle of views of their enemies, but inevitably had to enter this circle, because they deviated more and more from the early Christian mood and thought and passed more and more to a different way of view. They preserved most of the ancient Tradition for future Christianity, but at the same time they contributed to the gradual Hellenization of Christianity" (S. 422-429, 435-437).

Clement and Origen (Alexandrian School). What Irenaeus and his successors did not do, Clement and Origen did: they created Christian dogmatics. "Gnosis, i.e., Greek religious philosophy, for Clement was not only a means of combating paganism and heresy, but it also served him as a means of revealing and proving the sublimity and inner qualities of Christianity. Clement submitted himself to the authority of Church Tradition, but spiritually clung to it only after a scientific and philosophical treatment of it. His great work (Stromata) is the first attempt—and, to tell the truth, the most daring literary enterprise in the history of the Church—to depict Christianity as on the basis of the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and Church Tradition, and on the basis of the assumption that Christ, as the Universal Mind, is the source of all truth. This attempt satisfied the scientific requirements for philosophical ethics and philosophical worldview – it was not for nothing that it was intended for educated people – and at the same time gave a rich disclosure of the content of faith for ordinary believers. In form and content, there is a scientific, Christian religious teaching that does not contradict faith, which not only in some cases strengthens and explains faith, but also elevates faith to another higher spiritual sphere, namely, it transfers faith from the realm of authority and subordination to the realm of pure knowledge and spiritual inner disposition arising from the love of God. The influence of Gnosticism, especially that of Valentinus, had a strong effect on Clement. This influence can be seen in Clement's understanding of his task (to present Christianity as theology), in the definition of a formal principle, and in the way in which problems are solved. But Clement is much higher than Valentinus, especially because he brought the whole range of problems under the unity of principle. The significance of Clement is expressed in the following: with Clement the knowledge of God (Gottesgelehrsamkeit) became the highest degree of piety, the highest philosophy of the Greeks was placed under the protection and protection of the Church, and at the same time the entire cultural life of the Greeks found sanction in the sphere of Christianity. The Logos is Christ, but the Logos is all that is moral and rational at all stages of the development of mankind. In judging Clement's worldview, one cannot but admit that Church Tradition occupies an inferior place in comparison with Hellenic religious philosophy. Clement prepared the ground for the creation of Christian theology, but did not create it. This was done by Origen, who, relying on the works of Clement, was able to give a systematic treatment of the catholic Tradition. Among the theologians of Christian antiquity, Origen and Augustine occupy the most significant and influential position. Origen is the father of science in the broad sense of the word, and at the same time the founder of that theology which reached its completion in the fourth and fifth centuries, and which in the sixth century rejected its culprit, without losing the seal which Origen had placed upon it. He created church dogmatics and laid the foundation for the science of the sources of the Jewish and Christian religions. He proclaimed the reconciliation of science with the Christian faith, of higher culture with the Gospel teaching on the soil of the Church, and most of all contributed to the fact that the ancient world was acquired for the Church. He adhered to the methods prevailing in the schools of Valentinus and the Neoplatonists. The history of dogmas and the history of the Church for the following centuries in the East is simply the history of Origen's philosophy. Arians and Orthodox, critics and mystics, clergy and monasticism, all referred to Origen and did not abandon this authority. Origen created a system that reconciled the church faith with Greek philosophy (S. 505-510, 512-515, 555).

In nothing is the Hellenization of the teaching of the Church of the second and third centuries more clearly manifested than in the teaching of the Logos. In Christian societies around the middle of the second century, there were two views of the person of Christ: the Adoptian one, according to which Christ was considered a man in whom the Divinity or spirit of God dwelt (temporarily), and the pneumatic one, according to which Jesus was revered as a (special) heavenly Spirit who took upon Himself a body. This last view was accepted by the apologists. But during the second century neither one nor the other view prevailed in the Church, since both of them found their basis in the Gospels: the first in the Synoptics, the second in John. In any case, the second, as a reception among apologists, was more in line with the spirit of the times: they wanted to recognize Christ as a special divine being. Soon this understanding of the person of Christ merged with the Greek-philosophical concept of the Logos. There was even a replacement of one concept with another. And this substitution of the concept of the Logos for the vague concept of the heavenly Spirit was very advantageous for Christian theology. Through the definition of the heavenly Spirit in Christ as the Logos, the concept of this Spirit as the highest and unique of its kind is clarified and affirmed. The theologians who allowed such a substitution were not afraid that they were preparing a danger to monotheism in this way, because the concept of the Logos contained too broad a content. But the development of this doctrine met with strong opposition in the so-called monarchians. The monarchians sought to defend the Synoptics' view of Christ (against the Gospel of John) and wanted to argue against the too great influence of Plato's philosophy on doctrine. But the protest of the monarchians was fruitless. Logology has taken root in the Church. The victory of logology in the Church is the victory of Neoplatonism over other philosophies in the field of Christian theology. And this should be considered a happy event for the Church. Neoplatonism in the third century prevailed over all other philosophical systems; and if the Christian Church has entered into an exclusive union with him, she has done what she ought to do. Thanks to Neoplatonism, Christianity became a world religion. And if the theology of the monarchists had won, then an abyss would have arisen between the Church and Hellenism" (S. 560-564, 578).