Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Philosophical Thought
Reference:

Metaphysical attributes in natural theology Archpriest Fyodor Golubin

Ermolaev Tikhon Markovich

ORCID: 0000-0002-0910-4004

Master of Theology, Postgraduate student of the Theology Department of the Moscow Theological Academy

141300, Russia, Moscow region, Sergiev Posad, Lavra Territory, Academy

ermolaev.tikhon@yandex.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8728.2024.12.72668

EDN:

VLWIQZ

Received:

06-12-2024


Published:

13-12-2024


Abstract: The article presents a historical-philosophical and historical-theological analysis of the main topics of natural theology in the philosophical heritage of Archpriest Fyodor Golubinsky, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy (1798–1854). This research examines the doctrine of Divine attributes, which is one of the key sections of natural theology. This teaching by Golubinsky serves as the basis for the next section of his system devoted to Divine Providence, therefore, the study of the doctrine of the properties of God is necessary for a full understanding of the apologetic heritage of the professor. The focus of the research is on metaphysical divine attributes, they are common to theistic religious traditions. The article refers to pre-revolutionary spiritual and academic education, the study of which is necessary for a better orientation in the domestic educational space. A study of the legacy of Archpriest Fyodor Golubinsky confirms that the topic of Divine attributes has traditionally been taught in both dogmatic and rational theology. This underlines the importance of integrating philosophical and theological aspects in the training of the clergy, which, in turn, can have an impact on modern theological discourse and its development. The work uses general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, comparison, systematic approach, etc.), as well as special (historical-theological and historical-philosophical). It should be noted that spiritual and academic natural theology remains almost unexplored when various topics of rational theology are actively being developed in the modern scientific space. Being an extraordinarily erudite teacher and scientist, Golubinsky integrated Orthodox religious experience into a wide theological and philosophical context, enriching domestic humanitarian and theological spaces with many fundamental Christian provisions, while preserving the methodology of natural theology. This article highlights the main sources that influenced the formation of his teaching on the metaphysical properties of God. The article highlights the strengths of the professor's constructions, in particular, in the context of substantiating the attribute of simplicity, about which active discussions are underway in the modern scientific space. The need for further research on this issue is emphasized.


Keywords:

metaphysics, Infinity, Moscow Theological Academy, rational theology, natural theology, Divine attributes, metaphysical attributes, theistic predicates, christianity, realism

This article is automatically translated.

The place of the doctrine of Divine attributes in natural theology prot. Fedor Golubinsky

In the modern theological space, there are several positions regarding the issue of defining such a subject area as natural theology. British theologian Alistair McGrath identifies four main views on the subject of what, in essence, is natural theology. First, McGrath writes, it is an enterprise that proceeds from premises that do not presuppose religious beliefs, and uses various resources, such as reason, imagination, intuition (etc.) to justify the rationality of faith in God. Here, the British theologian makes reference to the position of William Alston, who, by the way, defines natural theology as "an attempt to provide support for religious beliefs by accepting as starting points provisions that are not religious beliefs and are not related to such" [19, p. 696]. Secondly, natural theology is an enterprise that proceeds from a careful study of the so-called "Book of Nature", is supplemented by the study of Holy Scripture and does not contradict other areas of theology. In the second definition, the author refers to Robert Boyle. Thirdly, natural theology explores the relationship between scientific knowledge and faith in God, as Joseph Butler writes in his writings. And finally, within the framework of natural theology, McGrath notes, referring to George Morley, there is an attempt to understand nature from the standpoint of Christianity. Thus, we can talk about the subject area of natural theology in different keys [see: McGrath, Alister. 'Natural Theology' // St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology. Edited by Brendan N. Wolfe et al. https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/NaturalTheology]. Charles Taliaferro notes that the main purpose of natural theology is "to promote a theistic understanding of God" [see: Taliaferro ch. The project of natural theology // New natural theology / Translated from English M., 2014. p. 2.].

One of the leading modern Russian experts in the field of rational theology, V. K. Shokhin, suggests considering natural theology in a narrow and broad sense. Thus, natural theology in a narrow sense is a subject area that studies traditional theological issues such as the existence of God, the attributes of God, the actions of God in relation to the world, without referring to the Holy Scriptures using only the natural abilities of the human mind. In a broad sense, natural theology is one of the fields of scientific research that proceeds from the fact that man naturally possesses true knowledge about God. Thus, natural theology in a broad sense is a set of experiences of understanding the boundaries of natural knowledge of God.

In the Christian paradigm, when defining the subject area of natural theology, one should proceed from a certain interpretation of the very concept of nature, or nature, which was distorted by the fall, but did not lose, as V. K. Shokhin puts it, "original grace", thereby stating the very possibility of natural theology as a discipline related to the field of Christian theology. On the emergence of the term natural theology of the sacred. Dmitry Lushnikov writes that it was introduced by "a representative of medieval scholasticism, the scot Nikolai Bonetus, the author of the treatise of the same name, created by him in 1330 and published in 1505" [12, p. 78]. Another researcher, S. V. Month, connects the appearance of the term in question with the name of Marcus Terecius Varro, who, by the way, influenced the blj. Augustine, who distinguished three parts of theology: fabulous theology, civil theology and, in fact, natural (from Latin naturalis) theology, as well as other earlier teachers of the Church, for example, Tertullian. It is not difficult to make sure that the very subject of natural theology has ancient historical roots dating back to the times of antiquity.

It should be noted that Archpriest Fyodor calls the ancient field of natural theology under consideration "speculative theology." However, of course, this is natural theology. To substantiate this statement, it can be noted that as a methodological basis, Archpriest Fyodor used a textbook on metaphysics by H. Baumeister, in which natural theology acted as one of the constituent elements (this will be discussed in more detail in the article). Also, his student V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, who replaced prot. After his blessed death, Fedor took over the sequence of topics from his teacher at the Department of Metaphysics, and already in the second section of metaphysics he called this direction precisely "natural theology". In addition, modern researchers, such as Abramov and priest Dmitry Lushnikov and other researchers of pre-revolutionary spiritual and academic rational theology, unequivocally assert that speculative theology of the proto- Fyodor Golubinsky is, in fact, a natural theology.

The materials used to analyze the ideological heritage of the founder of the tradition of teaching natural theology at the Moscow Theological Academy, prot. By Fyodor Golubinsky, there are courses of lectures on philosophy and speculative theology recorded by his students. Note that fr. Fyodor did not leave behind any of his own writings, the exception is the work "The Wisdom and goodness of God in the destinies of the world and mankind. (On the final causes)", published in collaboration with Professor D. G. Levitsky [10, 320 p.].

So, the lecture courses published by the professor's students represent a metaphysical teaching, the main characteristic of which is the integrity of theological and philosophical elements built on the principle of constructive synthetism. Yu. I. Romankov characterizes the synthetism of Prof. Golubinsky's constructive synthetism is based on rational and irrational components that combine discursivity and analyticism with intuitionism and even mysticism [18, p. 143]. The work of F. H. Baumeister (1698-1785) "Metaphysics" influenced the formation of the structure of the professor's course. In the era under review, this work was popular in Russia; it is interesting to observe A. I. Abramov that Baumeister's work "Metaphysics" ""broke" almost all records of philosophical publications" in Russia [4, pp. 232-233]. It should be noted that the influence of F. H. Baumeister on the prot. Fedor's was methodological, and his perception was critical. Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy S. S. Glagolev (1865-1937) noted that Baumeister's writings were popular in Russia and that they contained much that was contrary to the Christian spirit. S. S. Glagolev attributes fr. Fedor has the merit that the latter revealed mistakes and offered his own criticism to thinkers of various philosophical and religious trends, and, as noted by Prof. Glagolev did it with love and without irritation [7, p. 42].

The work of F. H. Baumeister "Metaphysics" is structured according to the following plan [6, p. 3]: (1) ontology, (2) cosmology, (3) psychology, (4) natural theology. The structure of metaphysics prot. Theodora Golubinsky is presented in a different way [9, p. 74]: (1) ontology, (2) natural theology, (3) psychology, (4) cosmology. Thus, natural theology in the legacy of Fr. Fedor is a structural part of metaphysical teaching, which corresponded to a certain view of the subject that was formed during the period of the second Scholasticism in the second half of the XVI century in the theology of P. Fonseca (1528-1599) and F. Suarez (1548-1617) [19, pp. 710-711]. Prot. Fyodor expressed the truth of the Christian faith in a single philosophical system and, as N. N. Glubokovsky accurately noted, became "not just a Christian philosopher, but specifically a philosopher of Christianity" [8, p. 42].

The natural theology of F. H. Baumeister is represented by 5 departments: (1) the existence of God, (2) the essence and properties of God, (3) the mind, (4) the will, and (5) the actions of God. The subject area of natural theology includes "all our knowledge of God and His perfections acquired by reason" [6, p. 205]. Father Fyodor modified the structure of Baumeister's natural theology, distinguishing 3 departments: (1) on being, (2) on properties, and (3) on the actions of God. Golubinsky writes: "Speculative theology is a systematic knowledge of God, that is, of His being, properties and actions, which can be compiled under the guidance of ideas of the mind through observations of internal and external experience" [9, p. 346]. So, the topic of Divine attributes, to which this article is devoted, is one of the main ones in Golubinsky's system of natural theology. Before proceeding to it, it is necessary to clarify what serves as the basis for the theological and philosophical constructions of Archpriest Fyodor on this issue.

What is the basis of the doctrine of Divine attributes in the lectures of the proto. Fyodor Golubinsky?

The question of on what epistemological grounds the prot is formed. The doctrine of Divine attributes by Fyodor is fundamental within the framework of this study. The section "on the properties of God", as well as "on the actions of God", is based on the teaching of the proto. Fedor on the proofs of the existence of God, i.e. on the first section of natural theology "on being", as well as on the ontology and epistemology of the professor. Despite the fact that the topic of evidence of the existence of God is not the subject of this study, it seems completely impossible to avoid it.

The professor defended Anselm's formulation of the ontological proof criticized by Kant. From the point of view of epistemology, the professor was a realist. He does not agree with the criticism of the German idealist Kant of this argument. In order to illustrate the fundamental differences of realism, prot. Fedor and Kant's idealism, one can resort to a very valuable interpretation of the expression of absolute realism by S. L. Frank of the formula of R. Descartes "cogito, ergo sum [translated from Latin. I think, therefore, I exist]." He writes that from the above Cartesian expression it follows that "in the face of consciousness, a being has been revealed, which is no longer "given" indirectly, not through the medium of its consciousness, but completely directly – a being that we "know" precisely because we ourselves are this being" [23, p. 158]. It is noteworthy that the very formula of the idealist R. Descartes goes back to Neoplatonism. Plotinus writes:

Νοοῦντες αὑτοὺς βλέπομεν δηλονότι νοοῦσαν φύσιν, ἢ ψευδοίμεϑα, ἂν τὸ νοεῖν. Εἰ οὖν νοοῦμεν καὶ ἑαυτοὺς νοοῦμεν, νοερὰν οὖσαν φύσιν νοοῦμεν" πρὸ ἄρα τῆς νοησεως ταύτης ἄλλη ἐστὶ νόησις οἷον ἥσυχος. Καὶ οὐσίας δὴ νόησις καὶ ζωῆς νόησις: ὥστε πρὸ ταύτης τῆς ζωῆς καὶ οὐσίας ἄλλη οὐσία καὶ ζωή. Ταῦτα ἄρα εἶδεν, ὅσα ἐνέργειαι. Εἰ δὲ νόες αἱ ἐνέργειαι αἱ κατὰ τὸ νοεῖν οὕτως ἑαντούς, τὸ νοητὸν ἡμεῖς οἱ ὄντως. Ἢ δὲ νόησις ἡ αὐτῶν τὴν εἰκόνα φέρει.» (III, 9, 6)

this text can be translated into Russian as follows:

When we think of ourselves, we obviously see a thinking nature, otherwise we are deceived into thinking that there is thinking. If, nevertheless, we think, and we think of ourselves, then we think of nature, which thinks; therefore, before this [thinking thinking|thinking there is another, so to speak, silent thinking. This is the thinking of the essence and the thinking of life, so that before this essence and before this life there is another essence and another life. So they are those that are seen as activities. If the activities engaged in thinking of oneself, as thinking, are minds, then we, as beings— are the intelligible [of these activities of minds, i.e. souls]. Their thinking gives [us] an image [16, pp. 469-470].

Note that V. P. Lega argues that another translation is also possible: "otherwise we would be mistaken in thinking" [11, p. 55] (III, 9, 6). By the way, the above text of Plotinus goes back to Aristotle, who writes: "Therefore, the mind thinks for itself, if only it is the most excellent and its thinking is thinking about thinking" [5, p. 373] (XII, 9), then Aristotle continues with the words: "Since, therefore, what is comprehended by thought and mind are not different from each other, which has no matter, then they will be the same, and thought will be one with the comprehended thought" [5, p. 373] (XII, 9).

So, in Plotinus's words, "thinking of ourselves, we obviously see a thinking nature, otherwise we would be mistaken in thinking," we see a fundamental difference between realism and idealism. The difference between them is not that the former denies being, and the latter recognizes it; this difference lies in the question, where is being recognized? According to S. L. Frank, within the framework of idealism, the existence of consciousness is recognized, while realism recognizes both the existence of consciousness and being outside consciousness [23, p. 158].

O. Fedor expounds his own epistemological teaching in the section of metaphysics "ontology", which is divided into 2 parts: the first examines the question of the existence of objects cognizable through the senses, the second part is devoted to the substantiation of the existence of the Infinite, which is presented in O. Fedor's system as the basis of all being [9, pp. 82-83]. Epistemological realism prot. Fedor is formulated against the background of a critical analysis of the teachings of idealists and skeptics. The professor begins the ontology section with the question, "does anything exist" [9, p. 83]? Next, fr. Fyodor points out the fallacy of the positions of idealists and skeptics, who were not guided by the logic according to which being "is the first known of itself" [9, p. 83].

Prot. Fyodor criticizes Kant's idealism, in which consciousness, not being, is taken as the basis. Prot. Fyodor, as a realist, considers the epistemology of the German thinker to be one-sided. The professor writes: "Kant defines being as follows: ... "being is something that really excites ideas in actual experience," but this definition is one-sided" [9, p. 86]. O. D. Machkarina notes that Golubinsky adopted from Kant that "human cognition always includes sensual contemplation, in particular which expresses the real relation of knowledge to the studied object; through the concept it [thing — i.e.] becomes the object of thought" [15, p. 163]. Despite the fact that Kant and Golubinsky agreed on the latter, their conclusions differ. In the field of epistemology, Prof. Golubinsky, as a realist, does not take consciousness as a basis, but direct existence itself, discovered through consciousness. The Infinite Being has an ontological status, since the concept of It is absolutely necessary, that is, what underlies the existence of every thing [9, p. 256]. Testifies to the Infinite being (1) "direct evidence of the mind", i.e. the a priori nature of this idea and (2) "mediocre ascent from works to cause" [9, p. 251], i.e. such thinking that is based on the laws of causality and sufficient reason [17, p. 102].

Regarding Kant's critique of ontological proof, O. Fedor writes: "If human thinking does not assimilate the concept of a necessary Being, then there will be no reason to believe in any existence" [9, p. 364]. These words are a logical conclusion from the metaphysical teaching of Prof. Golubinsky, in which it is justified that the transition from thought to being (in relation to the existence of God) is not a violation of the formal laws of logic, since on the basis of realism Prof. Golubinsky, "if the idea of the absolutely necessary necessarily exists in our spirit, then its subject has a real existence" [9, p. 365]. Also prot. Fyodor writes that Anselm of Canterbury did not call being a quality, as Kant claims, but expressed only that the concept of the Best Being combines: firstly, the fullness of perfections and, secondly, real being. Thus, prot. Fyodor criticizes I. Kant, saying that he misunderstood the provisions of Anselm [9, p. 365].

Having put an end to the problem of the epistemological foundations of the teaching of the proto. Fedora, let's move on to the topic of Divine attributes that is being sought in this article.

General information about the teaching of the proto. Fyodor Golubinsky on the properties of God

Recognizing the possibility of substantiating Divine properties through philosophical reason, the professor writes: "The history of philosophy and religion of all ages certifies that man, under the guidance of his own mind, has reached many true knowledge about God, which is confirmed by positive Revelation" [9, p. 413]. The second section of speculative theology ("on the properties of God") begins with the professor's justification of the research method, in which the comprehension of Divine attributes occurs without appeal to the Holy Scriptures. Father Fyodor admits that the teaching about God is possible exclusively from Revelation, because "only God can communicate knowledge about God" [9, p. 412]. Thus, as the main resource, the professor uses natural Revelation, which, being "universal", is "born and presented to everyone for reflection and active disclosure" [9, p. 412].

Further, the professor notes the nature and limits of obtaining knowledge about Divine attributes, which are formed in accordance with the method of natural theology. So, prot. Fyodor writes about the existence of two extremes: (1) the extreme of the "doubting mind", in which every possibility of knowing God is rejected, and (2) the extreme of the "overconfident mind", in which the possibility of fully knowing God is stated. It is known that skeptical philosophers came to the first extreme, as well as, as prof. Golubinsky, many Christians who concluded that through the light of natural Revelation it is impossible to know God. The rejection of the significance of natural Revelation, according to Fr. Fedor, is inconsistent and destructive due to the fact that the latter is the necessary seed that makes it possible to spread the Christian Logos to other cultural dimensions, because this Revelation is universal in nature and open to assimilation by every person. The other extreme of the presumptuous mind, which is associated with the names of the heretics Aetius and Eunomius, as well as the philosophers Spinoza and Hegel, cannot find a reasonable justification for itself, since the finite cannot embrace the Infinite, the opposite necessarily leads to the absurd conclusion that man is either equal to God or above Him, because it would be illogical to deny that "the equal is embraced only by the equal, the greater cannot be embraced by the lesser" [9, p. 415]. It is not difficult to notice that the position of the prot. Theodora fully corresponds to the Orthodox teaching on the nature and boundaries of the knowledge of God, formulated by the holy fathers in the IV and XIV centuries. Thus, in the spirit of the Orthodox tradition, the professor argues that it is necessary to adhere to the middle path in relation to the two extremes, because (1) "God himself planted knowledge of the existence of God in everyone's nature" and (2) it is impossible to know God exhaustively within the framework of the system, since "it is impossible for the finite to embrace the Infinite."

The main tasks of the second section of speculative theology are to answer the following: (1) "what is God and what are His properties in being and power"? and (2) "what are His spiritual perfections" [9, p. 417]?

The professor begins the solution of the problem with the formulation of a "general concept" about God, which is extracted from the idea of the mind, based on external and internal experiences. It should be noted that prot. Fyodor does not consider it possible to define God due to the fact that the Infinite cannot be defined. The general concept is presented as follows: "God is an infinite Being in being and spiritual perfections, the Author and Patron of the physical and spiritual world" [9, p. 417]. Thus, Prof. Golubinsky identifies 3 basic concepts about God: (1) God as infinite in being, (2) God as infinite in spiritual perfections, and (3) God as the Culprit and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds.

The classification of Divine attributes, which is proposed by the proto. Fedor is a standard one, he divides properties into two groups: (1) Divine properties that relate to detached being (i.e. metaphysical properties) and (2) Divine perfections belonging to God as the Most Perfect Spirit (i.e. theistic predicates). The rationale for this classification is based on Fedor based on the fact that the world is divided into physical and spiritual. "Just as these two worlds are different from each other, so, along the path of superiority (per viam eminentiae), one can distinguish in God himself the properties related to His detached being and power, and the perfections belonging to Him as an all—perfect Spirit" [9, p. 423], the professor writes.

Prot. Fyodor identifies the following properties related to detached existence: "a) the detached necessity of God's existence, b) independence, c) eternity and immutability, d) disembodied, immeasurable and omnipresent, e) omnipotence, f) the totality of all perfections (realitatum) to the highest degree, g) their simplicity and <...> indifference (indifferentia) and unity" [9, p. 421]. The professor refers to the Divine perfections belonging to God as the Most Perfect Spirit: "a) omniscience and wisdom, b) the highest freedom, holiness, goodness, justice and c) bliss" [9, p. 421]. This article is devoted to the teaching of the proto. Fedora on metaphysical attributes.

Prof. Golubinsky argues that the "common feature" of the Divine nature is infinity, which refers to all attributes of God. The idea of the Infinite, which exceeds all human cognitive abilities, is inseparable from the human mind. According to Golubinsky, the idea of the Infinite "is only a dark, secret premonition of the Infinite, and not a clear contemplation of It, it is a precocious, inexhaustible for certain concepts of reason, the idea of something unlimited" [9, p. 139]. In the ontology section, he offers an explanation of what the idea of the Infinite is: (1) by being and (2) by perfections. So, the idea of the Infinite in being is the idea of a Being that is not limited by (a) space or (b) time, i.e. a Being that has the properties of (a) immeasurability and omnipresence, (b) eternity and immutability. Sacred. Dmitry Lushnikov notes: "The attribute of infinity, although it is based on other divine properties, receives its own justification in the process of consistently presenting all of the above attributes" [13, p. 61], i.e. the doctrine of the Infinite as "the first and immediate beginning of all our knowledge", expressed in Golubinsky's ontology, finds The subsequent disclosure is in the 2nd section of natural theology, devoted to the properties of God [9, p. 142].

The Metaphysical properties of God

a) The attribute of the God of Necessity

Modern theologian V. K. Shokhin gives the following definition of this attribute: "Divine necessity is understood ... as that characteristic of God, which above all else distinguishes Him from all other beings that may or may not be, whereas His nature cannot be conceived without assuming that His non-existence is impossible" [20, p. 424]. In Golubinsky's system, the attribute of necessity, like any other attribute of God, opens from the very "idea of God as an Infinite Being" [9, p. 424]. Also, within the framework of this topic, you can refer to the section "ontology" of the proto. In which he writes: "The actual existence of all created beings is not necessary, just as the existence of an Infinite Being is necessary, which otherwise would not be Infinite" [9, p. 149]. Thus, from the very beginning of the consideration of Golubinsky's teaching, it is easy to notice that we are faced with an original interpretation of the classical concept of Divine attributes in the light of metaphysics about the Infinite being. The property of "necessary existence" in Golubinsky's system is directly related to the doctrine of ontological proof. As noted, Golubinsky is a proponent of the Anselmian ontological argument. The justification of the property of necessity is based on the epistemological attitude of realism (dating back to the philosophy of Neoplatonism), which found its application in the first section of natural theology "on the existence of God" (this was discussed above). Thus, according to Golubinsky, in God, essence and being are inextricably linked, because "if an infinite being does not have being, then It will be a being generated by our mind ..., a finite being" [96 p. 424]. Since the essence and being in God are inseparable, the Infinite being, i.e. God, has the attribute of necessity.

Also, the attribute of necessity is based on the basic premise of the cosmological argument in favor of the existence of God, in which, according to the laws of causality and sufficient reason, a conclusion to Unconditional existence occurs (from the discretion of the conditionality of the existence of each thing). Since experience itself testifies to the randomness of both my self and being outside of me, the logical consequence is that there cannot be an unconditionally necessary being, since it is the basis and sufficient reason for being accidental [9, p. 426]. The professor in the section "ontology" states: "The existence of God is necessary, because otherwise the existence of the world would not be possible" [9, p. 178]. Thus, the second thesis of the prot. Theodore on the attribute of necessity is a classic passage, which was expressed long before him by Thomas Aquinas in the third justification of the existence of God [22, p. 18]. It should be noted that before Thomas, the theme of necessity was developed by Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Sina and many others.

b) The attribute of independence

The attribute of independence according to Golubinsky means that He is not "embarrassed" in His own being by anything, neither substance nor force, and does not depend in his being on any other being. The justification of this attribute is based on the concept of God as an Infinite Being, "a dependent being cannot be infinite" [9, p. 427]. Also the immutability attribute of . Fyodor justifies by referring to the cosmological argument of the existence of God: the fundamental principle of the existence of every thing cannot be dependent in its being, because otherwise it is not necessary to talk about Unconditional existence. If we deny Unconditional existence, then "a whole series of beings must be represented as holding on to nothing" [9, p. 427]. Thus, we also come to the attribute of God of independence from the concept of the Infinite and on the basis of the laws of causality and sufficient reason.

c) Attributes of eternity and immutability

The substantiation of these attributes also takes place on the foundation of the professor's metaphysics. The categories of time and space are not applicable to the Infinite being, since the latter limit being. The concept of time belongs to the beginning, the end and continuity, it is impossible to fully express the essence in time, but, as Golubinsky says, only "little by little", because continuity implies the alternation of one state into another. Since "God is an Infinite Being, necessary [in which essence is inseparable from being — i.e.] and from himself (ens a se), He has no beginning, no end, no continuity, and therefore is eternal" [9, p. 430].

The attribute of immutability, according to Golubinsky, is a private disclosure of the attribute of Eternity. Prof. Golubinsky writes: "What the beginning, continues, can cease to be, is temporary; on the contrary, what does not have a beginning of being, does not increase during its continuation, does not acquire anything new, therefore, does not change, and what will never end is eternal" [9, p. 430]. Time is not a substance or some kind of independent being, it, according to the professor, "exists as a law limiting existence and life" [9, p. 430], therefore time must have a sufficient basis. According to the laws of causality and sufficient reason, we conclude that there must be a creator of time, who, by virtue of his own timelessness, is unchangeable.

d) Attributes of incorporeality, immeasurability and omnipresence

Prot. Fyodor justifies these attributes as follows: "The idea of God negates all concepts of space, place, figure, dimension, magnitude, as concepts of external limitations" [9, p. 431]. God is immaterial because we cannot see him through our senses, and also because He has no shape or figure. Also, the visible world cannot contain an Infinite being, because "the parts of the world do not constitute the Infinite" [9, p. 155].

O. Fedor draws a dividing line between the attributes of immeasurability and omnipresence. Within the framework of these properties, we state the general position that God is not limited by spatial dimensions. The difference within the two attributes lies in the fact that the property of immeasurability expresses the unlimited nature of God by the category of space, regardless of whether the world exists or does not exist, while the property of omnipresence "belongs to God in relation to the physical and moral world"; God is present everywhere, in every being, in every state and action of forces [9, p. 432].

Father Fyodor calls the "omnipresence" of God "marvelous", since, on the one hand, He is "nowhere", not confined anywhere, on the other hand, He is "everywhere", in the sense of "all-acting, all-preserving, all-containing". Further, the professor argues that distinguishing the omnipresence of God by actions and essence is incorrect, because it is impossible for God to separate action from essence [9, p. 434]. O. Fedor writes that such a distinction is possible in the actions of people, for example, kings who give commands that act without the presence of an active cause. There is no such limitation in God.

Another problem that prot solves. Fyodor Golubinsky, there is a question of God's presence in something that contradicts His perfections. Based on the concept of the Infinite, the professor argues: "God is present in vicious actions as the Preserver of the life of a vicious person, and, in particular, of his power by which he acts to evil; further, he is present as the all-seeing and Judge" [9, p. 434]. Thus, the omnipresence of God extends both in the physical and moral world, "it is impossible to imagine any place, any action or state where God would not be present" [9, p. 435], otherwise we would face a contradiction within the attribute of Infinity.

e) An attribute of God's omnipotence

This property, according to Golubinsky, means the power of God to produce into being "whatever God wants" [9, p. 435]. Also, within the framework of this attribute, the impossibility of any third-party constraint or restraint of God in His actions is stated. According to Golubinsky, this attribute can be proved a priori (from the analysis of the idea of the Infinite, from which it follows that God is an unlimited Being in being and perfections) and a posteriori (from the consideration of creation).

So, prot. Fedor offers a justification for the attribute of omnipotence, which is based on observations of the world. There are very powerful forces at work in the world that cannot bring themselves into being due to conditionality and limitations. These forces maintain harmony and order despite any destructive phenomena. "So, looking at the world leads us to believe that the Greatest Power contains everything in unity, connection and order. When we apply this force to the idea of the Infinite, we raise it to the infinite degree" [9, p. 438], the professor writes. The unity of the order of the world, the restoring force in the world, as well as the fact that the harmony of the world is not lost due to the prevailing destructive force in the world, pushes us to recognize a higher power. The professor writes:

"If there were no Supreme force that puts everything in order, then the opposition of finite forces, each of which does not have sovereignty over the others, would extend further and further, and the destruction that began could end with the cessation of some genera and species of beings, but this does not exist in nature" [9, p. 436].

Since we recognize the existence of a Higher Force that holds the world, we inevitably recognize that It is not subject to constraint or limitation, because the latter are not applicable to Infinite existence [9, p. 436].

f) The attribute of the God of Perfection

Prof. Golubinsky argues that based on the idea of the Infinite, we come to the conclusion that God is all-perfect, to God "belong in the highest and infinite degree all essences (realitates), without any limitation and imperfection" [9, p. 438].

According to our observation, the justification of this property, as well as all other properties, is consistent with the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, which, as we see it, in this case and in many others, was supplemented by its own metaphysical ideas. Thus, Aquinas, relying on Aristotle, answers the question "Is God the perfection of all things?" as follows:

"The effect actually pre–exists in its acting cause, and the pre–existence in the possibility of a material cause is the most imperfect pre-existence, for matter is imperfect, whereas the actor is perfect; therefore, the actual pre-existence in the acting cause is by no means imperfect, but, on the contrary, [quite] perfect pre-existence. And since God is the first active cause of things, the perfections of all things must necessarily pre–exist in God in the best possible way" [22, p. 47].

Prot. Fyodor Golubinsky notes that all the essences and perfections that we find in the world are not pure, they have an admixture of evil to good. It should be noted that Golubinsky's teaching about the attribute of the all-perfection of God was influenced by Plotinus' philosophy. According to Plotinus, the source of good is the One, and the things of the world are a combination of eidos and matter. Plotinus writes: "Matter becomes the mistress of everything that gets into it; it spoils it and destroys it, putting into it its own opposite nature; opposite not in the sense that it brings cold to the hot, but to the kind of hot it brings its formlessness, and to every form its formlessness, and its excess and lack – to the proportionate" (I, 8, 8). Indirect evidence that the professor refers to Plotinus in substantiating this attribute is the words of Fr. Fedor that "matter ... cannot be called evil", but in relation to spiritual forces it is "something insufficient and negative" [9, c. 440]. The fact is that within the framework of Christian dogmatics, matter cannot be called evil due to the provisions on the Divine Incarnation, Ascension and expectation of humanity for the Second Coming of the Savior... At the same time, as it is easy to see, Golubinsky finds some compromise between Platonism and Neoplatonism. So, the professor argues that flaws and deviations are possible due to the reason for the existence of a positive, or perfect. At the same time, according to Golubinsky, the human mind, being limited, cannot accommodate the fullness of God's perfections, which infinitely exceeds the human mind. Hence, proceeding from the concept of the Infinite, we say that God is not only the source of those perfections that we see in our lives, but also other "uncounted", completely "unexplored", "otherwise we would measure the fullness of the Divine nature by the limited measure of our experienced consciousness" [9, p. 439].

I would like to say that this passage can be considered from two positions: as something that is relevant to the theology of all-perfection, and as an aspect of Russian religious philosophy. I would like to offer some thoughts on the second one, which, in my opinion, may be useful for future research of Russian natural theology, which remains undiscovered and almost unexplored today. One of the key problems of natural theology is the justification of Divine Providence, which is closely related to the problem of evil. Russian religious philosophy, which has adopted Neoplatonic ideas traditional for Christian philosophy, considers evil as something that does not have an essence. In this context, it is especially important to study the legacy of Archpriest Fyodor Golubinsky, whose works undoubtedly influenced the constructions of future philosophers of Russia. The justification of this attribute introduces the apology of Providence into the context by appealing to actions (energies) God, which is characteristic of Christian thought and, in particular, Russian religious philosophy. It is from this paradigm that the talented student of Golubinsky V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov will proceed in the final section of natural theology "on the actions of God" [see: Kudryavtsev-Platonov V. D. On Providence // Addition to the Works of St. Nicholas. Fathers. 1871. Part 24. Book 1.]. In this regard, I would like to refer to the words of N. A. Berdyaev: "The European world, in its predominant part, has run out of faith in the possibility of the transfusion of divine energy into this world, in the most real, direct impact of divine forces on human life and humanity. <...> Orthodoxy is inherently and absolutely ontological. This ontologism contains the inner pathos of Orthodoxy. <...> In Western Christianity, in its relevance, in its turbulent history and in its great culture, ontologism has weakened, eroded, and there has been a separation from the origins of being. Orthodoxy invariably believes in the possibility of the transfusion of divine energy into the life of the world and humanity" [see: Berdyaev N. Russian Religious Idea // Problems of Russian religious consciousness. - Berlin: The YMCA PRESS Ltd., 1924. pp. 87-90.]. The appeal to the origins of the tradition of rational theological thought of the Moscow Theological Academy has not only an apologetic dimension, but also contributes to a better orientation in the Russian humanitarian space, in particular, in the question of how ontologism was formed in Russian religious philosophy.

g) The attribute of God of the highest unity

Prot. Fyodor argues that in God one can see unity in two sides: internal and external. The professor refers to the inner unity of the following concepts: simplicity, indifference of forces and perfections in the being of God. By external unity, according to Fr. Fedor, one should understand the exclusivity of God, i.e. that there is no one who would correspond to God.

Regarding Divine simplicity, the professor writes that all the perfections of God are distinguished by reason, while they form a single Essence [9, p. 443]. God is an Infinite being, therefore, "His every perfection and action can and should embrace and penetrate into all other perfections and actions" [9, p. 442], hence all properties merge "into perfect unity and identity". This interpretation of Divine simplicity correlates with the philosophy of Plotinus, who believed that there is no complexity in the One, because "The first should in no way be many: otherwise, Its multiplicity will depend again on the other — what is before It" (VI 8.12). A. R. Fokin writes on Plotinus' interpretation of Divine Simplicity: "In the One, the One itself and its action do not differ ..., since all its energies ... are "as if its essence" ..., as well as "its will is identical with its essence" [21, p. 66].

The external Divine unity is justified by the inconsistency of the concept of polytheism, within the framework of which the idea of God as the Most Perfect Being is destroyed; that being who is not the most perfect is not God.

Based on the research of A. R. Fokin, it can be seen that many holy fathers relied on Neoplatonic thought in substantiating the God's property of simplicity [21, pp. 60-96]. According to the expert, in the modern theological space in the West, "few people ... really imagine the history of the emergence and formation of this doctrine [of Divine simplicity — that is,], as a rule, limiting themselves to the names of blj. Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas" [21, p. 62]. Based on the proposed facts, we can assert that the constructions of Prof. Golubinsky's works on Divine simplicity are very valuable due to the depth of philosophical analysis. It should be noted that in his own speculative theology, Fr. Fedor does not mention Plotinus' name, but the conclusion about the latter's influence on the philosophy of the professor is beyond doubt. It is important to note that not every representative of modern theology shares the concept of Divine simplicity, their representatives are: A. Platinga [3, p. 47], R. Gale [1, p. 23], W. Hasker [2, p. 703], etc., which emphasizes the importance of conducting domestic rational theological discourse in the modern scientific context.

Conclusion:

In this article, the doctrine of the metaphysical attributes of the proto- Fyodor Golubinsky. The subject of Divine attributes is actively being developed in foreign rational theology. This article does not pretend to be a comprehensive study of the problem posed, but it outlines some prospects for further research in the field of Russian philosophy and rational theology. The article indicates that the epistemology of Archpriest Fyodor Golubinsky, which is certainly a significant phenomenon in Russian religious philosophy, has a rich apologetic potential, in particular, in the aspect of the subject of Divine attributes. This study notes the fundamental differences between the views of Golubinsky and Kant, therefore it is not difficult to make sure that the German philosopher did not put an end to this issue, but, conversely, was an important starting point for constructions in the field of rational theology. In this article, the appeal to the doctrine of the ontological proof of Golubinsky served as a springboard for the transition to the Divine attribute of necessity and other properties of God.

Also, special attention can be paid to the justification of the prot. Theodore of Divine simplicity. The value of the professor's philosophical arguments is determined by the use of a wide range of philosophical knowledge. A. R. Fokin notes that in the modern theological space in the West, "few modern authors really imagine the history of the emergence and formation of this doctrine [of Divine simplicity — i.e.], as a rule, limited to the names of blj. Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas" [21, p. 62]. Based on this study, we can assert that the constructions of Prof. Golubinsky's works on Divine simplicity are very valuable due to the depth of his philosophical analysis.

It should also be noted that the result of the work done by Fr. Fedor was the creation of his own theological teaching, meaningfully and methodologically corresponding to natural theology, the characteristics of which were logical harmony, inclusion in a whole metaphysical teaching, methodological and meaningful sequence of each section. The comprehension of Divine attributes takes place from the position of the philosophizing mind, which corresponds to the method of research of natural theology, the coherence of which the professor justified. Such consistency in the research methodology is not observed in the contemporary prot. St. Fyodor Innokenty (Borisov), who formulated the doctrine of the properties of God within the framework of natural theology on the basis of Holy Scripture [14, p. 274].

At the end of this inexhaustible topic, I would like to say that the doctrine of the Divine attributes of the proto. Fyodor Golubinsky is open to further thorough research to integrate his theological constructions into the modern scientific theological and philosophical context.

References
1. Gale, R. M. (1991). On the Nature and Existence of God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Hasker, W. (2016). Is Divine Simplicity a Mistake? American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 90(4).
3. Plantinga A. (1980). Does God Have a Nature? Mil.: Marquette University Press.
4. Abramov A. I. (2005). Christian Wolff in Russian Spiritual and Academic Philosophy. Collection of scientific works on the history of Russian philosophy. Moscow.
5. Aristotle. (2022). Metaphysics. Trans. from ancient Greek. A. Kubitsky. – Moscow: AST Publishing House.
6. Baumeister, Chr. (1830). Metaphysics. Trans. Ya. Tolmacheva. Moscow: Provincial Printing House of A. Reshetnikov.
7. Glagolev, S. S. (1898). Archpriest Fyodor Alexandrovich Golubinsky (His life and work). Sergiev Posad.
8. Glubokovsky, N. N. (2002). Russian theological science in its historical development and latest state. Moscow.
9. Golubinsky Feodor, archpriest. (2006). Lectures on philosophy, speculative theology, speculative psychology. St. Petersburg.
10. Golubinsky, F. A., archpriest. (1885). The wisdom and goodness of God in the destinies of the world and man. (On final causes). F. A. Golubinsky, D. G. Levitsky (Eds.). – St. Petersburg: Type. P. P. Soikin.
11. Lega, V. P. (2021). Ontological proof of the existence of God in Russian philosophy. In Proceedings of the Department of Theology, 2(10).
12. Lushnikov, Dmitry, priest. (2021). Fundamental Theology: a textbook for a bachelor of theology. Moscow: General Church Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius Equal-to-the-Apostles, Publishing House "Poznanie".
13. Lushnikov, D. Yu., priest. (2023). Divine Attributes in the Spiritual and Academic Basic Theology of the Synodal Period. In Proceedings of the Department of Theology, 2(18), 50-66.
14. Lushnikov, D. Yu. (2023). Natural Theology in the Theological Heritage of St. Innocent (Borisov). Issues of Theology, 5(2), 263-286.
15. Machkarina, O. D. (2011). The Problem of Subjectivity in the Philosophy of F. A. Golubinsky: Critical Perception of I. Kant's Ideas. Bulletin of Moscow State Technical University, 14(1), 161-169.
16. Plotinus. (2004). The Third Ennead. Translated from Ancient Greek by T. G. Sidasha. St. Petersburg: "Oleg Abyshko Publishing House".
17. Rozhin, D. O. (2021). Reception of I. Kant's epistemological ideas in the metaphysics of F. A. Golubinsky. Kant's collection, 40(1).
18. Romanko, Yu. I. (2012). Religious and philosophical system of F. A. Golubinsky: dissertation ... PhD Philosophical Sciences. Ussuriysk.
19. Shokhin, V. K., Mesyats, S. V., & Vdovina, G. V. (2008). Natural theology. Orthodox Encyclopedia: Vol. XVIII, 696-716. Moscow: Church Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia".
20. Shokhin, V. K. (2018). Philosophical theology: canon and variability. St-Peterburg, Nestor-Istoriya.
21. Fokin, A. R. (2018). The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity: Historical Phenomena and Modern Discussions. In Proceedings og the Department of Theology, 1(2), 60-96.
22. Thomas Aquinas. (2002). Summa Theologica. Part 1. Questions 1-43. Trans. S. I. Eremeev (chapter 1-26), A. A. Yudin (chapter 27-43). Kyiv: Publishing House "Nika-Center".
23. Frank, S. L. (1995). The Subject of Knowledge. The Soul of Man. St-Peterburg, Science.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the article submitted for publication is sufficiently fully indicated by its very title and does not need additional explanations. The method used in the article also does not require comments: This is a classic method of historical and philosophical analysis, involving an appeal to the origins of the analyzed texts, determining the degree of their originality for their time, comparing them with modern discourses on the same topic. As for the conclusions drawn, they can be divided into "historical" and so on. "apologetic". The merits of the first, historical and philosophical conclusions do not cause any doubt. The author of the article clearly defines the epistemological foundations of Archpriest Fyodor Golubinsky's study of Divine attributes (Anselm's proof of the existence of God), explores the historical and logical origins of seven "classical" attributes (necessity, independence, eternity and immutability, incorporeality, immeasurability and omnipresence, omnipotence, all-perfection, supreme unity), tries to indicate the possibility of including Golubinsky's reasoning into modern philosophizing. But there are some doubts about what the author calls "apologetic potential" in the Conclusion of his article. At the beginning of the article, defining the concept of "natural theology" (or "speculative theology", as F. called it). Golubinsky), the author refers to Alistair McGrath, who believes that this is a theology based on premises that do not presuppose religious beliefs, and uses various resources, for example, reason, imagination, intuition (etc.) to justify the rationality of faith in God. Then there is the definition of William Alston, who defines natural theology as "an attempt to provide support for religious beliefs by accepting as starting points provisions that are not religious beliefs and are not related to such." It seems to me that in these definitions we are talking about different things, and that only the latter is true. All the arguments of natural theology are acceptable only to a person with already established religious beliefs, but they themselves cannot generate such beliefs. Theologians and philosophers have repeatedly noted that the "ontological proof", which the author of the article considers the epistemological foundation of all arguments about Divine attributes, is proof only for the "believing mind". As Fr. Pavel Florensky noted, for example, when thinking about God, we inevitably accept Anselm's argument. But, accepting this argument, we, following the same Anselm, must repeat: "Credo ut intelligam". For someone who does not believe in God, or believes, but in some other way than Anselm (for example, considers the existence of God completely unprovable), the ontological proof is an absurdity, a parody of proof, a Kantian "anecdote" about the "hundred thalers". I am saying all this, of course, not as some kind of remark requiring correction, but as a reminder to the authors that many readers of the journal Philosophical Thought may be skeptical and even ironic about all the arguments contained in the article. But, of course, the article is well written, testifies to the considerable erudition of the author and may well be published without any additions.