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).

Such is Harnack's "construction" of the history of the Church in the first three centuries.

At the end of the volume under consideration, Harnack does not summarize his conclusions and propositions, and thus deprives the reader of the opportunity to check whether everything is understood by him (the reader) as the author should have wished.

AUDIATUR ET ALTERA PARS

In intending to make an analysis of Harnack's historical theory, as expressed in the first volume of his work, we wish that our analysis should be accessible and intelligible to everyone, and therefore we will not be given room for a scrupulous and literalist criticism. We will not analyze the author's private thoughts and particular propositions, because if we were to undertake this task, our work would be more complicated, and the result would be the most thankless. No matter how hard we tried to analyze Harnack's book, we would analyze only a smaller part of what it contains (perhaps a twentieth or a smaller part of the book), and therefore we would not achieve the goal in the least, we would not make a convincing judgment, since most of the content of the book would remain untouched by criticism. For a factual criticism of Harnack's entire book, it would be necessary to write more than one volume. One would have to fight with the author, armed with both elementary and specialized information from several theological sciences: St. Scripture in the broad sense of the word, patristics, canon law, dogmatics, and church history proper. But such a task cannot find a hunter for itself.

Freeing ourselves from a petty, factual and textual analysis of Harnack's work, we will consider his work from a more general point of view and mainly from the point of view of the method followed by the German historian in clarifying the course of the history of the most ancient Church. The goal of criticism, it seems to us, will be achieved, but in the shortest way. Of course, we cannot avoid not analyzing this or that small fact, a particular thought in a book. But this will be a passing matter.

Harnack begins his book with a picture of the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. But the teaching of Christ is presented in his book as extremely poor. We must, however, say that Harnack is not far from thinking that the Founder of Christianity had no teaching at all. An outline of the teaching of Jesus Christ, as this teaching seems to Harnack, we compiled in the exposition of the content of the book of this scientist on the basis of the text of the book. But in the notes to this text, Harnack doubts the authenticity and authenticity of even those views of Christ that are attributed to Him in the text. Thus, the German scholar doubts whether Jesus Christ declared Himself to be the Messiah, finding that this part of the Gospel Tradition still requires the strictest criticism (S. 49). Harnack, furthermore, is not sure that Jesus Christ taught about His second coming, even in the simple form in which he, a German scholar, expounds this teaching. "What Christ said on the eschatological question, and what was not said by Christ, but came from His disciples, no one can say anything about this," remarks the German historian (S. 51). Christ, as Harnack teaches in the notes, did not give any institutions that would serve as a distinctive feature of the society of Christians. That Christ did not institute the sacraments of baptism is clearly and directly stated by Harnack (S. 56); and as for the sacrament of Communion, whether Christ instituted this sacrament, this scholar says neither yes nor no (inclining to naught), on the pretext that the meaning of Christ's words about the Body and Blood is "difficult to understand" (S. 51). But what follows from the facts we have just cited? And it follows that Harnack completely abolished the person of the Founder of Christianity; and from this, in turn, it follows that Harnack writes his history without having a starting point, or more precisely, that his starting point is empty space. But here is the question: Does Harnack have the right to take empty space as the starting point? No, it does not, at least we are sure that it does not. Why didn't he use the Gospels to depict Jesus Christ? He has his own reasons for this, but these reasons are partly unfounded, but understandable, and partly unfounded and incomprehensible. He does not recognize the Gospels of the Synoptics as authentic. As for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, he asserts that they were for a long time considered in the Church to be non-apostolic works, and only about the middle of the second century did they begin to be considered the works of the above-mentioned apostles (S. 273). He also denies the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke, since it was unknown even to Marcion with the name of Luke (middle of the second century), but allegedly received this name later (S. 179). Such reasoning, let us assume, is completely unfounded, but we at least understand why Harnack did not use the synoptics in expounding the preaching of Christ. Harnack is the son of his ultra-Protestant milieu, where this is precisely how the historical character of the Synoptics is viewed; And we may sincerely wish that he would not slavishly follow others, but we cannot demand it. Another kind of question is: why does Harnack not use the Gospel of John as a source? Does he deny the authenticity of this monument as well, as he rejects the Synoptics? It does not reject and does not recognize. He only says: "The origin of John's writings, considered from the literary and dogmatic-historical side, constitutes the wisest riddle posed by the most ancient history of Christianity" (S. 66). Thus, Harnack does not know what point of view to hold on the origin of the Gospel of John. But what of the fact that he does not know this? Does it follow from the fact that the Gospel of John, in its origin, is "the wisest riddle"—does it follow from this that the historian may not use this Gospel at all in expounding the teaching of Jesus Christ? Harnack thinks so. He completely leaves aside the Gospel of John, as if it did not exist in the world. It is scarcely necessary to prove how little foundation there is in such an act of a learned historian. To do so means not to know the most elementary requirements of science. If the author does not understand how to solve the "most intricate riddle" regarding the Gospel of John, then he first had to think of some solution, and only then write a history of the Christian development of the first centuries. Now it is clear to us why the teaching of Jesus Christ (even in the text of Harnack's book) is so poorly presented. In the exposition of Christ's teaching, the testimony of the chief witness to Christ's preaching, the testimony of the Gospel of John, is not taken into account, and is not accepted for reasons that are completely incomprehensible.

The circle of truths in which the "first generation of Christ's disciples" lived, i.e., His apostles, His immediate disciples, and apostolic followers, is also excessively scarce in Harnack. A few very simple truths, almost not new—this is the gospel in which the "first generation" of believers in Jesus believed and moved. Could it be that Harnack, from his point of view, could not have found such monuments that would testify to a wider range of beliefs of the first followers of Christ? It was difficult for him to find such monuments, but in any case he could have found them if he had wanted to. How difficult it was for him to find such monuments can be judged from the proscription with which he subjected most of the canonical writings concerning the history and teaching of the apostolic age with a single stroke of the pen (do not look for proofs in Harnack): the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles is not authentic (but on what page and in what expressions the author speaks about this, I do not remember); the conciliar epistle of James, in its original form, is the preaching of some early Christian enthusiastic prophet, and only later in Tradition it received the name of James, therefore, it is not authentic; Peter's first conciliar epistle was originally a letter from an unknown Paulinist (a follower of the Apostle Paul), and then in Tradition it received the name of St. Paul. Peter, therefore, is not genuine; the second epistle of Peter is a very late work, published after the middle of the second century; the Epistles of John represent, in their origin, "the most intricate riddle"; the conciliar epistle of Jude, in all likelihood, was originally a letter from an unknown Paulinist and was later attributed to St. Paul. Judas, therefore, is again not genuine; all the so-called Pastoral Epistles of Paul occurred shortly before 180, are not authentic; The Epistle to the Hebrews was originally a letter from an unknown man or Barnabas (it is noteworthy that Harnack is ready to attribute this Epistle to Barnabas, and he considers the Epistle attributed to Barnabas to be a forgery), and then it was remade into the Epistle of St. Paul. Paul; Especially about the Apocalypse of John, the author notes that originally it did not have any John as its writer (i.e., neither Apostle John, nor the presbyter John, to whom it was sometimes assimilated by the ancients), only about the middle of the second century it acquired the significance of the work of Ap. John, after the name of John was included in the text of the Apocalypse (S. 273, 275, 279). Needless to say, after such a sweeping rejection of the authenticity of more than ten New Testament writings relating to apostolic times, it is very difficult to compile a detailed exposition of the teaching of the apostles and other early followers of Christ. It is impossible to write history without monuments – this is self-evident. But the reader, of course, noticed that Harnack's proscription sheet did not include many of the epistles of St. Paul. Paul, which provide a great deal of data to characterize the beliefs of the "first generation" of Christians. Why and why? The matter is murky, in need of explanation. Harnack rejected the above-mentioned New Testament writings (which we have enumerated) as the sources of his work, because they are considered inauthentic by the rationalist clique of German theologians: he is an admirer of rationalistic German theology, and therefore his peremptory supposedly scientific verdicts are seized on the fly and obediently submit to them. Even rationalist theologians recognize their authenticity. Judging by many examples, it can be argued that Harnack would have sung from someone else's voice if one of his brethren had declared all of Paul's epistles to be spurious, but this is not the case. No one dares to deny the authenticity of all Paul's epistles. What was left for Harnack to do? Not to declare them false himself? It remained, standing firmly on the ground of his science, to recognize the majority of Paul's epistles as authentic, and on the basis of them to depict the nature of the teaching of the "first generation" of believers in Christ. But Harnack did not want to do this. (We will talk about why a little later.) Harnack decided at all costs to deny Paul's epistles any influence on church doctrine up to the end of the second or even the beginning of the third century. More than once he appeals to the benevolent reader and urges him to forget the epistles of Paul, that "former Pharisee." The reader listens to Harnack's speeches, but is perplexed and even simply does not believe the learned German professor. The author begins from the very first pages of his book to assure the reader that Paul's epistles remained for a long time as if under a bushel and had no influence on the dogmatic education of the Church. He says: "Paul's understanding of Christianity did not bear traces of Greek influence (and is it necessary? — A. L.). In this property of Paul's teaching lies the reason why nothing of it has passed into the general consciousness of Christians, except the idea of the universality of salvation, and therefore it is impossible to explain the further development of the Church by Paulinism" (S. 41). How new it is! Other Western rationalist scholars deduce the entire development of Christianity from Paul's theology and assert that "Paul is the Christ" of Christianity, while Harnack asserts that Paul's teaching did not have any reception and dissemination in the early Christian societies. It is difficult to get to the truth if we take the leaders of modern German scientists of a rationalistic nature, and their name is legion. Yes, let us suppose that Paul did not have an influence on the dogmatics of the primitive Church, as Harnack wishes, but Paul himself lived in apostolic times and revealed very many Christian beliefs with remarkable completeness; Why did the author not deign to say anything about him and his teaching in the exposition of the first Christian dogmatics? Paul and his dogmatics are facts to which the historian of the apostolic age must pay attention if he does not want to fool the reader. But let us see further how Harnack evades in order to obtain for himself the right not to expound Paul's teaching and to deny any influence of it on the Church from the first times of its existence. Explaining his words now, Harnack assures the reader that the historical traces of the Church's acquaintance with Paul's teaching are so "general that they cannot be represented in a definite image" (S. 42); "Pauline theology," says Harnack, "is not identical with the original teaching of the Gospel, nor with any form of later doctrine" (S. 93). In short, the author is very anxious to persuade the reader to forget as much as possible about Paul's epistles, for they interfere with Harnack's work. When were Paul's epistles finally discovered in the history of Christianity? When and who was the first to appreciate this invaluable treasure? This happened, in Harnack's opinion, no earlier than the middle of the second century, and these epistles were brought out of oblivion by the Gnostics, the Marcionites and the Encratites: "Paulinic theology took its place among them" (S. 424). This is the beneficence that the Marcionites and Encratites have done to Christendom. As soon as the attention of these heretics was first drawn to the Pauline Epistles, then the Orthodox Church, he argues, could no longer ignore the Pauline Epistles. But at first the discovery of the Pauline Epistles caused a great deal of trouble for Orthodox writers: the latter could not adapt themselves in their views to ideas that were unusual for them (S. 280)... From all these arguments of Harnack's, one thing is clear to the reader: this scholar did not want to give Paul's theology a place in the history of the Church until the end of the second century.