{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020850367947669663, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003270645952575634, 'mean_word_length': 5.631436314363143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rational Theology in the System of Fundamental Theology Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov)

The article attempts to critically examine the first textbook on fundamental theology in Russian Academic theological school (lntroduction to Orthodox Theology), written by Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) (1816–1882) who is much more renown for his authoritative volumes on dogmatics and history of the Church and can be regarded as the founder of Russian Academic systematical theology in general. The author of the article is the first one to have scrutinized Macarius’ contribution into rational theology here. He reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the Macarius’ presentation of the rational justifications for the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, which he, like Thomas Aquinas, called the paths of knowledge of God. It is shown that arguments for the existence of God presented by him are mainly complementary, with the exception of the fourth, known in modern rational theology as “Argument from religious experience”. The author discloses that “the first path” of Metropolitan Macarius combines historical and ontological arguments, “the second path” cosmological and teleological, the third one ontological and moral. It is emphasized that among the significant shortcomings of Metropolitan Macarius’ presentation of these arguments are the absence of references to Western authors who formulated the arguments he used, and, most importantly, complete disregard for Kant's criticism of these “proofs”. The truth of the immortality of the soul is also presented, according to the author’s analysis, unconvincingly, although it contains a number of arguments that are productive for rational theology. The author also offers a comprehensive assessment of the system of Orthodox theology of Metropolitan Macarius by his contemporaries, the main complaints of his critics being concerning the dryness and “schooliness” of his style. The conclusion of the article deals with the positive significance of the Introduction as the first experience of building a system of theological knowledge in the aspect of the formation and development of fundamental theology in Russia including fundamental elements of rational theology. The article opens perspectives for the further scrutiny of rational theology within Russian Orthodox Academic tradition to begin with such a renown disciple of Metropolitan Macarius as Nikanor (Brovkovich).